Fascinating as alpha male v. alpha male struggles are, they're almost completely irrelevant to real progress in 'green issues'. The challenge for Rudd & co. will be remaining credible in the context of our worsening economic, climatic, and militarist woes; ditching the 'growth is good' dogma beloved of corporate looters might be a start. Garrett has blown what little remaining credibility he had with his systematic lies on Green preferences, anybody who thinks Labour will make a difference will find their delusion hard to maintain.

What puzzles me is Rudds passivity. Why for eg isn't he trumpeting the obscene oil extraction laws being railroaded thru in Iraq by USs current puppet? Sure Rudd isn't mad enough to try and stop the feeding frenzy, but he could surely use it to tactical advantage against John tax-deductible-terror Howard.

Natasha may not be in a green network, it seems, so she may be out of touch. As I wrote in a previous post, all environmentalists I know are increasingly disillusioned with Peter Garrett, who is now only taking a stand on issues allowed by the ALP heavies, while he throws to the wind more important environmental issues, like coal mining and its impacts, or logging, which are taboo for his political masters. His credibility is rapidly depleting. A shame to see Garrett morph into a political poodle, especially when he allows himself to be wheeled in to oppose environmental groups or the Greens party, which are seen as a small threat to the ALP. I wonder what he thinks these days when he looks in the mirror.

It appears to me that Rudd is Beazley is disguise

I think that environmental issues, especially as played out in Tasmania, will be one of the real tests for Labor at the next election. Labor is not a party with a coherent position on an issue, but rather, is a party that has decided to forge policy by backing 'causes' and movements (also known as jumping on the bandwagon).

Of course, sometimes causes conflict with each other (e.g. the environmental movement in Tasmania v. the Forestry union). Where does Labor go on an issue where they allegedly represent both sides of the debate? Labor is notoriously bad at choosing sides, as evidenced in a number of past elections.

Uranium is also another very sensitive issue for Labor.

Howard is going to exploit these tensions to full effect. While Rudd is a media tart, it doesn't really matter whether you can perform well in the media, but rather, whether the media asks the correct questions. If the media grows tired of Rudd, he won't stand a chance.

If nothing else, this will be one of the most interesting elections since Keating v Hewson.

I find the enviroment debate amusing on one side we have the greenies who say no to everything.
There was peter garrett as what has been said the traiter to himself and the cause

the liberal and labor parties brown nosing but really they still fight argue and get less done.

Now i know that a balance is required between enviroment and economy and since that nobody has yet worked that out it seems.

I must be a rocket scientist.

Its easy and should have been done long ago.
Global worming, climate change well it has been comming for the last 10 thousand years and climate change well we do have autumn, summer,winter,sring.

If the other counties of the world keep polluting at an increasing rate then our greenies should complain at the.
And another thing re rudd he has already done a flip flop on Industrial Relations so what is next.

Labor in shift on IR laws
Patricia Karvelas
January 10, 2007
LABOR would retain controversial Howard government laws allowing the nation's 800,000 contractors to set their own deals with employers in a new push to recast itself as a friend of the aspirational class.
The Opposition, which just weeks ago voted against the legislation, yesterday backed the intention of the laws to allow genuine independent contractors the flexibility to arrive at their own work arrangements.
But Labor independent contractors spokesman Craig Emerson foreshadowed possible toughening of the laws to prevent "sham contractor arrangements" being forced on workers by unscrupulous bosses

“Everybody wants to be green in the new political environment”

Whaaht?

Comeon! There might be a bit on an increased tendency to want to be seen to be a bit green, in keeping with some level of concern about climate change and perhaps few other issues here and there. But that’s about the end of it.

I suppose I need to define true greenness: espousing genuine sustainability and striving as hard as possible to get the powers that be to take it up. It’s as basic as that…. An NO ONE in our political arena comes within a bull’s roar of it!

Every sod is still worshipping the absurd continuous growth paradigm, that is leading directly to constant and unending increases in greenhouse gas emissions despite possibly some per-capita reductions, increases in water-consumption despite more restrictions on personal use, and increases in pressure on our resource base and environment in general, in a time when we need to be steadily decreasing those pressures or at the very least, stabilising them.

Not even Bob brown embraces true sustainability. He never has. Neither does Peter Garrett and he never has, not even when he was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

I’ll say it again; NO ONE in our political arena comes anywhere near addressing true sustainability, as espoused by Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and a very small number of other well-known true environmentalists.

So, what this article is really about is an increased tendency for politicians to be a very pale shade of green by getting involved in what amounts to little side issues, while allowing the steamroller of antisustainability and antigreenness to just continue right on rolling.