The theory of a D D is just that; a fun theory. No sane person would want the job.

The planet is fu*ked. Mankind has proved to be clever with so many things. But never when he/she came to limiting our own re-productivity. I’m wondering if, in order to facilitate our reproduction, we were born with some fatal gene which short-circuited our logic about breeding. Logic dictates that we should learn what happens with other species when they over-breed; they run out of food.

So how did humans cope when faced with this logic? We invented a God whose sole purpose was to tell us it was wrong to exercise birth-control.

When our genes say multiply, our much vaunted brains are stonkered. So here we are, just like any other living thing; only as good as our hormones.

Who dreamed up the words global warming? They did humanity no good at all. Over re-production is a much more honest concept. (Too many people = global disaster, aka Global Warming).

Have a wonderful Christmas everyone. And keep up the good work!

Ah but Possum what about a concerted campaign to knock over vulnerable ALP candidates like Lindsay Tanner in the lower house?

All good and well, but that’s a primary vote issue, not preferences. In a hand full of seats, if the economy holds up, the anger about the ETS remains and the ALP doesnt do anything much on the MRET front and carbon abatement investment front than maybe the Greens are in with a chance. But the other 147 seats in the country, I’ll chew off my right arm if the Coalition picks up extra Greens preferences over this – that would require Green voters to ultimately vote for the environmental policy farthest from the Greens policy.

Thanks for calling me a ncie bloke!

Anytime!

feral sparrowhawk went:

I think you’ve underestimated the capacity to get Xenaphon to support a higher target

Xenophon was the hardest to draw because of his small vote history and not being a party means polling data is scarce. His curve might need to be shifted to the right by 5% or so.

Labor Outsider went:

...couldn’t the ALP also have introduced legislation for a tougher target, had it knocked back, and used it as an opportunity for a double dissolution?

Think of the risk of a DD in an economy not doing crash hot, where the ALP’s key platform in the election is effectively one of trying to increase the cost of living.

Ouch.

On your a,b and c – it’s probably a good bit of all 3 plus a 4th: Going into Copenhagen with an appropriately low ambit claim to open negotiations with.

Do you think this might be what sparks a few ‘Rudd Haters’ into life?

I think they’re already out there – just check out the comments on any News Ltd article!

daiskmeliadorn went:

If Labor aimed for something stronger, and it was rejected by the Senate, those people would be angry with either/both of the Coalition and the independents; Labor could surely then try again with something weaker.

They could, but Fielding and the Greens arent ever going to find common ground – Fielding will always find an excuse. So after the ALP goes for 15%+ with an inviable coalition in the Senate, by the time they get to horsetrading a 5% figure with the COalition, the economy might not be in particularly good shape, so the Coalition would be banging on about how the country is lucky to have the Coalition making decisions or we’d all be rooned as Rudd wanted to reduce everyone’s disposable income in an economic downturn!

The end result would still be a 5% target – but the ALP would have been damaged. So if the likely outcome is 5% – why not approach the Coalition first and get a political win rather than approach them second and get a political loss?

The Senate is the reality for every piece of legislation at the moment.

i’ve just passed thru and seen your analysis shown from th charts , and I’m alittle surprised you didn’t state th logical “politcal” conclusion from them

Its been mine contention stated on billbowe yesterday that politcaly Rudd should not hav declared yesterday any 5% fixed target at all and so no ETS starting in July 2010 (GFC oor Coppenhaggen whatever reason) Result would hav been no politcal backlash yesterday at all , and no future inevitable polls pain Th dreamers then would hav been silenced

“”politicaly” , all Rudd could hav done yesterday is say Govt prefered targey is 15% , going to Coppenhaggen to lobby for that , and whatever Cppenhaggen decides we will implement…and then later do so WITH an ETS THEN legislated for , under threat of DD to Libs and Greens

Only benefit of th announcement of 5% seems to be to get Libs Senate suport to pass th Bill to allow an ETS to start earlier (July 2010) , rather than th above alternative (July 2011) Whilst there is an econamic benefit to ‘oz’ in starting ETS in 2010 , th politcal cost seems out of proportion to reality