Labor’s two-party vote from Essential Research has a five in front of it for the first time since January, dropping two points to 58-42. The report also finds Kevin Rudd’s position on asylum seekers is favoured over Malcolm Turnbull’s by 45 per cent to 33 per cent; the Labor Party is thought better to handle immigration and border security by 46 per cent against 34 per cent; the government’s handling of climate change has 45 per cent approval and 30 per cent disapproval; “total concern” about employment prospects has risen 5 per cent since February; and approval of the government’s handling of the global financial crisis has steadily decreased from 63 per cent to 56 per cent since October. Most interestingly, 41 per cent believe the government would be justified in calling an early election if its “financial measures and other legislation” were “opposed” by the opposition, up from 38 per cent in February.
Other stuff:
• Submissions on the federal redistribution of Queensland have been published. Featured are minutely detailed proposals from the major parties. Interestingly, both Labor and the LNP want new electorates straddling the Warrego Highway between Ipswich and Toowoomba. However, the LNP’s proposed seat of Killen (in honour of Gorton-to-Fraser minister Jim) extends northwards from here, while Labor’s proposed Theodore (in honour of Depression-era Treasurer and party legend “Red Ted”) ambitiously sweeps around Boonah and Beaudesert to the Gold Coast hinterland. The LNP submission interestingly calls for Leichhardt to be drawn into Cairns and its Cape York balance to be transferred to Bob Katter’s electorate of Kennedy. Veteran observer Adam Carr says: “I don’t know why the parties bother with these submissions. They commissioners never take the least bit of notice, in fact they seem to go out of their way not to do what either of the parties want them to do.”
• If you feel like making a suggestion for the New South Wales federal redistribution, submissions are being received until May 1.
• The Liberals are complaining about the high number of people who are incorrectly enrolled, as revealed in the Australian Electoral Commission’s answer to a parliamentary question. The average error rate was 3.5 per cent, mostly involving failures to update enrolment following changes of address. Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson creatively notes this is “greater than the margin by which 33 seats were decided at the last federal election”. His line of logic has failed to impress Bernard Keane at Crikey.
• Dig Possum’s booth result maps.
• I recently had occasion to discuss Malcolm Mackerras’s concerns with New Zealand mixed-member proportional system, in which I noted its similarities and subtle differences with Germany’s election system. In doing so I erroneously stated that mid-term vacancies in German electorates are filled not through by-elections as in New Zealand, but by “unelected candidates from the party’s national lists”. In fact, the lists are not national, as Mackerras writes to explain:
My recent article in Crikey on the forthcoming by-election for Mount Albert in New Zealand seems to have created a minor confusion. Trying to limit my number of words I allowed you to write this précis in your Poll Bludger blog: “New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system is modelled on Germany’s, but departs from it in that vacated constituency seats are filled by unelected candidates from the party’s national lists – which New Zealand was obviously loath to do as it would randomly match members to electorates with which they have had no connection.” That is not quite right so I had best elaborate. Germany is a federation whereas New Zealand is a unitary state. In Germany there are no national party lists – there are Land party lists. A German Land is what we Anglos would call a state or province. Consequently if, for example, a constituency member for a Munich seat were to depart he/she would be replaced by the next unelected candidate of his/her party on the Bavarian list. Since New Zealand is more like a German Land than Germany as a whole I contend that any logical New Zealand MMP system would allow Labour’s Damien Peter O’Connor automatically to become the member for Mount Albert, rather than put the Labour Party to the cost of a by-election it might lose. O’Connor was, for several years, the member for West Coast-Tasman until he was defeated by the National Party’s candidate at the November 2008 general election. Since constituency members switching from the North Island to the South Island (and vice versa) is so common in New Zealand I can see no reason why O’Connor should not automatically become the next member for Mount Albert.
So, how did the present situation arise? It all goes back to the Royal Commission Report in December 1986. Because of my interest in these matters I took sabbatical leave in New Zealand for that semester so I could be there when the Report was published. I was shocked by it. The feature which most shocked me was the number of howlers I found in the Royal Commission’s Report. Among them was this recommendation on page 44: “Vacancies caused by the resignation or death of a sitting constituency member would be filled by a by-election as under the present system. List members would be replaced by the next available person on the relevant party list.” No further elaboration. No discussion as to why New Zealand should copy Germany in so many other ways but not in this way.
So I set about to find out how the Royal Commission could have written that howler, along with the others. The explanation I came up with (which I am convinced is correct) is that when Royal Commission members visited Germany they never thought to ask the German experts as to how Germany actually fills its vacancies. Meanwhile the German hosts did not think to inform their New Zealand visitors about this feature of German law. Both sides assumed their position to be self-evident. The difference is that the Germans actually understood their system. The New Zealanders never did – so the Royal Commission recommended to the people of New Zealand that they should vote for a system which the Royal Commission did not understand. That 54 per cent of New Zealanders actually voted for this ratbag scheme is easily explained. The issue of electoral reform was overshadowed by unpopular economic reform. The Business Roundtable was far too influential in economic policy making under both Labour and National governments. When the Business Roundtable asked the people of New Zealand not to vote for MMP the popular reaction was to say: “If they say vote against it that is the best argument to vote for it.”
Meanwhile John Key, now Prime Minister, promised during the election campaign that there would be another referendum on MMP. No details were given. So I took the liberty of seeking an interview with him to press my proposal which is that there should be two referendums. The first would accompany the next general election and be indicative only – the kind of legally non-binding vote which we in Australia would call a plebiscite. At that referendum, to be held in conjunction with the November 2011 general election, the people would be offered the choice of two alternative systems. The winner of that would then run off against MMP at a referendum to be held in conjunction with the November 2014 general election and that, of course, would be legally binding.
The two alternative systems would be the Single Transferable Vote (STV), what we in Australia call Hare-Clark. That is the one for which I would vote if I were a New Zealander – or a British Columbian for that matter. The other choice would be the Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM) system, known in New Zealand for many years as Supplementary Member. That is quite simple to explain. The basic structure of MMP would stay. Every elector would get two votes, one for a constituency candidate, one for a party. The party list seats would be distributed proportionally between the parties. Under such a system by-elections would be quite logical because that would be a mixed system, not one of proportional representation. I have no idea which of STV or MMM would win in 2011. I am in no doubt, however, that the winning system of 2011 would easily defeat MMP in 2014.
Adam you’d think Obama would ditch Biden for 2012?
[What facts allow you to claim that the Greens would hold the balance of power in 2011, especially after an election in which the ALP has proposed a 40% by 2020 target.
The Liberals (with much corporate backing) would be like a renewed force in the election, with a huge boost to their arguments that the ALP will wreck the economy.]
I already said that this would be presuming a global deal in the order of 30-40%. Given the proportion of people who support the current targets + those we want more, I think that if you were in a situation where the whole world had agreed to something and the only thing stopping Australia from joining up was Senate obstruction, the Libs wouldn’t win the climate change debate.
Oz
You ask what difference there is between Australians and British that means it is harder for us to propose bigger cuts?
One of the main differences I see is the leadership on CC action shown by The Opposition in the respective countries.
There are many supporters of the right wing parties who will just follow along with the arguments put out by their party leaders, especially when there are also loud supporters in the media. The UK have an Opposition leader who seems to take CC seriously. We do not.
The Libs themselves (apparently) want targets of something like 30%. If they’re viewed as the sole opposition to a global consensus on how to deal with climate change even though they themselves purportedly want higher cuts they’re going to exposed as idiots.
[Adam you’d think Obama would ditch Biden for 2012?]
Biden won’t cost Obama the next election.
[The UK have an Opposition leader who seems to take CC seriously. We do not.]
Quite. But I don’t understand why in this case Labor is formulating policy based on Turnbull’s position.
Turnbull and big business were opposed to getting rid of Workchoices but the government did that anyway…
I think the Opposition has some influence on the debate but I think the government has far more and is yet to wield it.
But this comes back to whether you think Rudd’s targets/scheme is weak because of the Liberal Party or because of other factors.
I’ve already stated my arguments on this plentyyyy of times and everyone’s probably sick of them so I won’t go into it again.
why would Obama drop Biden? Biden just got tehm to 60 senators with Specters jump to the Democrats
Oz
surely a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions means not just more expensive electricity etc but a dramatic cutback in lifestyles?
I personally wouldn’t have much trouble with fifties type living standards, living on the poverty line as I do (and would have no trouble at all if we had that quaint concept, public transport, available to us in any shape or form), but I can’t imagine the majority of Australians voting for it with a song on their lips.
Otherwise what are you suggesting? If we simply pay more for energy but use it exactly the same ways, there’s no benefits.
I’m not meaning this to be an attack on your ideas, or anything – this is really just thinking aloud and seeking input/advice.
What WOULD 40% reductions mean for the average Australian?
Oz
Your grand plan (of abandoning an ETS system for now) involves assuming that there will be agreed international 40% cuts for 2020, as part of the context for the 2010 election.
Thus you essentially say that it will be fine (in your opinion) for Mr Rudd to go to Copenhagen saying that we in Australia can’t agree to do anything but we would like the world to make 40% cuts for 2020.
But arent you forgetting that the Democrats could blood someone talented who could make a run for 2016 i doubt Biden would be up for it phsyically or mentally.
[surely a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions means not just more expensive electricity etc but a dramatic cutback in lifestyles?]
Some pages back I summarised a couple of papers I have on where and how emissions cuts can be made in 2 of our 3 biggest sectors – energy and transport. It’s possible to make roughly 40-50% cuts in total emissions, by 2020, through a mixture of technological changes (using existing technology) and social changes. Social changes doesn’t mean a cut in living standards but using less electricity, making less waste, driving less etc.
You could go even further than that if you talk about changes to the way we deal with agricultural. Less deforestation, planting more trees and farming less environmentally intensive livestock.
[involves assuming that there will be agreed international 40% cuts for 2020, as part of the context for the 2010 election.]
Well yes, I thought I made that very clear. I said in the event of no agreement being reached at Copenhagen, and there being no chance for one very soon after that, it doesn’t matter whether Australia cuts its emissions by 90% or increases it by 90%.
Oz
The reason I was going on about the Liberal party line on CC being important is that (if your grand plan is not taken up, or doesn’t work) then in the next few years, the short term Australian national political arguments are going to be with a government paying some attention to the battle for votes between it an its main rivals.
Thus, until we get an ETS in place, and while the Liberals are putting out CC skeptic lines, the government can not safely go very far in what action it proposes.
[Thus you essentially say that it will be fine (in your opinion) for Mr Rudd to go to Copenhagen saying that we in Australia can’t agree to do anything but we would like the world to make 40% cuts for 2020.]
No, I think Mr Rudd should go to Copenhagen and say “We have a position of 25% cuts but if we get an international agreement higher than that we will accept it”.
The point being that any effect isolated 25% cuts will have in Australia will be vastly surpassed by the negative effects of climate change that are bound to occur without such an international agreement.
Zoomstar,
[surely a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions means not just more expensive electricity etc but a dramatic cutback in lifestyles?]
That’s the joy of emissions trading, there is no necessary connection beween lifestyle and carbon reduction. An ETS is about making emissions a more expensive proposition than not making emissions. And the big emitters are not you and your lights or your TV but industry.
Oz
as I said, I don’t have public transport here at all. Both cars are on LPG. Distances between home and well, anything, too great to consider bicycles.
Even in an ideal world, I don’t see this changing. If Telstra can’t be bothered making sure I have mobile access, let alone real broadband, I can’t see anyone giving me public transport.
I’m really not alone here. You don’t have to move far out of capital cities (really, just to the fringe suburbs) to find similar scenarios.
Because I hang round with climate change scientists and the like, I’ve been on to climate change mitigation/adaption for years. I live in a really eco friendly house. But every time I get in the car I’m back to chewing up a couple of earths.
It bugs me, really it does.
[Thus, until we get an ETS in place, and while the Liberals are putting out CC skeptic lines, the government can not safely go very far in what action it proposes.]
My *opinion* is that this underestimates the electorates willingness to take action on climate change and exaggerates the influence of the Liberal Party.
I would also point out that the Republicans in the US are probably more sceptical about the science of climate change and how to deal with it than the Liberals here and yet that hasn’t stopped both Obama and House Democrats in pushing forward stronger targets than ours.
[Even in an ideal world, I don’t see this changing. If Telstra can’t be bothered making sure I have mobile access, let alone real broadband, I can’t see anyone giving me public transport.]
It’s going to be very hard to make those kinds of changes. But I simply seek to point out that it can be done and it can be done by 2020. The missing link is not scientists failing to develop new, clean technology or engineers failing to find new ways to do things but the political leadership (from all sides) to actually support and implement them.
And yes, in the same vein as Kit, most of the emphasis is actually going to be on the big players – be they power generators or factories or farms. It’s just that you can make significant emissions cuts by changing personal behaviour in a way that doesn’t impact your standard of living.
I’ve said way to much stuff today and you’re all sick of me so I’m going to take a break.
Not all VP’s try for the presidency Glen.
Zoomster,
you should stop beating yourself over the head over your car use. I’m sure the earth can accommodate your genuine needs.
Now, my neighbour who gets into her urban tank to take her kids to school a short bus ride or moderate walk away…
Spiffy new Crikey site unleashed!
http://www.crikey.com.au/
From a master’s thesis comparing and contrasting responses of Fraser and Howard to boatpeople in 77 and 01 – taken from a book published in 2007 titled “Seeking asylum in Australia – Yearning to breathe free” (p. 45/46)
[
In 2001 Howard was correct when he argued that his government’s response to the refugees onboard the Tampa was significant to Australia’s sovereignity. By refusing people their internatially sanctioned right to seek Australia’s asylum, Howard demonstrated that his nation was on shaky ground in terms of its legal, ethical and political character. This contrasts starkly with Fraser’s acceptance of all people who arrived uninvited by boat and requested refuge. By doing so, Fraser defied the fear of not only members of the Australian public, but also of the discontents within the international community. Fraser’s actions in relation to the Song Be demonstrated that Australia was confident in its sense of national self and secure in its cultural and political independence.
]
Sorry, Glen, Fraser is the man 😀 …..
off now to dinner and football 😉
[I really don’t think how carbon dependent we are factors in to how people will vote when it comes to climate change.]
Ask one of the very many people whose job depends on a carbon-based industry. In the context of the recession, this is a much bigger political problem than it was in 2007.
[the stumbling block is not popular opinion but business influences on Labor/Liberal.]
You speak of “business” as though they were a satanic cult. We live in a capitalist economy in which business both generates our prosperity and employs our population. We are also a carbon-based, trade-exposed economy. Of course business has an influential voice in what we do about CC, as they are entitled do. Of course Rudd takes business view seriously. I have listened to most of the business witnesses at the Senate committee hearings and I even when I disagreed with them thought their tone was moderate, constructive and responsible. (Unlike Senators Boswell and McDonald – what a pair of fools.)
I have to say I thought the choice of Boswell and Macdonald from the Opposition’s side wasn’t bright. I thought they’d want to move away from a perception of them all being sceptics.
Also I’m not sure why I understand why you’d include people who don’t believe in climate change on a committee which is looking at what our future climate policy should be. To them, the answer is simple. Nothing.
[Ask one of the very many people whose job depends on a carbon-based industry.]
What the hell does “carbon-based” mean? Virtually everyone lives and works in a “carbon-based” industry. Emissions cuts don’t mean the loss of every job that involves the emissions of CO2.
There’s about 30,000 in the coal industry. Even if these were all to simply become unemployed (and I’m not advocating that, nor am I suggesting that it would happen) it’s not “very many” in the sense that it would cause massive electoral damage. And you’re very wrong if you think that all coal workers are reactionary idiots who don’t understand that coal mining and burning can’t go on forever.
On the other hand we could have 32,000 in solar PV alone by 2020.
http://www.bcse.org.au/docs/Publications_Reports/PV%20Roadmap-web.pdf
[Of course business has an influential voice in what we do about CC, as they are entitled do. Of course Rudd takes business view seriously.]
The point is not that Rudd engages with business but that when you talk about “political” influences you are not talking about the electorate you are talking about the influences of business alone.
Carbon-based industries are ridiculously over-represented when formulating policy on climate change.
Aluminium smelters, who not only get exemptions from the ETS but now also from the MRET, employ only 5000 people and contribute 0.1% of GDP.
For when you come back, Oz, I can not see how Mr Rudd, even if the ALP suddenly announced that it wanted 25% cuts by 2020, can honestly say at Copenhagen that “Australia has a position of 25% cuts”.
If no relevant law is passed by the senate by then, then Australia has no position.
If the Greens and enough others vote against the 5-15% cuts then Mr Rudd will have to say that Australia can not agree now to any cuts.
The really key point that Adam hasn’t yet grasped is that acting on climate change is not something Labor has come up itself and now has to convince a sceptical electorate. The electorate themselves were so united and vocal on the issue that they made Labor and Liberal promise to bring in an ETS.
People do not need to be convinced. Accept that and admit that it’s the political parties cosy relationship with polluting industries that’s stopping Rudd proposing higher targets not an imagined issue with the electorate.
Hmmm… are the coal industry and aluminium smelters really the only parts of our society that would be affected by attempts to reduce emissions?
Surely ‘carbon-based’ incorporates a range of other activities upon which such attempts would have a significant impact?
“The electorate themselves were so united and vocal on the issue that they made Labor and Liberal promise to bring in an ETS.”
Do you mean GetUp!?
[If no relevant law is passed by the senate by then, then Australia has no position.]
Are you joking?
The only country to legislate cuts so far is the UK. Do you think every other country will have legislated cuts before December?
No countries had legislation before Kyoto yet there was still agreement on cuts.
It’s a ridiculous and inaccurate assertion that the only you can promote your view in an international discussion if you’ve passed a law. The government’s position on an issue, reflected in international discussions, does not have to be previously codified in law.
Further to that, you think there’s a point in taking 5-15% targets (if they get passed) anyway?
The MRET is still going to deliver us a total of 20% renewable energy and the ETS still 15% (or whatever) caps on emissions so I wouldn’t get too upset about some industries getting treated differently from others within those schemes.
And then I’m confronted by situations like this one…
I have to travel to Melbourne to (of all things) talk on climate change.
I have the following choices —
drive – 3 1/2 hours each way. It’s exhausting.
fly – drive 1 hr to airport, have to arrive 1/2 hr before flight, flight 1 hr, then will take at least another 1/2 hr to Uni…then reverse.
train – drive 1 hr to train (needs to be pre booked), leaves at 8 to get in at 11, do talk, wait around city for another 5 hours til next train leaves, get back to car about 9 pm, drive home, arrive 10 pm.
I’ll opt for car, because I don’t have to f*** around so much. But it annoys me.
[admit that it’s the political parties cosy relationship with polluting industries that’s stopping Rudd proposing higher targets not an imagined issue with the electorate.]
No, I won’t admit that, because it isn’t true. The real issue economic – the intrinsic difficulty of decarbonising an economy like Australia’s in the middle of a recession, and in the absence of an international agreement, without driving industry out of the country and causing mass unemployment. Oz needs to acknowledge that this is the most difficult challenge that has faced any Australian government in recent decades.
[Surely ‘carbon-based’ incorporates a range of other activities upon which such attempts would have a significant impact?]
ffs I already said “carbon-based” is a stupid term because it means everyone.
But I thought we were talking about vulnerable jobs, hence the reference to electoral backlash and recession etc. The most vulnerable jobs are in the most carbon intensive industries. The two most well examples of those being coal mining and smelting.
The points being that there isn’t some critical mass of people employed in those industries, they aren’t all going to end up unemployed, they aren’t all opposed to transitioning from coal to clean energy and there’s more jobs to be made then lost.
Interesting and relevant article:
http://business.theage.com.au/business/coals-push-for-carbon-storage-an-impossible-dream-20090426-ajed.html
[Do you mean GetUp!?]
I mean a very long campaign going back at least a decade that started with feral hippies and eventually spread to more mainstream parts of society. But for many people “climate change” has only been around for the last few years.
Pick up a couple of hitch hikers on the way, then at least you’ll be car pooling to your destination… or at least as far as you get before they steal everything you have at knifepoint.
Bule
brilliant, problem solved AND I get to be a victim, which will satisfy the matyr in me.
Oz
There was a lot of ground work put in by ALP supporters in arguing for climate change action from door to door around the country in 2007. The Greens might have had a rally for their rusted-ons, but we were out there doing the face to face stuff along every street for many many hours. And there were a lot of us.
Ltep, McDonald says he’s not a denialist. He’s just a do-nothingist.
[The MRET is still going to deliver us a total of 20% renewable energy and the ETS still 15% (or whatever) caps on emissions so I wouldn’t get too upset about some industries getting treated differently from others within those schemes.]
Because I don’t give a stuff about 15% and 20%. I know that we need more and we can’t get there without putting pressure on the big emitters.
[the intrinsic difficulty of decarbonising an economy like Australia’s in the middle of a recession, and in the absence of an international agreement, without driving industry out of the country and causing mass unemployment]
It’s already been demonstrated that this is not going to happen. Now you sound exactly like Joyce.
[Oz needs to acknowledge that this is the most difficult challenge that has faced any Australian government in recent decades.]
I accept this very readily.
[There was a lot of ground work put in by ALP supporters in arguing for climate change action from door to door around the country in 2007. The Greens might have had a rally for their rusted-ons,]
I’m not talking about The Greens did vs. what the ALP did. The tendency to reduce everything to partisan hackery is tiresome and pointless. I’ve already said on this blog that there were environmental groups and organisations advocating for action on climate change before it became a key part of The Greens platform.
And I’m not talking about 2007. That short-termist is view is probably why certain people think the electorate is sceptical/soft on strong action. Climate change is unusual in comparison to other issues because it didn’t begin as some kind of political football match between Labor and Liberal in 2007, or even in 2004. Like I said, it took decades of work from scientists, organisers and lots of different groups to first make people realise the urgency and problem and then use that to make the political parties care.
Dunno why I came back, too much ranting is not good for me. =P
Oz,
“I mean a very long campaign going back at least a decade that started with feral hippies and eventually spread to more mainstream parts of society. But for many people “climate change” has only been around for the last few years”.
So you and a few mates invented Climate Change one night while toking away at the local community collective?
Now, now, Oz, no need to get testy.
Dealing with straight numbers of those affected is worthwhile, granted, but doesn’t tell the whole story. After all, we might start talking about the absolute numbers of Australians that entirely support and passionately believe in a proposal for 40% cuts, as if that could dismiss the relevance of the degree of influence that those people might have over public policy and which might be disproportionate to the size of their group.
Your assertion that ‘people do not need to be convinced’, is, I think, a bald assertion that is unjustified. There is a very strong possibility that for some years from now the negative economic effects of emissions cuts will outweigh the positive economic, social and environmental effects, some of which are likely intangible – how, in the future, will we truly comprehend the damage that we may have averted through such a program, for example? Granted, employment will be generated if Australia embraces renewable energy technology manufacture, I’m sure the AMWU would be interested in this possibility. But if start-ups are delayed because of poor economic conditions, while an ETS negatively affects existing employment, we will be seeing costs much sooner than we will benefits.
I agree with your argument, though, about the purported necessity of having legislated prior to the Copenhagen meeting. While attempting to legislate in order to have a firm position prior to an international agreement may be considered preferable politically, it is not required. After all, many domestic laws have been made after Australian agreement to international instruments, such as the Racial Discrimination Act for example, without unduly affecting the negotiating position of the government in acceding to the relevant international agreement.
Oz, sorry (well, a little) to drag you back to this:
[Social changes doesn’t mean a cut in living standards but using less electricity, making less waste, driving less etc.]
I accept that some minor changes to electricity usage can make a difference, such as using energy efficient globes, not leaving things on stand-by and so on. Will such measures be sufficient to achieve 40%, or will there need to be more, like not using air-conditioners as much, reducing use of other electrical appliances and so forth? The latter would appear to me to run close to being perceived as entailing a reduction in living standards.
Certainly, you or I might be satisfied to make such changes. But just because we think it’s reasonable to do so and do not feel that it diminishes our standards of living in any appreciable way doesn’t mean that all Australians will feel the same way. Shouldn’t we just be a bit realistic, admit that ‘social changes’ will mean less freedom to waste material wealth, and make the case for why Australians should accept this?
Oz
You’re doing a great job, even if I disagree with some of your points. I’m enjoying someone other than me getting bashed up on too. 😉
I strongly disagree with the Greens 40% target though. It’s too easy to dismiss as fanciful.
One cannot say one supports ‘adequate action on climate change’ and also say one supports ‘the ALP’s 5% emmissions cut’. These are two mutually exclusive statements. I know the ALP like to take the wishy-washy middle ground on lots of things and thats fine and dandy but GW is unlike any other issue, a comprimise is as much of a fail as doing nothing. It is perfectly reasonble to have an all or nothing approach to GW because it is pretty much an all or nothing issue. Either we stop GW before it reaches the irreversable 2%ish rise threash hold at which point run-away climate change kicks in or we don’t. Its that simple. Whats the point of enacting a target that will fail to stop that?
Diogenes, what’s your opinion of the article posted somewhere above (about 4pm) of the tracing of the swine flu virus to a factory pig farm in Mexico, and resulting commentary?
[It’s possible to make roughly 40-50% cuts in total emissions, by 2020, through a mixture of technological changes (using existing technology) and social changes. Social changes doesn’t mean a cut in living standards but using less electricity, making less waste, driving less etc.]
Using less electricity, driving less….sounds like a reduction in living standards to me. Until I can get convenient public transport, accessible where I want when I want – I won’t be driving less.
Nor will I allow myself to freeze in my own house. Air conditioning whenever the heck I need it.
Sorry, welcome to modern Australia. As usual, the Greens want us back in the stone age.
No 760
[Do you want the Constitution to state explicitly that the PM appoints the head of state?? That would indeed be novel.]
Yes, the Prime Minister should appoint the Governor General. He already does it now (the Queen merely approves his decision, no questions asked) and there isn’t extreme outrage as a result.
But GP it has the added protection that the Queen can dimiss the GG, the British Royal Family are the perfect insurance policy to safeguard our democracy.
Some other countries arent so fortunate to have such a stop gap measure in place.