Source: The Australian

KEVIN Rudd has talked down prospects of international agreement at a crucial climate change summit in Copenhagen in December, amid fresh predictions the conference is doomed to failure.

The Prime Minister warned yesterday international agreement was "not nearly a done deal" and shifted his climate change pitch to domestic politics, attacking opposition disunity on the issue.

His attack came as Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also appeared pessimistic about Copenhagen but said Australia should still embrace an emissions trading system to set an example.

The comments came as an expert in international negotiations told The Weekend Australian there was no prospect of agreement in Copenhagen because differences between the positions of the US, the European Union, China and India were too great.

Alan Oxley, a former senior trade negotiator for the Australian government, said it would take years to craft workable agreements on reducing carbon emissions and emissions trading.

But there were conflicting indications about the prospects for the meeting, with India agreeing to set targets for reducing its carbon emissions and confusion in the US about whether the US Senate could delay consideration of its proposed climate change legislation.

Representatives of at least 170 governments will meet in the Danish capital in December to seek agreement on a global pact to replace the Kyoto Agreement on climate change, which expires in 2012.

Climate change policy has dominated domestic politics for months, with Mr Rudd insisting the Senate vote on legislation creating an emissions trading system in Australia before the Copenhagen meeting and rejecting opposition demands that he await its outcome.

Yesterday, preparing to leave for the US today for climate talks at the UN and the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Mr Rudd went out of his way to dampen expectations.

"Climate change is not nearly a done deal globally," he told ABC radio. "This is a huge and complex negotiation ... (and) it's going to be very hard to generate real progress on the way through to Copenhagen."

But the Prime Minister continued to press the opposition to back his ETS legislation, exploiting the fact that while Malcolm Turnbull is drafting amendments to Labor's proposals, the Nationals and some Liberals bitterly oppose any co-operation with Labor.

"My challenge to them during the one month of (parliamentary) recess is: form a common position," he said. "That is the least expectation which a government or the Australian community can have as we march towards this important decision for the future - Copenhagen and beyond."

Senator Wong, visiting Washington, said she was determined Australia should pursue negotiations all the way to the Copenhagen summit, or past it if necessary. She dismissed suggestions it should wait until after action from the US and China.

"Australia obviously needs action from China on climate change," she said. "But they are putting a lot of work into renewable and alternative forms of energy and ... we are not acting in isolation from the rest of the world."

Senator Wong, who yesterday met Democrat congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who are sponsoring the US bill, said the message from the Obama administration and key congressional leaders was that they were committed to passing their climate change laws as soon as possible.

She said the worst position for Australia would be to delay action, as it would only encourage delay by the US and the rest of the world.

Mr Oxley, a former Australian ambassador to GATT - the precursor to the World Trade Organisation - said the Copenhagen talks would not deliver an agreement because the US, the EU, China and India were "miles apart" in their positions.

"If you want an international agreement, you have to build it around the position of the key players," said Mr Oxley, who heads the international relations consultancy ITS Global.

The opposition was also pessimistic about Copenhagen yesterday, with Liberal senator Russell Trood, who chairs the Senate foreign affairs committee, predicting "a very difficult meeting".

By Matthew Franklin & Brad Norington