The pressure will now be on Abbott rather than Rudd.

When Parliament resumes it will be post-Copenhagen and the debate will have advanced considerably in the meantime.

We will see how other countries have lined up and know what their intentions are and I doubt that any other countries will be breaking ranks and declaring it all to be some elaborate hoax.

I saw Joyce on Lateline tonight at a bit of a loss to explain where he stands.

On one hand he admitted that human activity has contributed to climate change so he can't declare himself a total sceptic.

On the other hand he has been escorting a sceptic around to address voters at various venues to talk the whole concept down.

Then he couldn't explain away the international carbon tariffs that would be raised against us if we fail to meet America's guidelines in 2018.

Hypocritical, opportunistic or what?

The Opposition is trying have it both ways by cashing in on peoples fears and creating uncertainty but won't offer any real alternative.

Meanwhile Rudd will still have his trigger for whenever the timing suits. The total denialists are still a small (if not noisy) minority.

I suspect it will be Abbott squirming for a way out in a few months, not Rudd.

The use of the term "Denialists" is both just plain wrong & deceitful. There isn't anyone who doesn't concede that man's activities do have an impact on climate. What many, including myself do not accept is that the ETS is doing anything to improve the environment. That is not a denial. It's a cold hard fact.
Going around apologizing for things this generation is not responsible for & making the common man pay so that totally unnecessary/frivolous industries can flourish might Kevin's idea of proactive. Trouble is that its all without substance. Did the apology solve problems ? No ! Would the ETS solve tomorrows problems N0 ! Those who attack the sober thinkers as having no prove have no prove themselves.
If we truly want to be proactive towards a better climate than cut back on motor sport, on air conditioning, on big cars, on unnecessary travel, get rid of the cotton industry, get rid chemical spraying etc etc. If Kevin focuses on this reality he'll have my support but he's not gonna get it with his present antics which sadly only appeal to the indoctrinated in our midst.

Rache,

Yes i saw good old boy Barnaby last night too. He really is a clown, i wonder when he gets up in the morning if he takes an hour to decide if its going to be tea or coffee!

The problem is that while ever the likes of sycophantic journalists such as Alan Jones interview people like Joyce, the public gets little opportunity to see how incompetent they really are...when challenged by a "real" journalist such as Tony Jones they clearly have neither the wit nor the intellect to debate the world's most important issue.

Oh of course, I forgot, the ABC is totally biased compared to fair and even handed Alan and dares to attempt to get a meaningful response that actually might give the viewer an insight into the interviewee's motives.

Tony Abbott's real victory over Kevvy hasn't sunk in yet.

Here is a question I'd like someone to answer, without the usual rancor.

What does Kevin Rudd say at Copenhagen as the leader of a country whose democratic institutions have rejected imposition of a carbon emissions trading scheme and which are likely to reject a carbon tax?

On climate change Rudd is a lame duck and anything he says at Copenhagen that contradicts the stance of the elected Australian representatives will leave him open to ridicule.

Kevvy's best option is to avoid going to Copenhagen. His signature on the Koyoto farce is looking very very silly. Just like Obama, Rudd cannot commit the country he leads to any sort of emissions reduction target.

Gillard's re-introduction of the ETS today isn't designed to do anything other than to give Kevvy the opportunity in Copenhagen to say Australia has an ETS before it's houses of Parliament. That is merely more smoke and mirrors and about typifies both Rudd and the farce represented by the UN controlled bodies set up to administer climate change and environment policy.

Examinator,
If you are so keen on 'democracy' I wonder why you did not comment on true democracy at work, in the article on the Citizens Initiated Refenda outcome in Switzerland.

If you really want democracy, then you should support CIR as a means of overturning government policy which conflicts with what the people want or where politicians do not fullfill their electoral undertakings.

You acheive nothing by simply carping about lack of democracy.

keith,
Although you seem to think that international embarrassment is a good thing, I think the real questions should be posed closer to home.

How does Tony propose to make significant economic structural changes at no cost to anybody?

Given that a flat Carbon Tax was rejected by all because the entire cost would have been passed onto the consumer and that both parties agreed and campaigned on an ETS, what is his shiney new preferred option and how much will it cost?

Who is going to pay for his nuclear reactors and where will they be built? How much more will electricity cost to recoup their initial cost?

Since electricity generation actually represents a small amount of our total carbon output, what is he going to do to fix the rest?

Petrol rationing maybe? Send the remainder of our manufacturing off-shore?

Is this a "never ever" Liberal statement or just political expediency?

Never mind Rudd - the ball's in Abbott's court now. Time to "put up" I think.