The obvious retort to John McCain’s faux suspension of his campaign last week was that Presidents should be able to deal with more than one issue at the same time. That’s obviously true, but it’s also a truism which disguises something - politicians think that the public want their focus predominantly on the crucial issue of the moment (and the media reinforces this with its “narrative” obsession).
It might not have escaped folks’ attention that Kevin Rudd minimised his focus on climate change at the UN in favour of the plan he and Gordon Brown cooked up for saving the world’s finances. Rudd himself mentioned that it would be difficult to concentrate world leaders’ attention on climate change. This rhetoric also provided him with some convenient cover for disguising the switch in focus for the justification of his trip as it came under opposition attack. But it does raise the broader question of which way Kevin Rudd will jump on climate change and emissions trading - perhaps more in terms of the international negotiations (which however can’t be separated from the domestic politics, with the whole question of the significance and timing of Australia’s ETS being crucial to the “argy bargy”).
The Lowy Institute Poll being released today might pose some dangers ahead. It’s being spun as “hip pocket more important than climate”. I’m not particularly impressed with the finding on how much respondents would pay on electricity bills - it seems to me to be more than usually an artefact of the questions asked. But there’s no doubt the shift in the relative ranking of climate change as an issue will concentrate some political minds. Of course, it would be quite possible politically to articulate the two issues together and make the case for climate change action as an economic issue. Whether Rudd does this or not will bear close attention.
Elsewhere: Graham Young at Ambit Gambit.
I might suggest that dismissing the results of the survey about how much people are willing to pay for power is a big mistake…if you believe in climate change.
One of the recurring frustrations that I see in forums like this is that of the slowness of Governments, and people in general to move at any speed on climate change.
The results of this poll might be an answer to that. If it is, and climate change believers ignore it, climate change deniers will be laughing all the way to a coal fired future.
And I might point out that cc deniers also deride polls showing support for action on cc in terms of their ‘being an artefact of the questions used.’
The credit crunch and the associated impacts will definitely shift the political focus, at least in the short term. I would expect that Rudd will now go for a very modest target,
BTW “justification of his trap”. I take it you mean ‘trip’?
Oops, typo. Thanks, wpd!
At the moment, given that:
* the budget is in surplus.
* the economy may well need some extra stimulation soon.
my guess is that the government could fairly easily provide compensation (in the form of tax cuts and/or benefit rises) that would mean that people come out ahead after emissions trading is introduced.
Given that fuel is effectively out for at least one election cycle, I don’t think they’ve got too much to fear in the short term.
Ah well, if we don’t actually have to pay any extra because we will be compensated for it. No problem.
And I am sure that if people had that explained to them, then of course, climate change would be back on the top of the agenda and the Lowy Institute stuff would have come out quite differently.
*gloom*