Votes, shoots and leaves
The Australian electorate have chosen wisely by not choosing at all.
The delivery of a hung parliament presents, for the first time in living memory, an opportunity to deal with the substantive policy issues that have been ignored in this campaign. This is something the three conservative independents, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, appear ready to seize with some relish.
It is, as Katter described it, an opportunity to deliver a “different paradigm” for Australian policy making. Oakeshott described it as a chance to improve the policy process, and he specifically referred to the tax review, energy policy, and climate change.
Whether the two mainstream political parties are able to rise to the occasion remains to be seen. The early signs are not promising. The ALP and the conservative Coalition – having plunged to the lowest common policy denominator in their anxiety to appeal to the swinging voter – have yet to absorb the implications of being denied a mandate to govern in their own right and still refer obstinately to the “two-party” system.
They speak and act as if the one fifth of the electorate who either voted for someone else, or who didn’t bother voting at all, holds no relevance, or did so because of “cabinet leaks”. The worst outcome is that the two party machines continue in campaign mode until the electorate is forced back to the polls.
They need to note that most of the votes they chased so desperately ended up with the Greens, who picked up a substantial swing of 3.9 per cent. And they need to realise why, which is because both mainstream parties failed to deliver a long term vision or address the difficult long-term policy issues.
Climate change, of course, is one of these. This should not come as a surprise to either party. Howard lost in 2007 because the electorate did not trust him to move on climate change, Rudd triggered his precipitous decline when he backed away from the ETS, and Gillard’s honeymoon came to an abrupt end when she trotted out the idiotic idea of a citizen’s assembly.
The specific results of this election are also instructive. The Greens, with a credible (if difficult to implement) climate change policy, are the only true victors of this campaign. And Labor may well reflect that the one state where it made gains, Victoria, is the one Labor state with a progressive climate policy – one that was quite deliberately released at the height of the federal campaign.
And Labor may also reflect how the high-speed broadband – the one big picture policy it did dare to produce – might have saved its bacon elsewhere in the country and is the most likely issue to deliver the three independents to their side of the house.
Perhaps a link can be drawn here with good corporate governance: those company boards that seek to manage long-term risk issues – such as the oft-derided qualities of corporate and social responsibilities – are the ones that tend to perform better for investors over the long term. It could be that voters are starting to apply the same criteria to their politicians.
So is this election result good for climate change and energy policies? Not if you are anxious for the short-term market signals that could unlock the tens of billions of dollars in energy and other abatements investment. But it is no worse than it otherwise might have been because neither party had a credible climate change policy or seemingly any appetite for developing one – a situation that would remain as long as business remained mute on the issue.
Two of the three conservative independents have thought carefully about climate change (Katter seems to be a bit of a sceptic, but understands enough about the water crisis), and all three are keen supporters of renewable and clean energy. Importantly, though, these three politicians will bring the debate into the public arena, as you can be sure the Greens will also do.
Just a few short observations about the vote itself: The Climate Sceptics Party attracted just over 18,000 votes across the country. If their presence was designed to embarrass the Greens, which by definition must be a climate change acceptor’s party, then they failed. The Greens received 1.26 million votes in the Upper House.
The Greens, as noted before, attracted the biggest swing of 3.9 per cent. This was followed by the Sex Party and the Shooters Party. The electorate has spoken and this might be its plan: tackle climate change, make love and, then shoot the lights out.
Comments on this article
Great Analysis Giles
Please keep up the good work
Tony
Climate Sceptics (not deniers!) have good cause to be sceptical
Well said J Dehani in your two Posts below. It is indeed a pity that those who believe the AGW mantra have not bothered to fully explore the scientific facts regarding the claims that CO2 is a pollutent (NOT!).
Ad hominem attack strategy
Folks,
You may disagree with me on the subject of Climate Change/Global Warming, but it does nothing for your supposed intellectual ability to cast aspersions through childish name calling. With that said...
Yes the oceans have warmed over the past 200 years, in fact the oceans have been gradually warming ever since the end of the last Ice Age (~ 12,000 YB). Of course the warming has not been in a straight line linear fashion as there have been periods of cooling followed by warming then cooling. We all know about the Roman warming period and the Medieval Warming period followed by the Little Ice Age which we are coming out of currently - hence the warming of the oceans.
There is so much fear based emotion encapsulated within the Global Warming debate which seems to limit so many people who otherwise would apply sufficient critical thinking to this subject. I know it is hard to gleam the facts with so much information/dis-information which seeming has caused a cognitive dissonance and this leads to blindly believing myths and such because someone in authority has "told them so".
Do I personally want more CO2 - NO! But I really do not want to turn my pursuit of live, liberty and happiness over to a group of idealistic bureaucrats either.
I don't hate anyone for their beliefs, just don't infringe on mine! Thank you!
The climate deniers are not right
Dear j dehani, here's some good reading for you. Take a look and get back to us. http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/makingupyourmindjuly2010.pdf
Climate sceptics are not right, either.
@ Submitted by j dehani on Mon, 2010-08-23 12:18:
When you state that the oceans are no longer getting warmer, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Why you choose to repeatedly spout nonsense re climate warming I cannot say, but repetition does not make it any more true or less false.
A plain English story of oceanic warming is available here: http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/warming_ocean/welcome.html#interest
The critical thing to note is the graph which shows the increase in heat content of the North Atlantic Ocean over a 40-year period. More detailed accounts of ocean warming are available aplenty. I selected this one in the hope that its straight forward terminology will place it within your intellectual reach.
The Climate Sceptics may be right
Current atmospheric concentration of CO2 of .000038 (.0038%) does not have the physical ability to move the global temperatures within the supposed temperature rise touted by the now discredited IPCC. The oceans make up ~ 70% of the Earth's surface area and comprise more than 100,000 times the heat sink ability than the atmosphere and our oceans are no longer getting warmer.
Maybe the mass hysteria which has caused so many people to panic and be willing to throw themselves lemming like off a cliff when there are many deeply reflective scientific types who are not caving into the fear and panic.
Our climate system is incredibly complex and yes CO2 is a contributor to keeping our Earth warm, but the rise in CO2 is nothing to cause panic.
World renowned scientific leaders including Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg have each come forward with their respective doubts about manmade global warming claims authored by the now discredited consensus of United Nations sponsored climatologists.
I for one do not believe we should institute a carbon tax of any kind at this time as the history of scientific consensus is not one to hang our whole economic future on. Think Galileo?
Tread carefully Dear Australia and refuse to be pulled into a morass of environmental regulations which will change so many things which make our country so special.
Conservative?
I keep hearing these three Independents described as "conservative". In Kerry O'Brien's interview last night it seemed that they each parted company with the National Party with significant acrimony, and still maintains that opinion today. As for current policies, they all sounded pretty progressive to me, and they also indicated their status as Independents means just that: they think for themselves, listen to their electorate and now, the nation as a whole, and then make up their own minds, not tow a party line.
Love the final paragraph.
Love the final paragraph.
History Lesson
Howard wasn't voted out because of his ETS, it was because the electorate wanted change. If the electorate wanted action on Climate Change then you wouldn't have seen a measly 3.9% swing to the Greens - hardly a "mandate" for Climate Change economics. Most of the electorate voted either Liberal or Labor in the full knowledge that neither would introduce an ETS.
The Greens are becoming the 3rd way in Australian politics - just like the Democrats and One Nation before them.
Climate Sceptics Party vs Greens
The differences in the numbers who voted for these respective views on climate change seems to mirror the scientific consensus. Just shows the public and the scientists seem to be reading from the same page, what a pity the pollies aren't.