Turbull, targets and trading

Malcolm Turnbull has hotted up his attack on the Rudd-Wong emissions trading scheme this morning, with in an interview on AM.

You see, what Mr Rudd has done and this is a characteristic of the Prime Minister, he has completely lost sight of the real objective.

The objective is to reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions. It is not to have an ETS. The object is to reduce emissions and so he’s has come up with an incredibly cumbersome, economically damaging so we are told by industry, ineffectual so we were told by people concerned about climate, Emissions Trading Scheme which seems to disappoint everybody.

There is almost unanimous criticism of it.

I think Turnbull has really hit the nail on the head here. Rudd’s ETS is not going to do anything for the environment. Therefore, it has already failed to achieve the objective. What then is the purpose of having an ETS at all?

Some would argue that the target can be ramped up after 2020. It would be just as easy to put in another soft target in 2020 and continue to do nothing.

It looks like Big Kev’s trading scheme is simply designed to make it look like he’s taking action on climate change, while he sits back in the Lodge with his team of public servants burning the midnight oil putting together committee reports and creating enough hot air to heat St Petersburg.

Meanwhile, Parliament House is consuming electricity by the bucketload. Maybe the government should lead the way and start to tidy up their own house, so that others may see the benefits of the available technology.

On the other hand, maybe we should just focus on convincing China to cut their emissions. After all, they will probably own most of Australia soon enough.

Mr Howrudd

Still one and a half weeks to go before we usher in a new era of Australian politics. Whichever shade of grey comes out on top of this election, two things are certain:

1. The Australian Democrats are no more.

   I like to attribute this fact mainly to Meg Lees, who sold her soul for the 10% we like to call GST. From what I can see, the GST is basically an excuse to send NSW’s money to the states that are making a mint from the mining boom, aka Queensland and WA. Cheryl Kernot’s defection to Labor in the late 90s didn’t help, nor did the downfall of Natasha’s leadership. All in all, it’s probably best that the Democrats are put to death at this election – it could be embarrasing for one senator to hold onto their seat, only to play a backseat role to the Greens for the next six years.

2. Democracy will be restored to the Australian political system

   No party should ever have control of the senate. That is the beauty of proportional representation – it’s basically impossible to garner the required votes to be able to push through whatever legislation you please. Three years ago, Queenslanders (and, to some extent, Victorians) allowed this to happen, and we have paid dearly for it with all manner of cutbacks on civil rights (disguised as anti-terror legislation), as well as the obvious IR reforms which a large portion of the community seem to be unhappy about. We’re lucky that the Howard government required either Barnaby Joyce or Steve Fielding to pass their legislation, or it could have been a lot worse.
   Please note that Labor control of the senate would probably be just as bad. The senate is there to review government legislation, make amendments as required, and pass bills that benefit the whole of Australia. Giving control to one party is always going to be disastrous, no matter who is wearing the President’s hat.

Meanwhile the main campaign gets more and more boring, as Rudd argues that his $9,999,999 worth of promises are far less inflationary than Howard’s $10,000,000 worth of promises. I say we should surgically splice the two of them together, and then we can all vote for Mr Howrudd, remove any confusion the electorate may have, and go back to watching Dancing With The Stars. Goodnight, Australia.