In particular, while the stated US position is that it is only willing to act if China and India also reduce emissions, US negotiators have actively encouraged their counterparts from China and India to hold resolutely to the opposite view, refusing any definite commitments. The resulting standoff is not a consequence of trying to reach consensus among 170 parties, but the outcome actively pursued by the US.

US perfidy knows no bounds, it seems.

I thought the Bush meeting of main polluters may have some value, if properly run and with serious intent, as long as it fed into the UNFCCC process especially on things like carbon trading. Now it seems a new beast is born, ICAP, with membership comprising 9 EU countries, Norway, New Zealand and a bunch of US and Canadian states.

Australia is missing from the list, although this article suggests we’re there.

I talk to the tree-ee-ees…

“That’s why they put me a-waaa-y”

I find it mind boggling that Howard can spend 10 years getting the coal industry to write Australia’s energy policy and legislation. This is corruption and nepotism. Howard should be sacked for this alone.

From Michelle Grattan:

The Garrett embarrassment — coming after his controversial climate change remarks on Monday, which Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd repudiated — was described by one senior Government source as “gold”.

The source said it tapped into the Government line that Labor couldn’t be trusted. “It’s certainly going to be the dominant theme,” the source said.

Treasurer Peter Costello said: “This is the key that unlocks what has been going on in this election campaign … These are the words that are going to haunt this campaign from now on.”

OTOH:

Wilkins described the Garrett comments as an “off-the-cuff sort of light-hearted glib response”. “We had a little bit of a chat about how it was all going and Pricey had a cheeky little question about the ‘me too’ policies which have got a bit of coverage in the papers today, and Peter had a bit of a light-hearted response which I took as very much a throwaway line, I have to say,” he told rival station 2GB. Asked if Mr Price was trying to big-note himself, Mr Wilkins said: “I guess he’s got a job to do.”

BTW:

A former 2UE employee told The Age that Mr Price’s wife, Wendy Black, worked for Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey.

On the business about whether China and India will join any Kyoto mark 2 agreement, I’ve decided it’s a nonsense question. The agreement will be crafted with China and India centrally involved in it’s design. The critical group is initially the G8 plus 5, ie China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. The Bush meeting included also Australia, Indonesia, and South Korea.

I actually think the Bush meeting grouping could be quite handy in working through the issues. But the Least Developed Countries can no longer be taken for granted. It’s possible that there will be three groupings attached to the new agreement.

The ABC is as usual boosting the rubbish that passes for news.

Rod Cameron’s right in what he said on Lateline. The public will see this for what it is and the Libs’ attempt to erect a huge “danger Will Robinson!” scare on the back of it will sink without a trace.

By the end of the day they had unearthed Richard Wilkins:

Television personality Richard Wilkins witnessed the conversation at the airport and he has told Channel Nine he backs Mr Garrett’s version of events.

“Peter had an off-the-cuff humorous response which I think was just a throwaway line, and which was intended as a joke,” he said.

Price is incompetent and either malicious or wanting to big-note himself. The ABC is as usual boosting the rubbish that passes for news.

I’ll say this, though. Albanese wouldn’t have given them anything to exploit. I heard hi today on climate change, via nukes. He was fluent, on message, attacking Howard all over. You didn’t feel you were sitting on the edge of your seat hoping he had learnt his lines.

Vote Green for the Senate!

On the one hand you cringe when you hear Garrett making these faux pas, on the other hand it reminds you he is not a hardcore Canberra professional. It will be more than a little bit interesting to see what he brings to a Rudd government (if and when).

I’m thinking this story will have lots of legs in tomorrow’s GG. And Howard will do it to death, over and over and over, with that stupid “isn’t that incredible?” raised eyebrows plus grin. It pales against the Kevin Andrews story, of course, but surely that’s all the more reason to run with it?

Richard Dawkins has confirmed that Garrett was just joking.

I think you mean Wilkins

And that “story” has been surpassed by Ben Cousins being called before the AFL and the mysterious death of a Network Ten Newsreader.

This could actually spin out ok for Labor, since a lot of voters are worrying that they might NOT change anything. But that won’t stop the GG… or Howard.

This raises the question as to whether or not we have policy differentiation.

BREAKING: Garrett says “once we get in we’ll just change it all“!

Hope that sorts out any confusion.

Tim Dunlop has had a go at Blogocracy and has largely got it wrong, by concentrating too much on individual words like “deal breaker” (or the wrong inividual words.)

Two of the key perceptions should be that Rudd and Garrett were actually joined at the hip all the way through, and the original intention was to lay down an artillery barrage criticising Howard for not signing Kyoto prior to launching their (further) differentiating policy on MRET. Howard found a weakness to attack and went for it. Rudd and Garrett decided to declare a draw on that one, get it out of the way so they could get their MRET thing out.

They did it as an apparent me-too, but a careful reading of their script (“appropriate”, but unspecified commitments from the developing countries) indicates that they had not changed their policy, only created the impression that they had.

Importantly there was no backflip, no change of Labor policy and Rudd and Garrett were in it together, there was no rebuke or cutting off at the knees.

The two key elements of policy differentiation remain – signing Kyoto and an bigger, better MRET (leaving aside no nukes)..

There, I’ve done it (I think!)

BTW whatever comes out of Bali and beyond leading to Kyoto 2, which is the UNFCCC, even if we sign Kyoto we will be one vote in 193. The notion that Australia is going to determine the outcome by insisting on anything is fanciful. Also the US whoever wins the election is bound to join up. Bush conceded at the G8 that the UNFCCC was the main game. A Coalition govt in 2009, the crunch point, won’t be holding out by themselves or with the possible company of Khazakhstan.

Australia is not a climate change leader
The US did not believe there is a problem, and Australia followed suit, writes John Watson.

THE debate over climate change in Australia could be seen as evidence of the existence of parallel universes. It is as if Australia and 191 other countries, including China and India, never signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, as if the new Howard Government never signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In this universe, Australia is a leader on climate change.

Basic facts seem to have gone down the memory hole. Indeed, John Howard is asked: “Why won’t you sign?” The reason he gives for not ratifying the protocol, unlike 175 other parties to the convention, is that it does not commit developing nations to targets, an exemption established under the convention. The real reason is that the US withdrew and Australia followed.”