oneworldtalk

Yes, Prime Minister. The urgency cannot be denied. But can this be the same Kevin Rudd whose Government proposes to introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) that, with its exemptions and concessions for major industry, will effectively reward the biggest polluters, thereby providing little incentive to change? A scheme that will instead place the initial burden of achieving a 5 per cent cut in emissions from 2000 levels on other businesses, governments and households? A scheme whose goal of a 5 to 15 per cent emissions cut by 2020 is below the 25 per cent that most climate scientists believe is the minimum needed? A scheme that, despite avowals to the contrary, the Government seems more intent on nurturing as an election trigger than as a serious attempt to lower carbon emissions?

The Government's CPRS does, of course, hold out the prospect of lifting Australia's 2020 target to 25 per cent if there is general acceptance of such a goal at Copenhagen. A charitable interpretation of Mr Rudd's comments might, therefore, be that he was trying to exhort other heads of government to do just that. The ''compromise proposal'' that Climate Change Minister Penny Wong will present to the UN as a means of obtaining agreement at Copenhagen suggests, however, that charity would be misplaced. Senator Wong's plan would allow developing nations to submit their own schedules of how they might make reductions in carbon emissions, instead of agreeing to a common binding target. The plan might reflect a more realistic assessment of just what will be possible at Copenhagen, but it does not sit easily with Mr Rudd's dire warning that the conference risks becoming ''a wall that is too high to scale''. On the contrary, it is much more in keeping with the approach the Rudd Government has favoured at home, which is to aim at outcomes that might win general agreement even if - or perhaps because - they do not achieve what is needed.

When Mr Rudd attends the G20 summit on Thursday he will have more chance of matching his rhetoric on the international stage with his conduct at home. He will be able to cite Australia's achievement in being the only developed economy to avoid recession, in large part because of his Government's stimulus measures but also because prudential regulation of banking has generally been more effective here than elsewhere. He will have grounds for confidence, too, that the G20, a forum that gives middle-ranking Australia a seat at the same table as the leading economic powers, will not shrink any time soon to a G12 or G14. US President Barack Obama has said that he favours continuing to work through the G20. It must be hoped, however, that Mr Rudd will not be content with the way the G20 has so quickly scaled down the expectations that were held of it a year ago, when the global financial crisis began. Then, the leaders talked of reforming capitalism; now, they are arguing about how best to limit bonus payments to bankers.

Whatever influence Mr Rudd may wield in the G20 and the UN, he should take care to match word and deed. If he does not, the audience might think he is just taking advantage of having a global stage to strut. But they won't be amused.