In the midst of negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, key Australian environmental figures are contemplating the possible outcomes of the international event. Interviews by Alexia Attwood.

John Kaye. Image: johnkaye.org.au

Phil Freeman. Image: ACF.

Interviewees: John Kaye, NSW Greens MP & Phil Freeman, Australian Conservation Foundation Climate Campaigner.

John Kaye: The greens don’t have faith in the Copenhagen conference. Our concern is in the lobbying effort causing governments to go to Copenhagen and act as a mouthpiece for industries that are destroying the planet.

Phil Freeman: We’re very hopeful that a strong and concrete agreement will be made by the nations of the world in Copenhagen. There have been good signs in recent weeks with extra action offered by countries like South Africa and France and by President Obama changing the timing of his visit to the last couple of days.

Kaye: There’s always hope. There’s always hope and there’s the non-government organisations that are mounting an excellent campaign at Copenhagen and they have a strong presence in the media which will put a lot of pressure on governments at Copenhagen.

Freeman: It’s a critical test and we must have a strong agreement. We can’t afford a weak political declaration that merely amounts to green wash and hot air.

Kaye: The best possible outcome is a commitment to science-based targets and economic packages that facilitate the transition of third world countries to an economically secure low carbon future. However, early indications show that neither of those are on the agenda and it’s possible we’ll see weak targets and savage economic cost for low income countries.

Making sure that politics follows the science and ensuring that whatever comes out respects the urgent need to stabilize co2 levels and greenhouse gases at the levels science indicates are necessary. And also to ensure that the cost of doing so is shared to those who can afford it and the benefits are shared equitably because early action does bring economic benefits.

Freeman: We need a global agreement that covers three key areas. Firstly national targets that have to be in the 25-40% reduction range by 2020 for Australia and wealthy countries. The second issue is providing secure and adequate targets for poorer countries to take a clean development pathway and also to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate. And thirdly it has to have clear and fair rules to end the destruction of forests across the globe.

Kaye: I think China and the US have to improve their offers if this conference is to be anything other than a talkfest. I don’t think anyone knows what’s really going to happen next. Clearly within both governments there are factions pushing in different directions and it’s to question what faction wins.

Freeman: I think the US and China have made helpful initial offers or bids and its reasonable to expect that in the context of a global deal being struck they will each go further. The same applies to countries like Australia and important players like the European Union where both have positions that envisage stronger action in the context of a global agreement.

Kaye: The lines of battle have clearly been drawn up and the big question that remains is: will the fossil fuel companies be able to overwhelm common sense and science? The indications at this stage are not good.

Freeman: We have seen actual agreements put out in the public and although that’s caused some early confrontation it’s actually a good thing to get as many cards on the table as early as possible rather than leaving it to the last minute. We have seen a positive development with Australia the UK, Mexico and a couple of other countries putting forward a proposal to raise funding from international shipping and aviation fuels and from selling a proportion of international emissions permits. So that was a good development on one of the three key issues.

Kaye: If the world’s leaders depart from Copenhagen without a firm commitment with a legally binding treaty that locks in science-based targets we’re in deep trouble. There will be enormous opportunities for leading polluters to delay action as long as possible if there is any wiggle room at the end of the conference. It will be exploited by an industries that makes billions of dollars each year by compromising the future of the climate.

Freeman: If we don’t get a treaty at Copenhagen we must have a clear deadline for any political agreement to be signed off as a treaty and that deadline should be six months. It’s okay for the negotiations to go into overtime if necessary but it has to have a clear end point otherwise everyone could just collapse in exhaustion.

The conference is now halfway through. For more news on the conference, read stories from our Danish Correspondent in Copenhagen.