Right now Rudd has problems, he just maybe will not put the ETS to a vote.
Conservatives want nothing to do with it.
Labor voters and swingers are now unsure.
But Bob Brown is pushing for a much more intrusive scheme, one come be honest, few outside his party would support.
He clearly has a p-plan, to increase his party's vote in the upper house.
Can he do that pushing something the electorate is not buying?
I think we should have an ETS, that we in time will have.
That time could be now, with conservatives crossing the floor they did and will again, this radical in conservation clothing holds they key.
He may well be damaging his party in my view is.
What do others think?
And can greens tell me how they get their wish list filled without compromise? ever.

As far as the other parties go, we just have to compare their definition of 'sustainable':

-Two parties are primarily pushing for an ETS as far as environmental efforts go- a scheme that only interferes with market forces that simply slugs consumers of energy for more money based on what energy they use- regardless of how much or little- all for the (supposed) hypothetical assumption that people will- um 'improve their energy consumption'- which seems to now be at the minimum people are willing to compromise and aren't actually given much access to alternative energy sources; and both parties seem very enthusiastic about compensating polluting industries very handsomely- ensuring that THEY at least are 'sustained' throughout this period.

-The other party primarily advocates investment in and promotion of green power- which actually provides an alternative energy for consumers to rely on- and seem to oppose any deal that mainly exists to financially support the coal and oil industries.

Again- it comes down to what is supposed to be 'sustained'.

Belly, I’m not convinced of the need for a political entity such as the Greens. Like many minor parties they become the whores of politics. There destiny is compromise because they lack the numbers to implement their own manifesto. As a consequence, they always end up tainting policy from the other two parties.

Sustainable? Well I guess there will always be some appeal to those of us that feel conservation and the environment are important, a view I suspect most voters would subscribe to. Therefore we can suggest that the Greens are sustainable only as a minority party.

I also think that if the main parties had better “green” credentials, we might see a decline in support for the Greens Party. That is difficult however; because the mainstream parties are unlikely to offer radical enough policy to appeal to the radicalized, political fringe dwellers that chase the green votes to promote their own agenda’s.

I think this leaves the Greens between a rock and a hard place and the rest of us with compromised policy. The ETS looks like being yet another example of this

Labour has put the ETS to the vote, 3 times in fact so it is a double dissolution trigger. The outcome from putting it to the vote again seems entirely predictable - it will be struck down again. Everyone knows this, thus they know there is absolutely no reason to put the ETS to a vote again this term if the goal it to implement it.

The only reason to put the ETS to a vote again is to change the policy labour takes to the election. It appears they do want to do that. It was the product of long negotiations with the Libs, and as a consequence is a far smaller target for the Libs to hit in an election campaign.

In other words, whether they put the ETS to a vote or not has nothing to do with getting it implemented. It just a case of getting the paper work done for the next the election, nothing more.

>>Belly, I’m not convinced of the need for a political entity such as the Greens. Like many minor parties they become the whores of politics. There destiny is compromise because they lack the numbers to implement their own manifesto. As a consequence, they always end up tainting policy from the other two parties.<<

I disagree with this, Spindoc. Compromise does not have to mean you are a whore. If it's a way of getting a balanced bit of socialism and individualism into the societal mix, good outcome I say. I'd rather have that than two monoliths that are so set in their ways they never compromise. To the ordinary person, the shades of grey are just as important as the pure black and white.

On whether they are sustainable as a party, the Greens are essentially a single-issue party with lots of socialist policies thrown in. They will never rule in their own right and they and everyone else know it. They are just the counterlever to the equal and opposite on the Right. But, if they do get the balance of power, they will be in a position to broker deals.

I do like the fact that Bob Brown throws caution to the wind and says things that a lot of people agree with but do not have the cojones to say themselves. If that's all he does, then that is still a good achievement as it will make things easier for others to follow.

I don't know about you SpinDoc but I imagine the Greens' recent advertisements opposing unpopular policies like the Iraq War, NSW Power sell-offs, refugee policies and the pollie pay-rises would if anything help their popularity and show themselves as being beyond a single-issue environmentalist party filled with pinkos.

I imagine the more they lay out their other policies (the ones listed in detail on their website) in their adverts and continue to fill in the former Democrats role of "keeping the bastards honest" their popularity would continue to climb.