Obama Should Take Note of Aussie P.M.'s Climate-Change Travails

President Obama meets with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the White House today. It's the second time the leaders have met privately. The two looming agenda items are Afghanistan—Obama will probably want an extended troop commitment from the Australians—and climate change. On the latter, Obama will no doubt be keenly interested in the political tumult that has resulted from Rudd's proposed climate-change bill, which includes a cap-and-trade regime.

When Rudd was elected in 2007, one of his first acts as prime minister was to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an action his predecessor John Howard, Australia's second-longest-serving prime minister, had long opposed. Howard's recalcitrance on climate change ended up being politically costly: it became a prominent issue in the election that ultimately ousted him. Australia is in the midst of a devastating drought, which has ravaged farmlands, dried riverbeds, and prompted some of the worst wildfires the nation has seen. For a time, it seemed that Rudd's pro-environment policies would be a slam-dunk.  But it was not to be.

Rudd is the leader of Australia's Labor Party, which holds the majority of the seats in the lower house. In the 76-seat Senate, however, Labor holds only 32 spots. To get legislation passed, Labor leaders need the support from outside their party, a situation Harry Reid can surely relate to. That doesn't sound so hard, considering that, in terms of public opinion, Australians are broadly supportive of climate-change legislation. A recent poll by local think tank the Lowy Institute found 76 percent of Australians consider climate change "a problem," and 87 percent think some action should be taken to address it. International climate experts are also monitoring the Aussie situation closely, hoping that Australia's legislation might serve as a model at Copenhagen. Yet the bill is precariously close to dying.

In August, Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was voted on for the first time in the Senate. It failed because, surprisingly, the Green Party joined with a conservative coalition to reject it. The alliance was a strange one: pro-business conservatives worried about the cost impact of carbon trading on the private sector, while Greens thought the bill's reduction targets weren't ambitious enough. "The Rudd government's bill to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by only 5 percent by 2020 would help lock in dangerous climate change and accelerate the melting of the world's glaciers," Green leader Sen. Bob Brown said at the time. In a scenario reminiscent of the U.S. health-care debate, Rudd steamed that the opposition was blocking his legislation without offering an alternative, or even attempting to amend it.

A bunch of complicated political shenanigans ensued, mainly revolving around the proposed carbon-trading regime, which worried many conservatives, especially those in rural areas and mining towns. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and produces more greenhouse gases per capita than any other nation. The coal industry is large and powerful, and clearly able to throw its weight around. But ultimately Rudd's party struck a deal with the major opposition party. They amended the bill to make it more business-friendly, increasing compensation to utilities, the coal industry, and other large polluters. In return, the opposition leader, former lawyer and investment banker Malcolm Turnbull, offered enthusiastic support.

But this week, as the bill moves toward a second vote, that fragile deal is falling apart, largely due to conservative unrest. Turnbull is being challenged for his position in a party vote to be held Tuesday. He's facing the very real prospect of being dumped by his caucus for his support of the bill. If that happens, the legislation will likely fail a second time. (There's little chance the Greens will support the now-diluted legislation when they didn't think the first bill was powerful enough.) That creates the conditions for Rudd to dissolve the Parliament and hold an early election, should he choose. Pundits think conservatives would face an electoral blowout if that were to happen.

Obama should take note of the Australian experience. Here is a popular center-left government in a country with serious environmental issues and strong support for legislative action from both sides of the aisle. And its well-liked prime minister may not be able to pass a bill. Polls even show that a majority of Australians think Turnbull was right to support Rudd's plan, yet a vocal minority may derail the entire effort. Meanwhile, conservative leadership faces a dual backlash: first from a public aggravated by their perceived obstructionism, and second from a right-wing faction that thinks they haven't been tough enough. In the end, Turnbull and his supporters may be the ones with the most to lose. That's a situation Obama would do well to observe as he pushes his own Senate to act. Conservative lip service to a bill is one thing, but asking them to risk their political hide is another altogether.