In 2001 a senior fossil fuel industry lobbyist explained to me in a taped interview why he and other “greenhouse mafia” (his term) were so determined to maintain their grip on the Howard government.

“The Prime Minister does not believe that there is one vote out there for the Liberal Party in ratifying Kyoto … If, for some reason, things change — then Howard would flip on the spot.”

Some saw Malcolm Turnbull’s comments in yesterday’s Financial Review as prelude to the flip, but I doubt that’s what we’re seeing. Turnbull said so long as all major emitters did so too, Australia might ratify an “amended Kyoto” extending beyond the 2012 Kyoto first commitment period — even if it included “binding targets”.

This was reported as a major back-flip, but it isn’t … not yet. It is a clever re-statement of existing policy. Howard long ago promoted the idea of a “New Kyoto” and the name of what comes after 2012 matters little — what matters is the nature and strength of the commitments in that agreement.

What’s interesting is the evolving Howard spin on binding targets. Having spent years saying “targets and timetables don’t work” it seems to have suddenly dawned that being forced to commit to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is in effect accepting a binding target (to the extent that the emissions cap in the ETS covers most of the economy).

This will confuse the hell out of ministers and government backbenchers who have grown used to the “targets and timetables” talking point, but Howard has seen the opportunity to re-spin current policy. Now he can say he is for binding targets, and what’s more Australia will have one through his ETS. He can also say, as Malcolm Turnbull now is, that “we have quite a different position to the US because we have committed to an ETS.”

However, as I foreshadowed earlier this week, big problems remain (see here). First, there’s no guarantee that Howard’s “binding target” will be an emissions reduction target. Howard assiduously refuses to commit to long term cuts in Australia’s emissions, let alone deep cuts. Kevin Rudd says his trading scheme will have emissions caps consistent with 60% reductions by 2050, but we know nothing about the strength of Howard’s ETS. What we do know is the scheme put together principally by Howard’s department and Australia’s fossil fuel lobby predictably flagged loopholes to let big polluters off the hook. The odds that Howard’s ETS target will be an emissions increase target are very high.

But here’s the other big problem — it continues to be Howard’s policy that Australia will not ratify any agreement to which the United States is not a party. The caveat has been there since a cabinet decision in the late 90s. So, no matter how much he wants his emissions trading policy to make his position look different to the US, Howard’s greenhouse cart is still well and truly hitched to the Bush administration, which continues to oppose emissions trading as well as binding national emission reduction targets.

Bush and Howard have pushed to replace the Kyoto Protocol with an alternative framework not based on binding targets and they are still pushing that agenda within the UN framework. Fortunately, the rest of the world seems unlikely to buy it. So, the likely outcome seems to be more stalemate until Bush goes, and as the US opts in, a Howard bid for another emissions increase target — like Australia’s existing Kyoto target.

Six years on from my interview in 2001, I suspect the greenhouse mafia’s big concern is not that Howard will “flip on the spot” on Kyoto but that he may soon be gone, closely followed by the Bush Administration. Perhaps Howard will bring back parliament next week and announce he’ll ratify Kyoto subject to an acceptable successor agreement being negotiated (ie. after the election). The escape clauses are in place, it’s handy spin, and while most would not buy it, the press gallery and the punters just might?

Either way, the bureaucracy is gearing up both for binding targets and Kyoto ratification, and with an eye on the future maybe Malcolm Turnbull is too. The main game is gradually shifting to whether Australia has a binding emission reduction target or another emissions increase target. This is why as Howard flounders the “mob” are beating a path to Kevin Rudd’s door.