Disappearing up its own fundamental …
The passing of significant climate change legislation in a minor South Pacific country is probably a “Reason to be Cheerful” as Ian Dury might write if he ever chooses to release (part 4). I see that John Quiggin thinks its a better result than the Rudd ETS, rejected by the Greens (effectively). At the time it seemed more like an ideology win within the Greens (purists vs pragmatists ).
The problem of the “better result” is that it cost so much in political capital (Rudd, Turnbull, soon Gillard) and has allowed a greatly debased climate change debate to rage. This cost, it seems to me, is the triumph of “belief” based policy over more considered & rational policy. This ground is not easily recovered. because there are no forums, no journals or newspapers capable of rational analysis.
An example of this cost is the Drum, which continues to founder on the rocks of Canberra irrelevance, despite the light cast by Jay Rosen (at regular intervals). The coinage of political debate is so debased that the ABC’s efforts to chase the will-o-the-wisp of “balanced political debate’ that The Drum now features its insiders, journalist with opinions, and selected think tankers, as the breadth of the political landscape. And it’s wallpaper – so easy to clean if the pollie-whingers ever impinge. There are so many agendas pushed in its shows that its difficult to get a fact, factoid or piece of evidence across.
To quote Jay Rosen quoting former US Senator Daniel Moynihan “You’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts”.