Abbott says that Rudd is one for "soft options" (today's Herald, page 2), but seems to be getting pretty squidgy with this announcement. What he's effectively saying is "we'll take the good parts of your policy and leave out the bad ones" - something that you can say in opposition. As a matter of policy, however, he must realise that everything comes at a cost. If Abbott is to create no new costs, how can he reduce emissions? What deterrent will he put in place? How will he fund it? Living in NSW, I see that little money can be taken away from the hospital system, so no luck there. Maybe they could use the proceeds from suing the Herald over MySchool?
T II reminded us not long before his semi-departure that he was the first Australian minister to come up with an ETS - maybe Abbott needs to listen to his predecessor. To establish anything that's going to work, a long-term commitment is needed: not one that's going to be made in the long-term as Howard would have preferred, but one that will address it. A self-sustaining policy, achieving funding from itself, is the most logical long-term option. Perhaps Rudd's plans for 2020 and as far as 2050 are being put in place just in case a the Liberals get in the way.
I digress now not to a case of "whodunnit" but of "hedunnit", and one that we are all familiar with. There are few arguments to say that whaling in Antarctic waters should be condoned, but nor should the actions of anti-whalers. Yes, a Japanese ship caused severe damage to Ady Gil, but when you've been harassing a vessel twice your size for a couple of days and then rush in front of it, what else can be expected? Luckily the manoeuvre paid off - the gimmick brought them all the publicity they could have wanted. It did, however, come at a cost. With two leaders abandoned this term and divisions remaining over the same policy that destroyed Turnbull, will Abbott cry foul play when he finds himself in the path of the HMAS Rudd?
