You know what? I think it’s excellent advice. Can we generate a couple of hundred emails to the shadow ministry like that? Just to see the fireworks?

contacts

You know you want to.

One problem I think the modern world has to grapple with is the growing inequality between the “knows” and the “know-nots”. I know its a politician job to get good at sorting through info without mastering it, but with human knowledge getting so complex, I imagine that their job is getting increasingly difficult.

Does anyone really think that Kevin Rudd knows much about emissions trading? Or that Penny Wong knows much about the ins and outs of regional and local climate projections and their uncertainties? Peter Garrett?

While it used to be funny, it is now a source of angst for me when yet another politician in an energy or environment portfolio (even the relatively green ones!) attends the launch of some green building and doesn’t seem to have grasped something very simple such as the difference between solar hot water panels and solar power generation panels.

Its also a worry when you find public servants at the most senior levels who refuse to use a computer and still have secretaries typing stuff for them. If you can’t cope with the modern world, maybe you don’t have an agile enough head to be in a position of authority. But it happens.

I am not a sceptic, and i find climate change scepticism and delays very frustrating. But i think its dangerous to just assume that it is only loons who fall for it. I think it is understandable (though not excusable) that even bright people would fall for it, because the world and the information-sphere are that complex.

Hats off to a bloke that uses pounds, not bloody keelos. And it’s still “extra inches” with you, is it Mister Ute Man? Sir. Good to hear yer in fine mettle, cobber.

What if they won’t vote for the scheme because if doesn’t go far enough? Then they will be very unpopular among those who voted 1 ALP.

What if they pass the ETS unchanged, or somewhere between what they want and what the ALP initially offered? Then some of the membership will be unhappy. Let’s face it, some of their membership probably thinks their current policy isn’t going far enough.

And if an ETS scheme is passed, then the Greens will need to support it if the Coalition does not offer its support. If this introduction coincides with an economic downturn, then people who are suffering will look for someone to apportion that blame to, and act accordingly.

I just don’t see how the Greens avoid this one. All the points that have been made by others who don’t agree with me haven’t convinced me.

Greens members and supporters (of whom I’m one) can count, and are not likely to nurture any illusions about what can be done by 5 Green Senators in the presence of 71 non-Green ones. The Greens will only have trouble with their membership and/or their constituency if they end up helping to pass a scheme which is so badly designed as to be worse than no ETS at all (and if it’s that bad the odds are that the Coalition will back it and the Greens won’t be needed).

And if the reasons stated in subsequent posts are correct, then the Government has a mandate to act on climate change. Any moderation of that mandate would be reminiscent of the GST debate in 1999, when the government had won on the GST manifesto.

I disagree with you that the ETS is comparable to the GST for the Democrats. Many Democrat voters were against the GST full-stop. Green voters will be in favour of an ETS. Yes they want a comprehensive ETS, not a diluted one, but are quite aware of how much power the Greens have and will be happy if they support policy that is at least moving in the right direction.

The Greens will pass anything that’s a step in the right direction, however timid.

The Greens are about to enter their GST moment. It’s 1998 for them. Pass the scheme as it is and they face a backlash from their own extreme membership. Play hardball and stay with their ideology, and they will be electorally radioactive. Forcing an Double Dissolution by knocking back a ETS because it doesn’t go far enough will be politically suicidal. They’ll get attacked by both major parties.

I don’t think so. The ETS (as of the latest Green paper) is seriously flawed, with big subsidies to coal power. It needs changing, and the Greens are the ones to apply pressure to change it. In addition, the GST was never that urgent nor that popular, but the latest reports by Hansen show that climate change mitigation is urgently needed. That’s been commented on in LP by Brian and others. Finally, the Democrats lost their demographic to the Greens. To who are the Greens going to lose their demographic?

What would be electorally suicidal is to give in to Labor without a fight.

If the Coalition really are as purely politically motivated as everyone else on here says they are, then they will force the ALP to seek the Greens’ support.

I can’t see how the Greens duck this one.

The Greens are about to enter their GST moment. It’s 1998 for them. Pass the scheme as it is and they face a backlash from their own extreme membership. Play hardball and stay with their ideology, and they will be electorally radioactive. Forcing an Double Dissolution by knocking back a ETS because it doesn’t go far enough will be politically suicidal. They’ll get attacked by both major parties.

Nonsense. The Greens can’t pass or block anything. The Coalition + Fielding has a majority, and Fielding’s views on climate change are hard-core denialist.

FWIW, I’d like to see the Coalition adopt an openly denialist position. I think its inevitable anyway. Both the Libs and Nats are infested with denialists, its really only Turnbull, Hunt and the bleeding hearts (Petro, Judi et al) who genuinely believe in good climate policy.

It seems like Howard had kept Minchin on somewhat of a short leash. Without his handler, he’s a bit of a rabid dog.

Rx wrote:

The Liberal Party (so-called) is being taken over by cranks and misfits. WorkChoices proponents, Climate Change skeptics, Religious nutcases: the Sliberals have got them all.

These two comments, between them, go to the heart of the matter. Whilst Howard’s own sympathies on most issues lay with positions held by the right of the Liberal Party, he was a shrewd enough judge of the Australian popular mind (which is often instinctively conservative but seldom, if ever, ideologically right wing) to know when to trim his sails on issues where the wind was blowing left, and he had the authority as an electorally successful Prime Minister to bring the right sullenly along with him. Now that he’s gone, a Liberal right which shares all of his prejudices (plus a few of its own) and none of his canny political instincts has slipped its leash.

Its an absolute schmozzle - and my favourite part of the pantomime is how 2, and sometimes 3 contradictory positions can be put with equal whining gravitas and outrage “Mr Rudd MUST do x. And y …. and the opposite of x and y! And z!”

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/07/24/liberal-lunacy-ii/

Poor old Ute Man has a beer gut and an inflammed liver.

Oi! I might be packin a few extra pounds around the trouser area, but it isn’t on me gut.