A good look NOT!

I’m just someone frustrated by the apparent inability of either major party when in government, to effectively deal with the converging problems of climate change and energy security.

Nor have they even developed rational policies on both issues that fulfill a government’s obligations regarding duty of care to its citizens.

I’m really staggered by the extent to which big business, starting in the 1970’s, has managed to manipulate the democratic process to the point where they now effectively control government policy on any matter that affects their bottom line.

We really have been asleep. What happened to “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”?

It was one thing to allow the tobacco industry to pretend for many years that smoking could not cause cancer. That at least only affected smokers who had the choice.

With climate change, none of us has a choice. Either the entire world stops emitting or our children inherit a planet whose climate we would not wish on them.

My only hope is that once it is widely understood (please God, soon) that government now proposes to financially encourage the fossil fuel industry (via this CPRS) to continue to increase the amount of their pollution, we will insist on ending this corruption of democracy at the next election.

Contrary to what Rudd and Howard would have us believe, Mother Nature does not negotiate to achieve a ‘balance between economics and emissions’. She simply responds to the level of emissions we send her - without pity or remorse.

Once we have a coalition of MP’s in power, who embrace the climate science and are ready to state these obvious facts, then we can move on to work out how to do what has to be done in a way that protects jobs and the economy as much as possible in the process.

Apologies for this frustrated rave!

Man made climate change, fragile ecosystem, mineral wealth beyond anyone’s comprehension, over population on said ecosystem, massive immigration, over indulgence of the rural sector and rampant McMansionism have made Australia the country of ‘now’.

Inept and unimaginative, tiny-minded, egocentric, third-rate politicians have turned Australia almost into being the country of the ‘past’.

What is needed is a completely different form of governance, and I would be the last to know how this could be achieved. So long as this vast, yet fragile continent, is run by people who are elected by the least competent, so long will our politicians be incompetent too.

In these columns many people seem to believe that Malcolm Turnbull is another Don Quixote, a man who fights windmills. Unlike Malcolm Turnbull, Don Quixote lacked hubris, calculation, deviousness, and a deep desire to be loved.

As a nation we should be able to do better than this. Two years of begging our leaders to show compassion and heart towards the land, John Howard and Kevin Rudd are perfect examples of the wrong people being elected by the wrong people.

will we see the liberal party break up over the issue of global warming? malcolm turnbull probably knows he will not be able to continue as leader, not only because of the party division on climate change, but because of his consistently low popularity ratings over the past year. hence his threat to resign might be an attempt to jump before he is pushed.

if so, where will he jump? will he leave the liberals and join labor? and what about those ten or so liberals who support malcolm’s position. if he leaves the party, will they leave too?

where does this leave the national party? do they have any future in this country?

if the final result is crippled, much smaller liberal and national parties, its possible that the main opposition to labor will become the greens, who will be likely to grow in support and power.

what do you think of these possibilities?

By they by if Chris Sanderson is not Paul Keating, newly embracing the web with his own webpage, then he makes a nice (olden days) facsimile.

And I agree it was a great comment from him. Will have to re-read it closely. However Keating, whether my guess is right or not, has still alot of ashphalt in his veins to clear out yet. Good luck with the detox Paul!

How about he’s (correctly) decided that in the long term, being associated with a party that has too many people in it who don’t accept the climate science, is not a good long term political strategy as public opinion catches up with the fact that we”ve now been betrayed by two PM’s in a row on climate change?

My private fantasy is that he resigns and takes with him those Libs, who do believe the science and then teams up with those in Labor who also believe the science and are disgusted with Rudd’s backsliding on climate change and his grovelling to the big overseas, rent seeking coal owners.

We need in any case a strong and stable cross-party coalition to deal with at least the first 8-12 years of seriously migrating this country away from burning fossil fuels, which will be necessary, but fiendishly difficult both economically and politically. Hopefully the Greens would join the coalition too.

Frankly, if we don’t start thinking outside the box of our ‘business-as-usual’ two party politics by the next election, I’d say Australia’s international image as recalcitrant, fossil fuel supporting backsliders will be etched in forever.

Our real economic challenge is how we replace the export revenue from currently decling agriculture and coal, which international studies show ( see Richard Heinberg: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis - 2009) will peak globally as early as 2025 - contrary to what our popliticians and the industry would have us believe.

I’m with you. I have long felt that Turnbull realises that he’s made a very poor career move and wants out one way or another. His personality, nicely summed up by Brendan Nelson, does not allow him to be constantly surrounded by contradiction and, as he demonstrates almost daily, he has abysmal people skills. I believe the ETS issue has given him the perfect exit strategy.

There’s no miracle about it. Nothing holy or magical. It just is.

“and be left watching mournfully as the “Liberal Party” set sail for the far right horizon.” Perfectly correct. They can hardly become a party of the left-wing-not with the darling Nashos in tow. Imagine the colour Barnaby Joyce would turn. They were a party of the middle right, before they lost an election and the Labor Party grabbed the last chair. So their only alternative is to swing the rudder over and turn hard right. They should have known this before engaging the services of Malcolm Turnbull. He should have know it too, but he was blinded by his engorged ego and his vaunting ambition.

All we can do is look on with stunned surprise as we watch the ship sinking at the speed of RAYMOND CHURCH’s “Phar Lap -66.7%” per two year degrees.

Of course highly unscientific but interesting. The horse by the length of the straight. Has there ever been an Opposition as unpopular as this mob?

… He can walk away head held high as a man of integrity and move back to the corporate world.

On climate change policy, Malcolm Turnbull is a man totally out of step with his party’s most deeply held principles and verities. It isn’t the climate change sceptics who are the rump, the converse is true — they are the overwhelming majority. If the climate change sceptics on the good ship “Liberal Party” chose to mutiny and forced Turnbull into the long boat, he would be joined by only a handful of people (perhaps including Greg Hunt and Mal Washer), and be left watching mournfully as the “Liberal Party” set sail for the far right horizon.

The problem in my view, is that Turnbull has failed to convince his party that he has a credible alternative platform or alternatively a political strategy. If he had been able to convince his colleagues that his approach was to provide uncommitted bipartisan support as a political tactic and if or when the Rudd plan subsequently came unstuck, the Libs would have been able to avoid the lashings of egg about the Rudd & Wong faces by claiming they acted responsibly as they felt the public wanted them to rightly or wrongly.

But I get the impression he has neither strategy nor alternative platform. Just my impression mind you. That is why I believe a lot of the tougher opposition politicians are unhappy. Not about the policy position either way, they just feel uneasy about a possible hollow man leading them.

Wilson Tuckey should be made to shut up. After I heard his comments re those poor people who’ve died and who will die from coming in contact with asbestos(sometimes only momentarily - that’s all it takes) that in his opinion older workers shouldn’t receive compensation, I’ve even less time for him. What a pathetic human being he is? He obviously thinks, that when it comes to making money, it doesn’t matter who you kill or make suffer? Just as an excercise, I wonder how he’d feel if it became known for example, that those sitting in those comfy commonwealth cars were in danger of getting asbestosis(carpet, brake linings? etc)how he’d feel about being compensated while he died a slow and agonising death like mesothelioma? One can only hope that he has to suffer heaps before he finally pushes off! Probably won’t though! Those type keep on keeping on. No justice at all!

“…As John Hewson put it so aptly this morning in an interview, there are some politicians who prefer being in Opposition…”

Well you’d know, John.

Andrew Robb…new leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

Come on down.

“As extreme weather affects more of the western developed economies the re-insurance industry will continue to ramp up the compulsory costs of insurance for any industry sector not seen to be mitigating climate change. At some point whole sectors or even countries’ balance sheet will be pushed off their insurance profile for just being hostile to long term financial health.

Australia is surely rushing into that scenario and Malcolm Turnbull for one would be smart enough after HIH to know how disruptive that would be for big business behind the Liberal Party or Lablibs for that matter. Neither can afford that to happen in their career span.

So it’s not just the Sarkozy threat of carbon tariffs on foreign (to EU buyer) products and services originating beyond their (my term) ‘credible climate mitigation programme’ (ccmp), but also the global re-insurance industry setting those sectors ‘[rogue] legally adrift so that they can’t get OH&S or public liability or fire or any insurance whatsover. In other words send them into the liability wilderness just like the HIH fiasco did to numerous small business, builders [through no fault of their own].

Sure China or India etc may buy ‘black’ [rogue] coal outside a ccmp, even more so if they buy up the [means of] production here, but who will provide the insurance to operate such a plant? My guess even if China or India buy the local resource with FIRB approval, unless the Australian Govt abdicates sovereignty of select economic geographical zones (and thus application of domestic labour and safety laws), not even a foreign owner will be able to operate WITHOUT INSURANCE.

Indeed nothing happens in business without insurance, not even King coal power stations. Just ask Esso. [Meaning Longford Vic disaster multi million dollar public liability, workers killed etc].