♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Environment
at 7/17/2007 02:28:00 AM
I don't buy it. The Australian press is all agog [1, 2, 3, 4] over how four-time PM John Howard looks set to be turfed by the Labor Party's Kevin Rudd at the next general election when Aussies head to the polls despite the PM's newfound environmental stylings. As things currently stand, Labor leads Howard's so-called Liberal Party by 58 to 42%. It's especially galling to Howard that Australia is set to turf him despite having delivered strong economic growth practically all the time he's been in office. Part of the reason is voter fatigue with Howard after all these years though some of it is payback for his relative neglect of environmental issues. In particular, droughts in some of Oz's largest towns have raised concerns about global warming. The denial of Howard of a fifth term could mark a turning point in world politics as the leader of a major developed country is ejected despite delivering strong growth for environmental reasons. It's the environment, not the economy, stupid? [Hey, I thought of it first.]
As the clip above shows, Howard is trying to make up for lost time by, among other things, proposing a carbon emissions trading scheme (gee Howard, isn't that what the darned Kyoto Protocol you turned down all about?) Call it a greening of convenience. It seems that not many voters have been swayed by his newfound affection for the environment. In the near future, can environmental issues take precedence over growth above all? It seems likely. What point is there to all this growth if you render the environment you live in inhospitable? [Picture me gesticulating wildly for melodramatic emphasis.] End of sermon...end of growth fetishism..end of the topless carwash in Brisbane...end of Howard? Stay tuned.
