kevin rudd
10 Nov 2009
Lovely Speech ... What Do You Do For A Living?
So many words ... Our PM's performance on the two biggest issues in the news right now demonstrates how much he prefers talking to action, writes Ben Eltham
At various times of Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership, commentators, pundits and opposition politicians have predicted that his masterful control of political communication would backfire. Rudd’s spin, they say, will eventually be seen for what it is by voters, who will judge him for not backing up his grand visions and bold words.
Recent events offer an opportunity to assess whether the "Rudd is all spin and no substance" line will ever actually take hold. On two politically important issues, refugees and climate change, Rudd’s normally assured political logic has started to slip. Is this the start of electoral disenchantment with the most popular prime minister of modern times? Or is it just a blip?
On refugees, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister and his government have struggled recently. This shouldn’t surprise those with long memories. The Australian Labor Party has had an ambivalent attitude towards seaborne asylum seekers since the Hawke administration set up the refugee detention regime in the 1990s. In opposition, particularly under Kim Beazley, Labor strategists appeared to believe that mirroring the Howard government’s macho posturing on refugees was the only option. To the eternal shame of those in the Left of the party, Labor supported many of the amendments that toughened the Migration Act, including the amendment to excise Christmas Island from Australian sovereign territory for those claiming refugee status — the amendment that made possible the "Pacific Solution".
In government, Labor under Rudd has softened some aspects of Howard’s tougher-than-thou approach, while also making every pretense of remaining "tough on border security". It’s been a difficult message to sell. Opposition spokeswoman Sharman Stone’s nonsensically aggressive tactics of blaming the Government for every arriving boat has clearly riled Labor, and it was some time before the Government settled on its message of blaming "push factors" like the wars in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.
The problem with the "push factors" argument is that, for the subset of the Australian electorate that is simply opposed to giving sanctuary to refugees altogether, push factors are irrelevant. And it does nothing for the larger plurality who just want us to show some humanity and let people in. More than any issue in Australian politics, refugee policy is not about the facts of the situation. It is about emotions — like fear, sympathy and xenophobia. After all, any sensible analysis of the problem reveals that the majority of Australia-destined asylum seekers arrive by plane. But "plane people" are barely on the political radar, far less contentious or politically controversial than refugees who arrive by boat.
Labor’s position on refugees is not helped by its evolving "big Australia" population policy. When Kevin Rudd told Kerry O’Brien on The 7.30 Report that "I actually believe in a big Australia, I make no apology for that," the contradictions with his refugee policy became obvious. The Australian’s elder statesman Paul Kelly believes that Rudd is committed to "a strong and orderly immigration program and a tough stand against boat people seeking to break the rules and self-select Australia as their new home", which just shows you the twisted logic that commentators can tie themselves in as they attempt to divine the reasoning behind the political calculations of governments.
But it is on the issue of climate change where Labor’s policies really stop making sense. Last Friday, Kevin Rudd gave a speech to the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a foreign policy think-tank whose centrist, multilateralist views are close to the Prime Minister’s heart. Rudd took the opportunity to rail against "the climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action [that] are active in every country". "They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests," intoned the PM in his gravest speaking voice.
The problem is, as Bernard Keane pointed out in Crikey yesterday, they are also firmly ensconced in various positions in Kevin Rudd’s own government. Keane pointed out that Minerals Council spokesman Mitch Hooke — one of the most vocal and committed climate change rent-seekers in the country — is actually a member of the Government’s Oceans Advisory Group. Commonwealth funding also goes to consultancies like ACIL Tasmin, who have consistently cooked up dodgy economic models to support the grubby lobbying of fossil fuel industries.
In fact, Keane missed the broader point, which is that climate sceptics and pro-mining, pro-resource fossil fuel advocates are prominent in the ALP itself. Look no further than the Government’s Energy and Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, who is only barely in the closet as a climate sceptic and has consistently championed Big Carbon in his tenure in the portfolio. As we’ve explored before at newmatilda.com Ferguson’s developing energy policy is being advised by a hand-picked panel of Big Carbon executives, while the renewables sector remains locked out.
Ferguson and Rudd are also wedded to the continuing fiction that "clean coal" can save us. The lure of carbon capture and sequestration as a panacea for the world’s climate ills has meant the Government continues to invest more in this risky, unproven and costly technology while ignoring the many cheaper clean tech solutions available now.
And then there is Labor’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme itself. This policy, the centre-piece of Labor’s climate change policy framework, sets emissions reductions targets that are so low that if the entire world adopted them, devastating global warming would be permanently locked in. Even worse, Labor ignored the advice of its advisor, Ross Garnaut, on the design of the scheme, loading up the scheme with subsidies for big polluters and failing to earmark any funds for renewable energy research and development.
So riddled with carbon subsidies is the CPRS that it will actually cost the Government billions of dollars more than it collects through the sale of carbon permits, as the Government’s recent mid-year economic review revealed. Treasury projections claim Australia’s emissions won’t begin to fall until 2033. Meanwhile, the burden of decarbonisation will be unfairly imposed on ordinary consumers and small businesses.
"It’s time to remove any polite veneer from this debate," the Prime Minister said in his Lowy speech. But that’s exactly what the CPRS as it currently stands really is: a polite veneer for a high-carbon, high temperature future.
Will any of this matter at the next election? I don’t believe so. All the polls indicate Labor will romp home (the recent Newspoll showing a big fall in support for the Government now looks like it was a statistical quirk).
But in the longer term, all governments eventually lose control of their messaging. For example, former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr enjoyed a peerless ability to manipulate the media cycle for nearly a decade. It hasn’t stopped voters souring on Labor as they tot up the broken promises and failed policies of Labor’s reign in New South Wales. Rudd has made a lot of bold statements and big promises in his first term. He will need to start delivering in his second if the honeymoon is to continue. Passing a decent CPRS, maintaining fiscal discipline, securing funding for the apparently stalled "education revolution" and delivering the National Broadband Network are shaping up as key — and perhaps competing — tests.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm. The best hope for a meaningful climate change policy in this country will be completely new legislation, negotiated in the next parliament with the help of the Greens.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
“The best hope for a meaningful climate change policy in this country will be completely new legislation, negotiated in the next parliament with the help of the Greens.” Yes, but they won’t do this Ben, ever. They would rather negotiate with the likes of Fielding and Joyce and MInchin than with their fellow left-of-centre party. Won’t form coalition governments with Greens (Tas was a one off, and ACT is a grudging and barely civilised detente), won’t negotiate on any policies. I’m never sure why. Perhaps because the modern Labor Party is so far from the Light on the HIll that they hate being reminded of their social democrat principles. Perhaps because the likes of Ferguson are so in the thrall of big business, and the likes of Rudd so in the thrall of big finance and big religion, that they couldn’t possibly reach an agreement with a party concerned about the world we live in. I can’t imagine any of the Labor politicians (federally or in NSW and Qld) being able to resign and join the Greens. On the other hand I can all too easily imagine them, en masse, sitting in a coalition party room, listening to lectures from Plimer and Carter, launching Lavoissier books.
“More than any issue in Australian politics, refugee policy is not about the facts of the situation. It is about emotions — like fear, sympathy and xenophobia.”
I think it’s far more complex than that.
Just a few of the fundamental issues that need to be considered include: what the limits on refugee intake should be; why those limits are chosen; what the real costs of refugee intake are; and who wears those costs. Some people (like me, and from the tone of your article, like yourself) are happy to wear the costs regardless. But some people are reluctant to foot the bill, and in the absence of clear majority support, I struggle to see how we can demand that they do.
Then there’s the whole issue of what happens to refugees when they arrive: what are the appropriate mechanisms for providing housing, education, employment? Should our refugee policy promote assimilation, and if so, to what degree? What is the long-term sociological impact of an increased refugee intake (even at a local level)? Will the policy encourage people-smuggling and other illegal activities which have major negative effects on refugees?
It’s not just about emotion and xenophobia.
(this comment has been edited)
Fair enough critique of Rudd’s approach to climate change and asylum seekers, but the big idea that the article starts with - that Rudd is talk not action - cannot be sustained.
Why? Because the most significant thing that has happened during his first term was the GFC, and he acted in a big way. A huge fiscal stimulus was applied to the economy, mostly without bipartisan support. You can agree or disagree with those actions, but actions they are. He was advised to go early, go hard and go households and he did, which would have required substantial political courage knowing that the inevitable attacks about debt and deficit would follow.
Rudd and his government with their holier than thou global warming stance have basically stated they have the equivalent to a cure for cancer. And now people are questioning his claim his lie is becoming evident.
Rudd can sign as many blank bits of paper for the UN as he likes, giving away every cent Australia ever hopes to produce while winding back our ‘carbon pollution’ (his governments lie. Not mine) to the days of cave dwellers.
It will not ‘cure’ the real disease of bad governance and corruption in 3rd world countries.
Any introduction of any form of ETS into Australia to treat bad governance and corruption in 3rd world countries is the equivalent of giving the patient a handful of sugar pills instead of lancing the putrid sore.
It will not do a darn thing except make the believers feel better for a time.
The bad governance and corruption will still be in 3rd world countries and will likely spread into those countries dumb enough to have signed up for the quacks cure.
Better we work on a way to lance the putrid sore!
Sometimes saying sorry and handing over your wallet aren’t the best ways of improving a situation.
‘Labor(sic)’ ‘left-of-centre, Dr Horton? Only if Timur the Lame is your idea of a centrist. The local Labor Party sold out even before the UK version. Today it stands on the Right, barely distinguishable in policy from its supposed ‘opponents’. Rudd has maintained nearly every odious Howardite policy, from the vile, racist, ‘intervention’ in the NT to the complicity in the colonial massacre that is the Afghan bloodbath. Where he appeared to differ, as in signing Kyoto, it was followed by real action, such as disrupting Bali and Poznan, favouring fossil fuel interests, suppressing renewables with deliberately incoherent policy, lavishly financing the lie of Carbon Capture and Storage and setting risible and suicidal greenhouse emissions reduction targets, that gave the game away.
To achieve government power in Australian politics you must serve the real rulers of the country, those who own it, and con the ostensible masters of the country’s destiny, the public, every few years. Hence ‘spin’ better known as The Big Lie, endlessly repeated until it is accepted as a truth. Rudd’s outburst at the Rightwing Lowy Institute was a diversion from his refugee problems and a contrived imposture. You know that to be true because what he said made sense, and so is designed to con the rational fraction of the public despondent and alarmed by climate change inaction and the dominance, gifted to them by the psychopathic Rightwing media hate machine, of the evil lunatics of anthropogenic climate change denialism.
Rudd is of a piece with Blair and Obama. A con-man selected to sucker the public into voting for him, after a period of extreme Rightwing misrule, with the ostensible, but fraudulent, premise that he is an agent of ‘change’. Of course, he is not and can not be so. If he planned even the mild social democratic reforms of a Whitlam, the Rightwing media system would destroy him.
As far as anthropogenic climate change goes, we are already stuffed. The hysterical ‘know-nothings’ of the paranoid Right, with their monstrous delusions of Communist world government and-horror of horrors-wealth transfer to the poor world, have won. The Baron Monckhausen and his acolytes Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Alan Jones and Janet Albrechtsen (and others too numerous to mention) have won. FoxNews and its local equivalent ‘The Australian’, have had a famous, if Pyrrhic victory. Our children will reap the whirlwind of climate change, ocean acidification and ecological collapse, long after the denialists have returned to the carbon cycle themselves.
Thanks for the opportunity to put the twenty cents worth in on the Rudd mafia Ben. I have to comment on the statement you have written, “masterful control of political communication would backfire” & question the term as being meant, “masterful control of political communism” because that’s really where the pathetic false nicety has his head.
One only has to watch his behavior when he meets & greets political figures. He reaches out & shakes their hand, then the stalker puts his other hand on top of their hand to give the gesture he is really friendly. He cant keep his touchy feely hands to himself for the rest of the meeting, with hands on shoulders etc. The proof is that he only thinks he’s fooling people but the angle of Ben’s blog & the disturbing at odds discrepancies about Labors dealings with climate change CPRS, ETS & refugees on boats that the governments of both yesterday & today have attacked with vigor for the sake of safe vote importations that come by plane, show the mentality behind such a cowardly little backstabbing man.
JohnW, I agree with you about the stimulus, and I have written about it several times here at NewMatilda.com
But in policy areas like education, social housing, the National Broadband Network, the CPRS, the Northern Territory Emergency Response and others, the Rudd Government has not lived up to its rhetoric.
Will they be able to tick off these boxes in a second term? They’re certainly going to get one, so we will have another four years to find out.
Ben, we have all commented on the stimulus & how it’s been implemented to the standards of the upper class, on a basis of the recession that we didn’t have. To state the obvious, the Rudd mafia has been all rhetoric & not substance is right but to say that they will be in for another term of four years, I must say that I’m in disagreement, even though I don’t have a Chrystal ball either.
Atheistno1 - while we may not have had 2 quarters of negative growth, we did have a recession, in the sense of a measurable slow-down in the economy. Growth slowed significantly and unemployment is still rising. Ross Gittins dealt with this very issue in his most recent column.
The stimulus was actually fairly equitably distributed as these things go.
Ben has written an article which neatly states the opinions in our household, and of some old, stalwart and very disappointed members of the ALP whom we know. To be fair to Rudd, he might be the Prime Minister but still has to carry his cabinet and wider party with him. Rock-heads like Ferguson are there whether Rudd wants them or not, and they have considerable power. They have come up via the Union Movement and can call on lots of support from that quarter. It should be remembered how the Tasmanian forestry workers turned their backs on the ALP and went with Howard at the Latham election. These people are as interested in the survival of polluting industries as is the Big End of Town. There are many people who believe that Climate Change is a figment of the imagination and is just a Left Wing plot designed to take away their money. Minchin said as much on Four Corners on Monday. I love the Australian version of leadership. “We are for doing something about Climate Change as long as it doesn’t inconvenience us (ie cost money OUR money) and in any case we will only do something as long as everyone else has done it first.” Any attempt at a serious discussion usually leads to the subject being changed to Football, Cricket or some other subject as far removed from Climate Change as possible. I suspect that many of ‘us’ are doomed, but possibly some intelligent people may survive, but in a very different world.
1
When the ship carrying the Sri Lankan people arrived near Indonesia shore, the Indonesians were ready to take them as friendship policy. But when the Australian politics reached offshore blaming the Indonesians for being inhumane on the prisoners, Rudd administration lost the solution.
Is it only the loss for Rudd? I don’t see it that way. It’s collective failure of Australian politics.
2
Whether global warming is true, freedom from pollution will be a lot better for life. At least, asthma rate will fall. And the roads will become quieter. So what are the politicians waiting for?
The sceptics have to know that they won’t be able to pollute politics for long. And the big polluters will run out of fossil fuels soon too within 25 years or so. But they will leave a legacy to mankind with their denial and stubbornness.
If our readers have done their homework they will know the World needs huge cuts in CO2 output of the order of 90% in countries like USA, UK &Oz.
( Have they read “George Monbiot” & “Minqi Li” ? The latter is just brilliant )
Australia is in a very special position and could start to call the shots. We should stop mining coal, but with our dreadful Constitution, the Commonwealth government can not dictate as much. However is can suspend coal exports and proclaim they will stay suspended until the above cuts become international law , after which time they would not resume anyway.
If the Commonwealth will not, the unions could, failing that there are other ways which we might not prefer.
Ben, I think you will find that many of the figures in the public domain are quite fudged for the purpose of political gain. http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/09/unemployment-jobs-report-labor-departme… Here you will find that the GDP figures are higher than are being stated & I could fill this page with more links that would debate the fairness of the said stimulus but would prefer to address other issues you have brought to the current discussion.
MIN, The issue of a ETS are insignificant to most of us, I am led to believe & for the reasons that current opinion would have it that it is the silent elephant in the room that the most would rather speak of, ‘Pollution’ & the costs to health care, as you has commented above. I don’t see anyone in their right mind screaming out for another tax being imposed on them. Anyone that watched the 4 Corners program on Monday night, would have seen the report on the statistics of climate change & that there are only the slightest rise & again, not what is really being claimed in an urgency to deplete more jobs than is necessary.
Good, thought provoking article as usual Ben,
people believe what they want to believe. They believe it because it will make their lives easier NOT harder. It is easy to ignore hard issues, one can merrily go about one’s business thinking Climate Change doesn’t exist, asylum seekers are subhuman, and the government is always right. It can be too overwhelming to think about all the things that should be happening but aren’t. It can be too overwhelming to fight for the future. All elected officials have a responsibility to create a better place for ALL people, if they fail in this fundamental task (by appeasing to business interest groups) then we all suffer.
“Loss of jobs” is the catch cry de jour. We can’t do anything because “1000’s” of jobs will go…..poppycock…..it becomes so infuriating I almost burst. KRudd is a big disappointment, he made a promise of something better, but the only group capable of delivering the change we need is the Greens. People need to realise that continuing to vote for the same old parties means nothing will EVER change.
Be the change you want to see
www.adambutler.com.au
Peak oil is in the news again,
http://www.smh.com.au/world/panic-warning-as-oil-supplies-run-low-200911…
Research into alternative energy is not just an environmental cause, it is a pressing economic one.
Atheistno1 11/11/09 2:26AM
Well, lose jobs now or later - what’s the different?
If people lose jobs now, they will get jobs again when the economy recovers. The country can recover after establishment of renewable sectors. As still going on with fossil fuels, changing to renewable era can be a lot cheaper and won’t be a rash.
If a country changes its energy sources only when fossil fuels have gone, then it will be harder to recover. During the change, a country needs some sort of energy to keep going - and change.
Now Australia still have access to fossil fuels. Change now easily or change later with nothing. To construct renewable sectors - Australia can use fossil fuels. Or Australia will have to use manpower alone.
It’s always easier to use the throwaway line ‘oh, well, They can get another job’ when you’re financially secure and in no danger of losing your job.
There isn’t anything to be blasé about for these poor souls earmarked for the dole queue.
They’re the ones Rudd has encouraged into home ownership to help cushion this GFC. Mums, dads, sons, daughters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, school leavers.
You know, those Australian working families he was elected to protect.
They deserve much more from their government than being sacrificed as a symbolic gesture for a cause based upon falsehoods and corruption.
MIN, the transition of employment from one energy to another can be a bit daunting & if the transfer undermines too many jobs in one place, it can create a depression that will need stimulus & other means of government &/or charity support. One thing that should have been addressed by this government but hasn’t, is the fuel that cars & trucks use. They like to bail them out but the money is just going back into batteries & waste products that aren’t addressing the problem but supporting the problem because people are looking to electricity to recharge their vehicles. Hence the support for fossil fuels & the lack of ingenuity for the use of hydrogen.
“The lure of carbon capture and sequestration as a panacea for the world’s climate ills has meant the Government continues to invest more in this risky, unproven and costly technology while ignoring the many cheaper clean tech solutions available now.”
There you go again Ben!
What are some of these MANY cheaper clean tech solutions available??
EarnestLee,
wind power is demonstrably cheaper than CCS. For a start, it is a mature technology deployed across many countries, unlike CCS which has never been demonstrated commercially.
For that matter, solar thermal is also cheaper
Wind power is definitely cheaper & cost’s very little to run & maintain in terms of employment & that’s why the labor government has issued two new gas turbines & are expecting more to come.
On the topic of boat people:
It’s not really about a xenophobic subset that wants to keep them out at all costs, nor about a more “sympathetic” majority that just wants to keep them settled. I wonder who you actually talk to? Do you have any figures to back up such an amazingly generalist claim?
Australians are not against refugees per se at all. It is well inscribed into the mass consciousness that those who populate this country now, or their fathers and mothers, are mostly refugees of one kind or another who arrived on boats. Therein lies the irony. The 1970s and before weren’t that long ago.
It seems to me to be a mark of the younger generation that they assume refugees have always arrived in orderly fashion by plane. I get the point, most of those, legal and illegal do these days and why not, it’s a whole lot more comfortable.
My point is: the fascination with boat people is as much historicist as anything. There was once another folk in this country, before 1788, worried whether all those refugee people arriving by boat might overrun the whole country - and how right they were.
As for climate change: meh. What a load of talk about absolutely nothing. A majority of scientists will readily admit that we are a doomed species, our time is at an end. A little bit less huffing and puffing of coal is not going to make any difference. Nature, red in tooth and claw is how it’s always been. Catastrophe and disaster. The human race will be regulated. These endless promises of solutions and fixes and prosperity for all and sundry are nothing but the hot air that is choking the planet. As the International Energy Association says: say anything, as long as it doesn’t make the USA uncomfortable.
Does anyone really think a few wind farms and solar panels and let’s turn off the DVD at the power point is actually going to make an iota of difference? LOL. Wake up. It’s all over.
So therefore, in the end, it actually doesn’t really matter how many boat people we take in. We’re in our last days folks. Ask any scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology off the record and they’ll be happy to tell you the news: the third unprecedented heatwave in a year hitting the south is no longer anomaly: it’s our future.
http://zielwolf.blogspot.com
Zielwolf, the polling data about refugee policy is surprisingly patchy.
I based the particular statement you mention on the following question recently posed in a poll by Essential Research:
“The federal government should be allowing legitimate refugees to enter the country and contribute to our nation.”
A plurality (45%) agreed, and a minority (25%) disagreed. 30% of respondents did not have a view. 59% of respondents in the same poll agreed with the statement that “Nearly all refugees are coming from places such asa Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, places that have seen an escalation in violence and persecution that have pushed these people to flee their homelands”
You can see Possum’s analysis of the poll here
If this was a much, much better (nicer) world where where we were blessed with a PM, a Labor Party AND an Environmental Movement who could ALL rise above their base natures, thereby:
* abandoning all the spin, the dissembling, the name calling, the irrational flight into group-think religiosity, the crass attempts to marginalize all those who don’t fit tightly into your own world view; but most of all
* resisting the perpetual do-nothing attractions of Nimbyism and knee-jerk nay-saying,
then we might just be able to start taking sensible actions such as:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-desert-answer-c…
I’m not holding my (CO2-laden) breath though…..
Deforestation has contibuted to the creation of deserts so a reverse of the process seems logical.
The commentariat in the media have lost their way on the Indonesian boat people issue (as has Rudd to some extent). Instead of standing up and arguing for a humane policy and riding the waves of remnant Hansonism, Rudd has allowed himself to be caught in a pincer. He is attacked both as “too soft” and “too tough”. More than half of those in one Age/Fairfax poll either agreed with his policy or thought it should be softer! So why is he seeking to satisfy the minority who think he is “too soft”. And where is the media discussion of what “too soft” and “too hard” means?
Just what were the “means” used so successfully by Howard and his government (including many still there!)
Those who want some details, beyond the lies of “Five Star Detention Centres” in “The Daily Telegraph” could do no better than to check out “Human Rights Overboard”, by Linda Briskman, Susie Latham and Chris Goddard. They will see that Howard’s success was predicated on sickeningly inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees with vast, unnecesssary, long-term human suffering and despair. Such a high price to deter a few boat people sickened enough people at the last election to see Howard lose his own seat as well as government.
But Howard’s party (some of whom were there at the time) seem to think we have forgotten it all. They simply duck and weave when asked what they would do. They know that they can only return to a “tough policy” if the Australian people are prepared once again to turn a blind eye to human suffering and despair.
One of Rudd’s current “problems” is on the Custom’s boat containing the very people deterred by the Howard policies. They are as much Howard’s problem. But have you ever seen that in print? And the Indonesian government is adopting undiluted Tampa policy in rejecting the vessel. Some solution!
“The Australian” seems to have joined the Coalition, in much the same way that Fox News in the US has joined the Republicans. Rather than exposing the chaos within the Coalition, or the battle between those who would return to Howard’s draconian and inhumane policies and those who utterly reject them, it runs a week long series on Rudd’s leadership. When did it ever apply any scrutiny to Mr Teflon? That was left to a whole range of author’s (like Clive Hamilton in “Silencing Dissent”) who could then be shot down as belonging to the “loony left”.
In fact for many Australians Rudd has changed far too little of Howard’s “Pacific and Indonesian Solution”. Border protection is not one iota less secure under Rudd than Howard, as exactly the same limitations and scrutiny apply to boat people, who are kept well away from Australia’s shores, as did under the former regime.
The solution for Kevin Rudd is still, as it has always been, to stop bleating about “tough”.
What they want is “fair” and “humane” and “reasonable”. Unless Rudd exercises some leadership, and stops leaving the message to the media and the Opposition, he can only lose points in this silly political battle, where he has been positioned into the firing line between the “too soft” and “too hard” by an Opposition, so bereft of policy and unity that it will resort to any tactic to whittle away Labor’s lead.
“then we might just be able to start taking sensible actions such as:
Right on Ecoeng.
It is now three years since the Mckinsey Report identified reforestation as a primary means of CO2 abatement. The U.N. has a scheme to encourage indigenous peoples to renew forests and China announced this year a massive reforestation plan.
In Australia we could incorporate a precious furniture timber component as a new industry. Those fabulous species lost in the West and East Indies could provide independent income streams for remote communities.
Now who is looking at how we could transfer water from the North to the South by using the Great Artesian Basin??
IMHO, this is what Rudd, Wong etc should be ‘doing for a living’ at Copenhagen (if only they had the vision):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/55436u2122u77525/
Stuff most sensible sane people could get behind, extreme warmist or moderate sceptic alike.
“In addition to sequestering CO2, the irrigated forest also causes pronounced local decrease in surface temperature over the Sahara (e.g., Figs. 3f and 5e). Evapotranspiration converts large amounts of sensible heat into latent heat. Although, from a global, net energy point of view, the conversion of sensible to latent heat is a ‘wash’, induced cloudiness over the forest (e.g., Fig. 8a) keeps planetary albedo high (not illustrated) and further reduces surface heating. As a result no additional global warming was observed in our simulations, in contrast to what might be expected of afforestation at higher latitudes (Bala et al. 2007).”
“Our next step is to test our hypothesis with a high resolution, mesoscale model with significant boundary layer physics to determine if our conjectures are supported.”
“It would be helpful to confirm these studies with other GCMs that do credible jobs at simulating both coupled oceans as well as monsoons (e.g., Cook and Vizy 2006), and particularly with higher resolution meso-scale models.”