Here is Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd speaking 15 December 2008:

So the question for our generation is simple.

Do we act on the knowledge that we have in our possession?

Or do we wait – leaving the effects of climate change to our children and our grandchildren by which time it may well be too late?

Do we reduce our pollution today so our children and grandchildren can experience the same beautiful and bountiful planet that we have inherited?

Or do we wait – knowing our grandchildren may never see the grandeur of the Great Barrier Reef, or experience the wonder of the wetlands at Kakadu.

Do we become more energy efficient today so that we can start down a path towards a sustainable low pollution economy?

Or do we wait – knowing our children and grandchildren will experience longer droughts, declining food production, rising sea levels and more extreme weather events.

I say we can wait no more.

And what about that global financial crisis? Here is what the Prime Minister said in that December speech:

The time has come for action. The Australian Government will continue to take whatever further action is necessary in the months ahead.

But today’s difficult circumstances should not be used as an excuse to ignore the threat climate change poses to Australia’s long term economic prosperity. . .

If we accept the premise that we will all be living in a carbon constrained world in the future, it follows that the economically responsible course of action is to prepare for that constraint today.

If we begin to act now, the transformation can be engineered at a manageable pace.

If we continue to put it off, the transformation will be abrupt and the dislocation acute.

Acting now will enable us to develop the skills base, trial the new technologies, and refine the business models that will help Australia become a leader in the low pollution industries of the future.

Acting now also helps us shape the global outcome on climate change action that Australia needs.

To delay any longer – would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment.

Here is what the Australian government released yesterday along with a suite of measures to water down the CPRS:

The Rudd Government will delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession.

Reaction has been strong, from Rudd claiming that the decision now saves the Great Barrier Reef to critics saying that it is a cave-in to industry demands:

The prime minister rejected claims the changes softened his centre-left government’s stance on climate change, saying the slower start would mean a “stronger, greener conclusion”.

“I believe (this) is the most sensible, rational, balanced response to a fundamental change in economic circumstances,” Rudd said.

If agreement was reached in Copenhagen to stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by at least 450 parts per million by 2050, Rudd said Australia would reduce its emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

Such an agreement would mean it was possible to save the Great Barrier Reef, Rudd said, adding that Canberra would agree to realise five percent of its commitment by purchasing international carbon credits.

Rudd, who ratified the Kyoto Protocol as his first act of government, is now faced with the task of pushing his climate laws through a hostile parliament.

Opposition party leader Malcolm Turnbull said he would not support the amended scheme, which he described as a “massive backdown” and “panic response” to criticism.

The minority Greens party accused Rudd of “browning down” his stance by giving major polluters 2.2 billion US dollars in free permits, and described the revised 25 percent target as an “almost irrelevant green distraction”.

Greenpeace said the concessions to industry “reek of industry lobbying” and the new scheme fell dismally short of what was required to effect real change.

Are there lessons here for the United States and United Kingdom in particular?