Kyoto Dreaming

Interesting opinion piece about the Kyoto Protocol by Paul Kelly in today's Australian. His broad political point is one I agree with fully: Howard's stubborn position on Kyoto has damaged him needlessly. When attacked on the matter, Howard likes to remind us that Australia has met the targets Kyoto would've imposed on us. Which is true, and brings us to the question: why, then, can we not ratify it, if only as a symbolic gesture? The idea that ratifying Kyoto would have turned Australia into an economic basket case is patently ridiculous. Our targets under Kyoto were not cumbersome; we have met them anyway; and refusing to ratify the protocol merely makes us look selfish, and provides a sliver of an excuse for the US to go on justifying its own Kyoto-stonewalling.

And domestically, Howard's stance makes no sense whatsoever: it's unpopular, and has allowed Kevin Rudd to paint himself as the climate-change messiah of prime ministerial candidates. Malcolm Turnbull, for one, is said to be furious with Howard's pointless intransigence on the subject, given the delicate environmental sensibilities of the voters in his marginal electorate. Kelly is magnificently clear in pointing out Howard's folly:

Consider Howard's position. Should he ratify a protocol that is vastly popular and whose terms, as they apply to Australia, he is determined to honour and uphold? And his answer: absolutely not.

Typically, Kelly does not let Rudd off lightly, either. Labor's policy on climate change is somewhat amorphous at the moment. Rudd loves the big-picture stuff – sign Kyoto! 60% reduction by 2050! – but is shakier on the finer detail, like interim targets, or the exact form a national emissions trading scheme would take.

And then there's Rudd's claims that he would fully embrace a new protocol that set binding targets for developing countries. Fine, so would we all, but the fact is that the developing world is currently resisting such binding targets, pointing out, with some justification, that it was the Western countries that made the mess in the first place - shouldn't they be responsible for cleaning it up? It's going to take more than Australian acquiescence to shift them on the matter, and meantime Rudd needs a clear policy on how he intends to proceed if binding targets for the developing world continue as a sticking point.

But I still think Kelly is being too hard on Rudd over his answer to the question: "what will signing Kyoto achieve?" Here's Rudd's answer, which Kelly says is "vague and elusive":

it will show we are serious and want to help forge a global solution

So what should Rudd have said? What is the benefit of ratifying Kyoto, Mr Kelly?

Kyoto has a universal standing as a goodwill gesture. It has the perfect image of wanting a better, cleaner world, with its opponents clinging to an older, polluted world. The power of such images cannot be denied.

Showing we want to help forge a global solution versus a goodwill gesture. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

Pulp Mill Polling

The SMH and the Australian have two different takes on the Howard government's fortunes in the polls. The Herald's version is based on its latest Nielsen poll, which shows an "entrenched" lead for Labor in the two-party preferred. Labor's share of the primary vote, however, has dropped two percentage points, although it's still healthy enough at 47% (versus 40% for the Coalition).

The Oz, meanwhile, takes the slightly peculiar tack of headlining internal Liberal polling in Tasmania, which shows the Coalition's figures rising in all but the electorate of Lyons, where the Liberal candidate has been speaking out against the pulp mill. The Australian chose to see the results thus:

Despite widespread opposition to the mill among local residents and businesses in northern Tasmania, the internal Liberal Party polling of 300 voters in Lyons suggests approval for the pulp mill may work in the Coalition's favour. The polling in the days after Mr Quin's public criticism of the mill found the Liberals' primary vote had crashed from 42 per cent at the 2004 election to just 30 per cent, with its two-party-preferred vote slumping from 46 per cent to 35 per cent.

This seems an odd way to spin the Libs' awful poll result in Lyons. Yes, Ben Quin's support fell in the wake of announcing his opposition to the pulp mill, and the Coalition has since approved the mill. But the situation in Lyons is hardly looking up for the Coalition. Quin, apparently a man of some conviction, has quit as the Liberal candidate over his party's support of the mill, and is now considering running as an independent, possibly with the Greens' preferences. The Greens' share of the primary is a not-inconsiderable 11%.

Of course, the seat is currently held by Labor, so it's not like Lyons is a must-win for the Coalition. (Luckily for them.) But nor is it a good example to pick if you're trying to paint a picture of an imminent Coalition resurgence.

Meanwhile, despite the Oz's upbeat headline - "Coalition buoyed by mill" - grave fears for the marginal, Liberal-held seat of Bass are buried deep in the ninth paragraph:

Bass MP Michael Ferguson, who last week expressed fears he could lose the marginal seat over the issue. Polls show he is likely to lose the seat, held by just 2.7 per cent, to Labor's Jodie Campbell.

So, to recap: the polls say Coalition is probably not going to reclaim Lyons, despite approving the pulp mill, and also that it stands to lose Bass, which the candidate says is because of the pulp mill. Nevertheless, the pulp mill "will significantly boost [the Coalition's] chances in the state's key seats".

Enough. The opinion poll thing is getting silly. Please can we have the election already?