NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm loving this. Not really, of course, but on a purely intellectual level it delivers a lot of fun, and will for some time.

Australia's PM, Kevin Rudd (a media-savvy, popular type who ran a campaign involving lots of facebook and "Kevin '07" T-Shirts), was elected partly because he condemned John Howard's policy of "climate change doesn't exist and I'm not doing anything about it" and said he's sign Kyoto and do something.

Now the wheels have been set in motion and something will be done over this next turn. A great summary of what is going on right now is provided by the ever-knowledgable Alan Kohler:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Garnaut-the-beadle-and-the-dietary-GASH5?OpenDocument
Garnaut: the beadle and the dietary

Professor Ross Garnaut’s draft report has certainly achieved one of its aims – it has scared the crap out of everybody – but perhaps not in the way intended.

So this will be the big test for Rudd's term: is this going to happen? Will he actually make people pay more for petrol, electricity and pretty much everything else? Will he make sure there aren't as many permits as are needed, but only as many permits as there must be?

And in a larger frame: can politicians actually do the things that justify their ability to use violence and act on our behalf? I'll keep you updated on this example as things come to hand, because it's an awesome test case, but what do you reckon? The world is now filled with politicians who proclaim they'll do something - but do you think they will? And do you think they'll do it right?

Most pollies will do something it may not be of anything of value, but they will do something. Signing the Kyoto Protocol was one of these things that won't actually change anything, especially as it allows other countries to increase their emissions which are larger than ours, the sad thing is that people didn't relise that Australia while Howard was around was actively seeking to cut emissions anyway with legislation being implemented so when the end of Kyoto comes around Rudd will take the credit for reaching the targets set despite the fact that we would reach them anyway.

Now it seems that Rudd will wait and see what his political future will be if he decides to implement a ETS or as Kohler said a EPS which is all it has really been, but hey people aren't smart enough to be able to know the difference and many will want it in until they notice that they are paying a lot more for things and the problem is going away. If the majority of people seem to like paying more for fuel, electricity as well as every other good as all companies will pass the price on to the consumer, which is already happening for those companies that are 'going green' but the government isn't receiving this money and so can not bribe the public in the form of tax cuts and/or rebates. So if the scheme will please voters or at least not displease as many so Rudd can remain in power he will do so, after all he is a tabloid politician, if not then he may leave out a few things such as petrol to try and keep people happy.

All politicians will try to justify their actions most of what they do is never right and mainly just something small which won't actually fix the problem but it makes the dumb masses think that the politicians are doing something. Yes it will be interesting to watch hopefully I will be out of the country by the time it comes into effect.

Politics isn’t about actually doing something. If the politicians quietly do something without alerting the public it is considered they have done nothing. Fixing a disaster is alot better for a politician than quietly preventing it within the political world. Because if the disaster never occurred you did nothing. If you fix the disaster and blame it on another government/group you have done a great thing in the eyes of the public

As such alot the climate change debate in politics isn’t about actually doing something significant. It is about acting like you are doing something significant without actually effecting people’s life styles. Because if someone can’t do what they use to they blame the politicians

Be prepared for a lot more posturing with symbolic gestures left right and centre. That is the true way a politician combats climate change.

Politics isn’t about actually doing something.
It's easy to say cynical things about this, but there are a few basic truths here:

1. CO2 emissions apparently contribute to climate change, which has negative effects on Australia.
2. There is a case of market failure with regards to this, and without interference too much will be emitted.
3. Government exists, in the broadest sense, to clean up or prevent market failures by allowing something that approaches collective action.

In short: this here is a prime example of the very reason we bother with government in the first place. When I question why we should pay taxes, people tell me that government allows collective action in such a way as to benefit me and which I could not have done by keeping that tax money to myself.

So to me it looks as though a failure to do this properly is rather more than just politicians being their usual selves.

I'd rather see them do something, even if it's the wrong thing, then nothing.

Rudd, as with his bourgeois masters, wants the working class to pay for the ecological disaster created by capitalist anarchy and overproduction, so this is nothing new, he will make sure the dirty emitting private companies are well compensated for the economic decay to come while working people take it like a smack in the mouth.

Rudd wants the rich to pay
He is very classist. But when it comes down to the vote rich people are outnumbered so he will be reelected. Sadly tho he is just punishing success. If he starts taking too much from the rich they will just move country. He should consider the long term. But that isnt politics

Rudd, as with his bourgeois masters, wants the working class to pay for the ecological disaster created by capitalist anarchy and overproduction, so this is nothing new, he will make sure the dirty emitting private companies are well compensated for the economic decay to come while working people take it like a smack in the mouth.

Yeah, bring back good old socialist underproduction........

"Hey the chocolate ration has been increased from 20 grams to 25 grams"
"Thats funny I could have sworn the ration was 50 grams last week"

And as for dirty emitting capitalist companies..... I bet you're glad you never lived in polish/soviet industrial cities..... where the air was yellow, the water blue and life expectancy was 50-55 yrs

Yeah, bring back good old socialist underproduction........

"Hey the chocolate ration has been increased from 20 grams to 25 grams"
"Thats funny I could have sworn the ration was 50 grams last week"

And as for dirty emitting capitalist companies..... I bet you're glad you never lived in polish/soviet industrial cities..... where the air was yellow, the water blue and life expectancy was 50-55 yrs

Have you any more cheap lies to spew?

I'd rather see them do something, even if it's the wrong thing, then nothing.
How does that make sense? If they do the wrong thing, that's worse than doing nothing.

Rudd, as with his bourgeois masters, wants the working class to pay for the ecological disaster created by capitalist anarchy and overproduction, so this is nothing new, he will make sure the dirty emitting private companies are well compensated for the economic decay to come while working people take it like a smack in the mouth.

Holy Smoke Batman do I have some thoughts along the same lines as our vodka swilling friend here? Yes it would seem so, while I wouldn't refer to bourgeois masters I would have be saying that Rudd will be getting us to pay for it, and since many companies will be increasing their prices and Rudd won't be getting all of this he can't give us the money back in the form of tax breaks which may prove his undoing.

Didn't you vote for Labor AP?

Holy Smoke Batman do I have some thoughts along the same lines as our vodka swilling friend here? Yes it would seem so, while I wouldn't refer to bourgeois masters I would have be saying that Rudd will be getting us to pay for it, and since many companies will be increasing their prices and Rudd won't be getting all of this he can't give us the money back in the form of tax breaks which may prove his undoing.

Didn't you vote for Labor AP?

Well I voted because voting is compulsory, and I voted Labor (although I put socialist alliance and greens first) because of no better options.

How does that make sense? If they do the wrong thing, that's worse than doing nothing.

Here we see what I am talking about pollies do at least something so it looks like to the general public such as Xomic, who then say to themselves well yes they are doing something, in reality it may be a stupid idea and something not worthwhile but there will be voters who will think that this is going to do something and fix the problem so they will vote for them. Pollies know this and so do any old thing that comes to mind regardless of if it will work or not.

Well I voted because voting is compulsory, and I voted Labor (although I put socialist alliance and greens first) because of no better options.

You could have wrecked your vote. Voting is not compulsory, showing up to a booth and getting your name marked off is.

yeah the AEC has a roll where you get fined it you dont get your name marked off it
As soon as thats the case you can use your voting paper to wipe your ass if you wish

It's easy to say cynical things about this, but there are a few basic truths here:

1. CO2 emissions apparently contribute to climate change, which has negative effects on Australia.
2. There is a case of market failure with regards to this, and without interference too much will be emitted.
3. Government exists, in the broadest sense, to clean up or prevent market failures by allowing something that approaches collective action.


I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say that.

I was also rather surprised by the Garnaut report, so I agree that seeing where it leads will be interesting. Rudd has promised much, but will he risk pissing everyone off to do the right thing? I would have great respect for him if he jeapordised his own re-election hopes by taking actual action.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say that.
It's the theory. I'm not an anarchist, that's the basic pretext for any minarchist government.

The question is whether it's the reality. We already know that state governments are willing to undermine the scheme in order to make sure their state-owned power companies aren't hit where it hurts. And since we'll see an ongoing hard-hitting campaign by the Liberals against the scheme (given that Australians are now starting to realise what it'll mean for them personally), I'm not sure whether Rudd will go through with it. I'm not sure any politician would.

Rudd has promised much, but will he risk pissing everyone off to do the right thing? I would have great respect for him if he jeapordised his own re-election hopes by taking actual action.

It would be very unlike Rudd if he does (he also saw what happened to Howard), unless the mood swings in that favour then he wont have to worry because then people will like it put if he sees that he may lose the next election he may only put in a token gesture (only a few recommendations) in his attempt to make everyone like him.

Oh I'm sure there will be a lot of bullshiting and scams. As extreme events from AGW continue to build the damage costs, more will get done.

The public will have little or no impact on preventing climate change if big business does not act. And they will do absolutely nothing unless the public puts the pressure on them, even then, they'll still try to sneak around it all in the name of profit.

In short, we're basically screwed anyway, so we might as well enjoy it while we've got it.

The public will have little or no impact on preventing climate change if big business does not act. And they will do absolutely nothing unless the public puts the pressure on them, even then, they'll still try to sneak around it all in the name of profit.
The problem here in Oz is this though: we've had years of booming real estate markets pumping up the economy. That is now coming to an end, but a mining boom is taking its place. China is buying everything we can dig out of the ground, the Aussie dollar is reaching new heights and the terms of trade are rapidly improving.

But since the economy has been growing strongly for more than a decade now, capacity constraints have hit hard. There are labour shortages, particularly for anyone with a skill, and inflation has been steadily increasing. Petrol and food are the biggest problem items, and families have started to really feel it. And since the inflation required the reserve bank to raise interest rates, and due to the real estate boom everyone has huge mortgages, everyone has been screaming for the government to help.

Introducing a scheme like this would do precisely the opposite: it would push petrol prices up further, really increase power prices and add some to basically everything we buy. And that's not in nominal terms, but in real ones, because our wages won't rise because the scheme is introduced. Of course big business isn't happy when it has to face additional costs, but if they know that everyone is facing a similar increase, they will be able to pass some significant proportion on to consumers.

It's not so much a matter of big business standing against it (the biggest nay-sayers are exporters who are afraid that their foreign competitors don't have to deal with the same scheme and state-owned power companies) as it is a question of whether or not the electorate is ready to do this. And more immediately, it's a question of the government risking offending voters and severely hurting its chances at being elected for some years to come.

I have been saying this since Rudd started making ridiculously impractical election promises: He has no practical grasp on the situation. Labor does not think of long term, and it is proven in their history. The only reason that people voted out Howard is because news.com.au decided to throw all their incredibly biased articles against him. Unfortunately, the average voter is too stupid to see that.