I'm curious as to why Rudd has blinked on this one, and not jumped for a double-dissolution election while the Liberals are paralysed by internal ructions.

After all, wasn't it absolutely, positively, unarguably vital that the legislation be passed before the Carbonhagen conference?

One wonders what Labor's internal polling is telling them?

Is Rudd quietly hoping the climategate scandal will die off over the silly season? Reading Australia's media, you wouldn't think it had even happened, although it's gradually snowballing in the US and particularly in Britain, no matter how determinedly the mainstream media have been chanting "la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!" Sadly, Australia's media are still hiding under the blankets, hoping the climategate bogey will go away.

Formersnag,

Ah yes, but how did they lose government?
IR and climate change inaction i.e. ETS inaction.
FYI, I am against the current political party system. One that views members personal election first, then party and survival, all before public interest

Abbott spent 20 years creating an ideological image, then on election to Party head expect us to believe that he isn't that at all. One or the other it true, not both. Either way he's a liar, an opportunist of dubious conviction, as proven by the other.
Aristotle said in part " we are what we do repeatedly do"

Poirot
Too true.
MM supported, core and non core promises, manipulation in leu of public choice (i.e.the plebiscite), and pure political opportunism calling the 1st unhung senate in 30 years a mandate.
I agree with you, the end doesn't justify the means.

Everyone.

We don't need another blatant political opportunist, but a set of politicians who put public interest first.

Where is the democracy in a choice between two equally dubious sets of policy choices, that we the public didn't/can't have final input in, at the ballot box?

i.e. Hand's up Australia, who thinks The *excesses* of big corps shouldn't be curtailed?
or Who thinks that the financial industry shouldn't be more tightly controlled to prevent another GFC?
or Who thinks that the big polluters should change rather that get massive exemptions?
Or who thinks we the average person doesn't get screwed by the above and would like it to change?

Where is democracy where we have no say over 'our' leader, given that that leader may undo the policies we voted the government in for?

Where is the democracy in an unelected leader of the losers of both the above democratic choices, can veto the decision of the majority?

The contradictions in democracy inherent in this system that encourages all that we dislike about politics.

I think Ludwig, is going to be disappointed, Abbott is there by the manipulation of group who don't think that population (people) are a major causal factor to the world's problems.

Linguist, I can see why there is soem confuciton. I probably should have modified the points and quote to make it clearer.

Examinator.

That is a great site you refer to in your post. I have bookmarked it as a source of science info. Thanks.

In regard to your comments about the article, my central point is we can now have a real debate about addressing greenhouse emmissions with all the strengths and weaknesses of all policy ideas for the environment put forward.

Yes, I agree. Abbott will have to do much more than offer a campaign of smoke and mirrors. We shall see, but I am hopeful.

For Linguist, First sentence from previous post should have read 'I can see why there is some confusion'. I probably should have modified the points and quote to make it clearer.

The problem with the ETS is that hardly anyone understands it. A half-decent journalist would be grilling Rudd in much the same way they grilled Hewson about the effect of the GST. Indeed, does anyone know what the ETS will do to the cost of a birthday cake?

Abbott's strategy should be to focus not on climate change itself but whether the ETS is the best solution. If he can do that, Rudd will be in trouble and quickly. Abbott's problem is that the hardline sceptics in his party will probably feel emboldened to focus even more on whether the climate is changing. That is, take the debate away from where Abbott can win it.

I have yet to hear anyone present a case against a carbon tax, other than it would be a difficult political task to sell it. But, as an economist, I can see it has a lot of advantages over an ETS. Including that it is far more likely to achieve the intended goal of reducing emissions!

“The problem with the ETS is that hardly anyone understands it. A half-decent journalist would be grilling Rudd in much the same way they grilled Hewson about the effect of the GST”

Absolutely right Huonian. The lack of grilling of neither Rudd nor Turnbull or Abbott has been the most incredible omission throughout the Libs leadership debacle and indeed throughout the whole ETS ‘debate’.

Its been like a Clayton’s debate – about the ETS. Well… sort of… with hardly anyone really giving a hoot about the actual veracity of the ETS!