.........KYOTO was intended to start to a process of reform that will hopefully be beneficial, as it is intended.
............ Goals are often set too high as a general rule.... even if they are initially short sighted or in this case very selective or limited in what they can or will achieve.........All IDEAS or GOALS start somewhere......... I see Kyoto as a stepping stone to greener pastures.
And before I drag this more OT, do you honestly believe Australia's action towards Kyoto would be significantly different, under a different Government?!?!.......
Of course governments are self serving, and the Senate is designed to ensure the Government legislates from the centre of politics. So our day to day existence does not change between different leaders. However if you think different leaders don't influence the direction of government within its framwork I request you highlight my errors or delve a little deeper into the political scene. Have a look at the massively deep shit the Americans are in with their unfunded pension scheme, or the amount the British pay into their National Pension Plan, and then compare that with the Superannuation that Keating introduced, and include in that Howards Future Fund to meet the Australian Governments unfunded superannuation responsibilities. The Future Fund took several years to get to its $55billion, I don't believe Rudd would have put aside the $10-$15bill each year that Howard/Costello did. Beazley fought it, Crean fought it, Latham fought it, they wanted the money returned or spent. Leaders (good leaders) have direction, an ideology, a modus operandi and they achieve change for the good of the people, not at the will of the people. Compare the first term of Menzies to Curtin and you'll see the difference a pair of balls can make. Menzies was much better the second time around, but the first time he was a pro-British lackey, not an Australian Prime Minister.
As for Kyoto, I agree with your sentiments, but in this case I stand by what I said. Kyoto was an voluntary undertaking which we and America ignored since China and India weren't involved. We then ratified Kyoto, America didn't. We made an undertaking to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emmission, America didn't, yet they have begun implementing an Emissions Trading Scheme and we have not. The difference???? They're deeper in the shit financially than we are, but their ETS Bill is in the Senate, having already been debated and passed by Congress, ours is still being drafted and is yet to be debated in the House of Reps. Rudd has all the authority he will ever have right now, he's soaring in the opinion polls, we never turf out first term governmnets so he's still got another term, so after rushing out to ratify Kyoto what is he waiting for? Courage of Convictions or political Chameleon chasing the popular consensus? Would Australia's response have been different with Howard still in Office. Yep, he wouldn't have ratified Kyoto and there be no discussion of an ETS in the media, it just wouldn't be on the cards at all. The difference is we knew that, and Rudd campaigned on the back of environmental reform that he isn't delivering. With Howard we'd probably still have a few soldiers stationed in Iraq, there'd be a bit less stimulus being bandied about, but day to day it would be about the same. People have this impression that governments affect your day to day life, and get upset when this leader is just like the last one because I still just scrape by and live pay to pay. Government is long term, they effect how much money you save or spend, when you can retire, how much a new car will cost, whether you can smoke in that car. The price of fuel and the cost of lettuce, house prices, are dictated by the market, all the Government can do is pound it's chest and grandstand on the issue, which only dissappoints people who thought real change was going to occur.
Nizai, my apologies. That was a bad day and you certainly didn't deserve to wear it. 5.7% is a vast majority getting a pay cheque, but a progessive tax system means the burden is carried by a few not the many. Whether or not that is "fair" is something that will be debated "til eternity" and it's a battle ground drawn over political beliefs, not economic theory.
Johnny, someone has to keep the peace, big man or small man with a big stick.