Australia's got a New Leader

[DBAHO]

I didn't vote for him, so don't blame me;

 

KEVIN Rudd’s Labor has swept aside 11 years of Coalition rule, destroying John Howard’s hopes for a record fifth term and consigning him to a humiliating exit from public life.

 

Voters turned to Mr Rudd’s pitch of fresh leadership and new ideas over Mr Howard’s record of economic management and unprecedented years of growth under his government.

 

"I want to thank all those people in Australia who have placed their trust in me and my team," Mr Rudd told his home crowd in Brisbane just after 11pm last night, claiming victory to thumping applause at Suncorp Stadium.

 

"I say tonight to the nation: 'I will never take their sacred trust for granted'.

 

"I will be a prime minister for all Australians. It's time for a new page to be written in our nation's history."

 

Mr Rudd restated education, health, climate change and water, broadband infrastructure and a fair balance at work as his key tasks.

 

Mr Rudd said he would keep the economy strong but make sure it delivered for working families as well as business. (More Kevin Rudd)

 

By 10.15pm John Howard had called the Labor leader to concede defeat as his own seat of Bennelong remained on a knife-edge.

 

"My fellow Australians, a few moments ago I telephoned Mr Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on an emphatic victory,'' Mr Howard told the crowd of Liberal Party faithful gathered at the Sofitel Wentworth Hotel in central Sydney.

 

Mr Howard said he harboured no ill will to Mr Rudd.

 

"I wish him well in the task that he will undertake," Mr Howard said.

 

"We bequeath to him a nation that is stronger and prouder."

 

The Prime Minister said he took full responsibility for the defeat and admitted he could well lose the seat of Bennelong he has held since first being elected to Parliament in 1974. (More John Howard)

 

Mr Howard would become only the second sitting prime minister in Australian history to lose his seat.

 

As early as 9.05pm last night it looked certain that Labor would win more than the 16 seats it needed to reach office.

 

The historic victory puts Mr Rudd into the company of Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke as Labor's only modern leaders to take Government from Opposition.

 

Polls had consistently put Labor ahead since Mr Rudd took the leadership from Kim Beazley last December. But Mr Howard remained defiant to the end, insisting yesterday he could still retain government.

 

At 9.30pm, Labor's candidate for Bennelong Maxine McKew said it was still not clear whether she would win but it had been an "amazing night".

 

"A wonderful night for Labor, a fabulous, I hope, transforming moment for the country," she said, her husband and former ALP national secretary Bob Hogg beside her.

 

By 9.30pm Greens leader Bob Brown welcomed Mr Rudd as the new prime minister of Australia.

 

"This is a remarkable night for the Australian people," Mr Brown said.

 

The Coalition campaign was dogged in its final days by scandal in the marginal New South Wales seat of Lindsay, with the Prime Minister left haplessly condemning an electoral stunt from his party involving fake Muslim pamphlets.

 

In his last pleas Mr Howard told the people if they changed government they would change the country.

 

Voters seem to have taken him on his word, punishing him at the polls after unpopular reforms including Work Choices and six straight interest rate rises since winning the 2004 election with the promise of keeping them low.

 

What does this mean for the U.S? Well we'll be pulling out of Iraq pretty soon, it's only a matter of when not if, Rudd clearly stated that in the lead up.

 

[KipWellsFan]

This is actually a big story in Canada where John Howard was seen as the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's last ally other than George W. Bush on climate change. No one, and especially a Canadian wants to have George W. Bush as your only ally. This came right at the same time as the Commonwealth countries were trying to come to a consensus on binding emissions cuts for industrialized countries. Normally both Harper and Howard would be opposed to such a track together, but with Howard on his way out Harper was the lone wolf and getting hit pretty hard in the press about it. Canada's Leader of the Opposition hasn't been quite as successful as Kevin Rudd yet, but that Harper seems so out of touch with the consensus hurts him.

 

explained here better than I can

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=121822

[EvilMonkey]

I wonder why the write chose to say it was a "humiliating exit from public life". Politicians lose all the time. It is not like he lost 80% to 20% or something. The voters there were worried about the interest rates and stuff. Just wait until he signs the Kyoto crap and all sorts of things go sky high. You get what you vote for, or don't vote for.

[Heads22]

John Clayton?

[KipWellsFan]

I wonder why the write chose to say it was a "humiliating exit from public life". Politicians lose all the time. It is not like he lost 80% to 20% or something. The voters there were worried about the interest rates and stuff. Just wait until he signs the Kyoto crap and all sorts of things go sky high. You get what you vote for, or don't vote for.

 

Considering my left-of-centreness I kind of thought, well he'd been embarassing himself for quite some time, ie ignoring climate change, fully endorsing war on terror...

 

But from the media angle I think the "humiliating" part comes from the fact that he's the first PM in Australia that's also lost his seat in an election in some 100 years. I still don't think that's something to be particularly ashamed of, but the media's the media.

 

I think Australians were also tired of Howard's following of Bush into Iraq, and his ignorance of climate change.

 

And just signing onto Kyoto, or its future extension, whatever it may be, doesn't have any effects on the economy whatsoever. The actions a government might take to try to achieve Kyoto goals might have a negative effect on the economy. But even then are there actually any examples of a country going into the gutter economically as a result of trying to cut their emissions? I don't think so.

[kapkomet]

Considering my left-of-centreness I kind of thought, well he'd been embarassing himself for quite some time, ie ignoring climate change, fully endorsing war on terror...

 

But from the media angle I think the "humiliating" part comes from the fact that he's the first PM in Australia that's also lost his seat in an election in some 100 years. I still don't think that's something to be particularly ashamed of, but the media's the media.

 

I think Australians were also tired of Howard's following of Bush into Iraq, and his ignorance of climate change.

 

And just signing onto Kyoto, or its future extension, whatever it may be, doesn't have any effects on the economy whatsoever. The actions a government might take to try to achieve Kyoto goals might have a negative effect on the economy. But even then are there actually any examples of a country going into the gutter economically as a result of trying to cut their emissions? I don't think so.

First, have you ever heard of cause and effect?

 

Second, none of the major economic powerhouses (either current or building up to) has signed on Kyoto? Now why is that?

 

(I know, I know, it's pure bunk and stubborn-ness... whatever)...

[Texsox]

Second, none of the major economic powerhouses (either current or building up to) has signed on Kyoto? Now why is that?

 

Because money is everything.

[Rex Kickass]

I wonder why the write chose to say it was a "humiliating exit from public life". Politicians lose all the time. It is not like he lost 80% to 20% or something. The voters there were worried about the interest rates and stuff. Just wait until he signs the Kyoto crap and all sorts of things go sky high. You get what you vote for, or don't vote for.

 

I think its because he didn't just lose the Prime Ministership, but he lost his seat in Parliament. That's what makes it humiliating.

 

Just like when Tom Foley lost the Speakership of the House in 1994.... but not just because he lost the majority, but because he lost his seat in the House as well.

[DBAHO]

First, have you ever heard of cause and effect?

 

Second, none of the major economic powerhouses (either current or building up to) has signed on Kyoto? Now why is that?

 

(I know, I know, it's pure bunk and stubborn-ness... whatever)...

On the 2nd point I think at least now with Australia willing to jump on board, it's going to put a bit more pressure on those nations such as India and China to follow suit.

 

And that's one of the main reasons why Rudd won, climate change. By willing to sign the Kyoto Protocol unlike Howard, it was looked as if he was doing at least "something" about it, unlike Howard who didn't even really want to see targets for the future unless other nations such as above did.

 

But there's no doubt something needs to be done ASAP about this issue.

[Texsox]

And just think as THE Leader of Australia, he's about the 1,348 most powerful person in the world

[EvilMonkey]

On the 2nd point I think at least now with Australia willing to jump on board, it's going to put a bit more pressure on those nations such as India and China to follow suit.

 

And that's one of the main reasons why Rudd won, climate change. By willing to sign the Kyoto Protocol unlike Howard, it was looked as if he was doing at least "something" about it, unlike Howard who didn't even really want to see targets for the future unless other nations such as above did.

 

But there's no doubt something needs to be done ASAP about this issue.

And when they miss the targets, like:

Spain http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp...;story_id=31536

Canada http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10...-pollution.html

JAPAN! http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2196566/...ost-japan-solar

The whole damn EU http://www.terradaily.com/reports/EU_Way_O...st_Figures.html

Will he be facing a recall? or spend huge amounts of money on fines, and purchasing 'carbon offsets'?

[kapkomet]

Exactly, Alpha. Good post.

[DBAHO]

Well it shows how big of a problem this really is, and it should be the #1 issue for Governments across the world right now.

 

And with economies in China and India booming, it's going to be extremely difficult to actually set targets, and then reach them.

 

But they have to do something, because if the temp. keep rising, then you're going to see islands become floods, and the polar ice caps in Antartica becoming completely melted.

 

Australia's going to se targets, and do I expect us to reach them? Probably not I'd say. We'd probably have to go to Nuclear Power instead of Coal (or at least Clean Coal), and that in itself is a very touchy issue just because of the Nuclear Waste.

 

I'd like to get the thoughts on what you think America should be doing about this? Should they be setting the example (as the supposed world leader) and reducing emissions, or should they wait for all nations across the world to do so?

[EvilMonkey]

Australia's going to se targets, and do I expect us to reach them? Probably not I'd say.

If they aren't going to reach them, what is the point of setting them? Too 'feel good' about themselves because they care?

 

 

I'd like to get the thoughts on what you think America should be doing about this? Should they be setting the example (as the supposed world leader) and reducing emissions, or should they wait for all nations across the world to do so?

The big problem there is that if the government came out with standards that the businesses had to meet, and those standards burdened an economy that is already under huge competition from China, India and others (who seem to care even less than people think American's do!), it would ruin what some call an already fragile economy. Besides, Greenland used to be green before anyway.

[DBAHO]

If they aren't going to reach them, what is the point of setting them? Too 'feel good' about themselves because they care?

The big problem there is that if the government came out with standards that the businesses had to meet, and those standards burdened an economy that is already under huge competition from China, India and others (who seem to care even less than people think American's do!), it would ruin what some call an already fragile economy. Besides, Greenland used to be green before anyway.

Well I suppose if a government sets targets and doesn't reach them, but at least they do reduce their remissions more than if they didn't set targets, then at least it's a step in the positive direction.

 

And I mean absolutely economies are vitally important, but this is an issue that's only going to become more dangerous in the upcoming years, I mean we're talking about the future of our planet here.

 

Should the government in America be doing a better job in running the economy perhaps? And that's quite a funny point in itself, because John Howard ran the economy fantastically down here, it was booming, and yet he's been kicked out, and one of the main reasons for that is because of his lack of reform on climate change.

[KipWellsFan]

I have to agree with DBAHO here. I think climate change is probably real. Common sense tells me that human activity pumping all sorts of s*** into the air has massive consequences. Also take into consideration the fact that almost all serious prominent figures in the world think it's a huge problem means action is the only option for me. The death, suffering and despair climate change is likely to cause make economic recessions insignificant.

[kapkomet]

I have to agree with DBAHO here. I think climate change is probably real. Common sense tells me that human activity pumping all sorts of s*** into the air has massive consequences. Also take into consideration the fact that almost all serious prominent figures in the world think it's a huge problem means action is the only option for me. The death, suffering and despair climate change is likely to cause make economic recessions insignificant.

Really? Hmmm. I guess so, the Goracle says it's true.

 

Again, for the billionth time, climate change IS real. But it's been going on for millions of years. Humanity *MAY* have something to do with climate change, or they *MAY NOT*. But this horse is long dead.

[kapkomet]

Hey, wow, the Goracle was at the BushCo White House today for climate talk. How quaint!

 

[DBAHO]

Really? Hmmm. I guess so, the Goracle says it's true.

 

Again, for the billionth time, climate change IS real. But it's been going on for millions of years. Humanity *MAY* have something to do with climate change, or they *MAY NOT*. But this horse is long dead.

But it's only in the past few years when you've seen the possible effect it could have 50 years from now if we don't do anything. The U.N Report that came out a few weeks ago IIRC showed this.

 

Tsunami's, hurricane's etc. will become far more common.

 

Something has to be done NOW about it. And if that affects an economy negatively, well that's just too bad IMHO.

 

I'd also argue that with the more fossil fuels and carbon dioxide that's being emitted now than say 100 years ago, that we're heating up the globe faster than at any time ever before.

[Balta1701]

I'd also argue that with the more fossil fuels and carbon dioxide that's being emitted now than say 100 years ago, that we're heating up the globe faster than at any time ever before.

Because I know enough about this issue, I'll chime in here.

 

No, we are not heating up the world faster than at any time ever before, and I can give 1 concrete example and a couple possible examples. The concrete example is at the end of the Marinoan glaciation, something like 600 million years ago. This was the last glaciation to cover the entire planet with a block of ice, if we understand the geology well enough (this is something that probably has happened 4-5 times in geologic history).

 

When one of these "Snowball earth" events forms, then the ice has a high enough albedo that it should be stable forever without some other force impinging; the planet would reflect too much light to warm up. But, it turns out that about 10 million years of volcanism puts enough CO2 into the air to warm the planet up enough to get rid of the ice even in an ice-world. When you break apart a snowball earth event, you may rapidly go from a complete ice block to a hyper-greenhouse world where all that CO2 is still in the atmosphere but suddenly the albedo drops to normal levels as all the land reappears. That's an awful big temperature increase in a very short time period (Maybe on the order of hundreds of years or less). There is thought to be so much energy in the atmosphere from this sort of event that the term for the storms it creates is actually "Hypercanes".

 

It's also possible to get rapid warming in other ways. For example, a massive release of methane locked in permafrost or in the ocean could accomplish a large warming on a rapid scale. We've seen rapid releases of methane from lakes, and that happens on a timescale of a day. A large event from an ocean could take anywhere from 1 year to 10's of thousands of years, depending on what the driving force was.

 

So, it's possible that the earth has warmed up at this rate before in geologic history. And I'd say it's likely it has. The key issue remains not what we're doing to the earth, but what we're doing to a climatic system that we've adapted our civilization to. The earth will survive us almost no matter what we do.

[kapkomet]

Because I know enough about this issue, I'll chime in here.

 

No, we are not heating up the world faster than at any time ever before, and I can give 1 concrete example and a couple possible examples. The concrete example is at the end of the Marinoan glaciation, something like 600 million years ago. This was the last glaciation to cover the entire planet with a block of ice, if we understand the geology well enough (this is something that probably has happened 4-5 times in geologic history).

 

When one of these "Snowball earth" events forms, then the ice has a high enough albedo that it should be stable forever without some other force impinging; the planet would reflect too much light to warm up. But, it turns out that about 10 million years of volcanism puts enough CO2 into the air to warm the planet up enough to get rid of the ice even in an ice-world. When you break apart a snowball earth event, you may rapidly go from a complete ice block to a hyper-greenhouse world where all that CO2 is still in the atmosphere but suddenly the albedo drops to normal levels as all the land reappears. That's an awful big temperature increase in a very short time period (Maybe on the order of hundreds of years or less). There is thought to be so much energy in the atmosphere from this sort of event that the term for the storms it creates is actually "Hypercanes".

 

It's also possible to get rapid warming in other ways. For example, a massive release of methane locked in permafrost or in the ocean could accomplish a large warming on a rapid scale. We've seen rapid releases of methane from lakes, and that happens on a timescale of a day. A large event from an ocean could take anywhere from 1 year to 10's of thousands of years, depending on what the driving force was.

 

So, it's possible that the earth has warmed up at this rate before in geologic history. And I'd say it's likely it has. The key issue remains not what we're doing to the earth, but what we're doing to a climatic system that we've adapted our civilization to. The earth will survive us almost no matter what we do.

 

That's a really good way to put it... seriously.

[EvilMonkey]

And the backpedeling begins.....

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...548-662,00.html

 

Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge

 

December 07, 2007 12:00am

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.

 

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

 

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

 

The repudiation of the delegate's position represents the first stumble by the new Government's in its approach to climate change.

 

Mr Rudd said he supported a longer-term greenhouse emissions cut of 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050.

 

But the Government would not set medium-term targets until a report by economist Ross Garnaut was completed next year.

 

"I think speculation on individual numbers prior to that is not productive and I would suggest it would be better for all concerned if we waited for the outcome of that properly-deliberated document," Mr Rudd said.

 

The electricity industry yesterday warned it may not be able to meet growing consumer demand and comply with the 2020 target.

 

Energy Supply Association of Australia chief executive Brad Page said a 17 per cent power price rise in Victoria would seem "pretty modest" compared with the cost of complying with the target.

 

An ESAA report released this year found cutting carbon emissions by 30 per cent of 2000 levels by 2030 wold push up power costs by 30 per cent.

 

Mr Page said the cost of meeting the higher target by 2020 would be much more as low-cost, green-generation technology would not be available for more than 10 years.

 

"You are dependent on yet-to-be delivered technology," he said.

 

"The community needs to be aware cuts of this magnitude will come at considerable cost and it's difficult to know how exactly it will be delivered."

 

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said the suggested cuts would have "devastating impact" on Australia's economic development.

 

"It will have serious consequences for electricity bills and many other burdens borne by working families in day-to-day life, and pensioners," Dr Nelson said.

 

Greenpeace campaigner Steven Campbell said Australia should slash carbon emissions by 20 to 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.

 

"If we want to keep global warming below 2C then these are the targets we need," Mr Campbell said.

 

A team of 212 climate change experts from more than 20 countries yesterday called for a 50 per cent cut in greenhouse pollution by 2050.

 

 

[GoSox05]

Really? Hmmm. I guess so, the Goracle says it's true.

 

Again, for the billionth time, climate change IS real. But it's been going on for millions of years. Humanity *MAY* have something to do with climate change, or they *MAY NOT*. But this horse is long dead.

 

 

 

Yes we know global warming is fake and Dinosaurs too. Jesus is great. Blah blah blah. I think we've heard this crazy rant before.

[southsideirish71]

Yes we know global warming is fake and Dinosaurs too. Jesus is great. Blah blah blah. I think we've heard this crazy rant before.

 

You are talking about someone's rant being crazy, ha thats rich.

 

 

[GoSox05]

You are talking about someone's rant being crazy, ha thats rich.

 

 

Sometimes my rants are crazy, but at least I can admit it.