Howard the skeptic?
Yesterday in parliament the Prime Minister stated that "the jury was still out" over the link between climate change and human produced gas emissions (source). He later corrected himself saying he thought that the question was referring to the link between climate change and drought. There was no mention of drought whatsoever in Rudd's question.
This reveals one of two things. Either Howard is losing it (in concentration, skill and capacity to handle tough questions) or he truly is a climate change skeptic. Although I believe that Howard is not the same as he was perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, I do not believe he is disintegrating that much. With his lateline interview on Monday (no link), it seemed that Howard was very uncomfortable when dealing with the environmental issues.
I believe he is overwhelmed by the attention the public now has for these environmental issues and is handling them poorly. This is partly because his attention to these issues are insincere and is being forced to come up with policy he doesn't want to run or deal with.
Any Liberal Government cannot be trusted to maintain our societies future prosperity if they are not serious about climate change.
posted by Joel MacRae @ 5:04 pm
5 comments
5 Comments:
For mine, Howard and the other capital-C in the Liberal Party probably are still climate-skeptics, but they're being forced to change their position because (1) the polls demand it and (2) it provides them with the opportunity to push their nuclear agenda for their mining buddies. It's cynical politics in the extreme. So don't think for one moment that he's a convert. He's an opportunist plain and simple. But let's assume for one moment that Howard and other conservatives around the world are finally coming around to accept what everyone else has known for years. If that is the case, for me, it just serves to demonstrate the real failings of conservatives and conservatism as a philosophy. They live in denial of change and refuse to budge until they see somthing in it for themselves (popular support, mining revenues, whatever). Meanwhile, the world is forced to wait until they're ready to accept it, and then, usually on their own terms.
You have hit the nail on the head there Sam. Howard is certainly a skeptic. He is simply smart enough to realise that he and the other conservatives are in the minority possessing that belief. He knows he wont survive the next election if he does not create some policy regarding climate change, but how effective is that policy going to be when it is made by people in denial trying to remain relevant? Also, everyone makes election promises that they do not intend to keep. Is climate change policy going to be the first thing thrown out the window if Howard gets re elected?
No doubt it will be one of those "non core" promises.
Howard is not so much a skeptic as someone who is more interested in getting elected. There is a certain amount of feeling the need to do something, but like any politician ho can expect to get elected in the current social sphere, he must figure out the minimum he HAS to do without appearing to compromise the economy.
The Economy is not really a justifiable construct by which to set a nations goals around, but I challenge anyone to argue that one can win an election on what may be perceived as dangerous or unconservative economic credentials in the modern political sphere.
I take you up on that challenge, b.
His name is John Howard. Think GST and IR. Both have been called radical by the Left. JWH may be conservative socially, but we can't really argue that he's an economic conservative. He's a neo-liberal economic reformer.
Post a Comment
<< Home