Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

On the science, the difference is very clear. We accept the science; they reject the science. On the question of cost, they have chosen the most costly scheme and we have chosen the least costly scheme because it is market based. On effectiveness, our approach is simple: we will bring about a five per cent reduction in carbon pollution because we set a cap on pollution. Their scheme has been judged by the independent analysts of the Department of Climate Change as representing not a decrease in carbon pollution but an increase in carbon pollution.

On the question of global responsibility which the honourable Leader of the Opposition just referred to before, the commitments which have been made around the world so far are along the following lines: Japan has committed to a 25 per cent reduction on 1990 levels, the European nations have committed to between 20 and 30 per cent reductions on 1990 levels, the United States has committed to a 17 per cent reduction on 2005 levels, India has committed to reducing emissions intensity by 20 to 25 per cent and China has committed to reduce carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.

These are the elements by which you analyse the policy, but it goes back to one thing: do you believe them? The Leader of the Opposition knows that he does not believe that climate change is happening. He said that the planet is in fact getting cooler, not warmer. His shadow environment minister has said today that he is wrong. He has said quite clearly to the parliament today that the Leader of the Opposition has given up. You know something? That is precisely what he has done because he thinks the politics is too rich a minefield to harvest and will leave the policy alone for the long term. The alternatives for Australia’s future are absolutely clear-cut: we stand for policy; you stand for politics.

See this speech in context