ok I think I am having serious comprehension issues here.
can you clarify a bit further?

I think ulytau is channeling his inner Vaclav Klaus.

I think I was pretty clear in my last post but I'll reiterate. AGW is a political non-issue right now. With Kyoto fading away and no other coordinated global initiative to replace it, it's a pretty bold move for a leading politician to commit only his country to the struggle. For whatever achievements you accomplish, you can't influence the bigger picture, disenchanting voters who believe AGW is a problem of utmost importance. The remaining voters will screw you as well since various measures at your disposal usually lower your country's competitiveness, which worsens the state of your economy and ultimately deepens problems that have to be dealt with in the short term so whatever long-term gain might result from your actions is overshadowed by unemployment and similar stuff right now. That's why politicians play it safe, make each other responsible for lack of coordinated effort and do nothing. AGW cause is not something to win elections with - at least not repeatedly. If it landed Green in the leading position, they would find out that unless they relax their demands, voters will rape them next time. The best one can do if he wants to batlle AGW is exerting indirect influence. Even Tea Party folk will tell you that developing alternative fuels is important, as well as increasing overall energy efficiency. Supporting this agenda will easen the overall strain on the environment and increase future welfare. The bonus is that even people who load their guns when anyone mentions AGW won't call you fucktard for it since these measures have broader scope than stuff like emission limits.

While your post is +1, Putin, I'm in the crowd that call our president Papa Tunnel, Kikina or Pružinsky. It's just that in the case of AGW, what he recommends to do is what others actually do - nothing ;)

I'm Australian. Currently the Labor Party (left-centre, combination of moderate leftists and trade unions) has a minority government with the Greens (less moderate leftists). One of the biggest issues in Australian politics right now is a proposed tax on greenhouse gas emissions (transitioning to a free-market price on carbon some time in the future).

Everything ulytau says has come true: we're getting campaigns on how it'll cost jobs, how it decreases competitiveness of Australian firms, etc. It may well cost the government power in the next election. That and the economy, even though Australia is doing better than PRACTICALLY EVERYWHERE ELSE; and asylum seekers, which we actually have a situation where the two main parties want the exact same outcome except neither wants to credit the other with finding the solution and so nothing is being done.

That in itself is a sorry, sorry sight for people in the middle of politics who'd like to see something being done in the country's interests; that and the fact that the Opposition is running on a platform of "we'll take back everything that was done in the last 4 years if you vote for us".

ulytau
ok I got you now. Some of your wording before was ambiguous, or I read it that way. I appreciate the re-type!
Yes I agree, "the environment" is indeed a lip-service issue.
In america there are politicians who are vocally against any sort of environmental conservation, and garage bands who sing this song decry the 'damn environmentalists' that keep 'us' from drilling in anwar etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGmtmdRvMkY&feature=fvst

Lord Nubz, Julia Gillard is in no way a leftist, when Malcolm Turnbull wants to do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions and your asylum seeker policy is worse than Howard's, you are doing pretty bad. The Labour party is *in name* a social democratic/Fabian socialist party, but they haven't done anything like that in years. They kept the most of the Howard IR laws, they've lowered taxes on large corporations. They failed to put a mining tax on the biggest miners, despite these companies being huge, a lowering of the general business tax rate and the fact that these companies can't threaten to move offshore because the minerals are on Australian soil. The Labour Party has continued the NT intervention, they've continued the war in Afghanistan and they've kept Howard's Marriage Act, in many ways they are as far right as the Liberal Party.

"The Labour Party has continued the NT intervention, they've continued the war in Afghanistan and they've kept Howard's Marriage Act, in many ways they are as far right as the Liberal Party." - The Labour Party is as far right as the Liberal Party? Man, Australia has a weird naming conventions for it's political parties.

Is the Conservative Party of Australia a centre left Social Democratic party?

Lol, Liberal as in classical/European liberal, not social/American liberal. Which is why in Australia we have Liberals (classical) and liberals (sometimes called small 'l' liberals, i.e. social liberals).

In practise they are like the Republicans though maybe not as extreme: they everything from almost-theocrats to classical liberals.

Yeah I figured that's probably what was meant by it. It just struck me as funny, and it seemed like this thread needed a bit of irreverence.

For the record there are so many terms to describe people on the left and centre that it can get confusing as to what refers to who.

I am for instance frequently called a liberal, but that's not what I consider myself. I'm Canadian so partly the term liberal carries connotations of supporting the Liberal party of Canada which has swung anywhere from the centre-right to the centre-left in it's long history, as a result of what Canadian Liberals call the "big-tent" approach, apparently without getting the joke.

But even without a consideration like that the word still carries other connotations that may not be appropriate.
And the question becomes, is a liberal to the left or the right of a social democrat? Is a liberal necessarily a leftist? Is a liberal more a centrist than anything else? What sets a liberal apart from a social democrat? From a centrist? From a progressive? What is a progressive? Anyone from the centre to the left? You see the dilemma?
Everyone knows what a conservative is. What is a liberal?

Yeah, I enjoyed finding out that the Liberal Party was on the right side of politics. Got a chuckle. And yes, Gillard is really trying hard to channel Howard right now. I think that she thinks that there's an opening there given how people perceive Abbott to be further right than Howard. I think it also has to do with the ascendancy of the Greens as a semi-legitimate power themselves.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that conservative commentators (Bolt et al) say that Australia implementing a carbon price will do next to nothing to reduce global emissions because it'd just push them offshore. It's a silly argument that basically says "nobody else is doing anything so we shouldn't do anything", and it's silly because every country in the world can repeat it ad nauseum (or at least ad apocalypticum) without anything changing.

The problem is 'conservatism' is dead. There are no more conservatives. Conservatism is especially dead in countries which had no monarchy, aristocracy or established church. I' d say "conservative" is more of a murky term than liberal. Classical liberalism split into two halves. One half emphasizing its ethos of unregulated markets, while adopting something of the old conservative's respect for tradition and custom, while the other half emphasized reforms addressing economic and social inequality.

Progressivism is now a popular term because in the US anyway because 'liberal' had been made into a dirty word, an epithet. While progressivism could be used to embrace a wide range of views on the left side of the spectrum, from reformism to socialism. Although originally "progressivism" simply meant the kind of reformism we now associate with being an American/Canadian liberal.

Social Democrat, in my view, is slightly to the left of a "liberal"/progressive, at least on paper. They want socialism and think it can be achieved with the bourgeoisie's consent through incremental reforms. Although these days people calling themselves "social democrats" have sold out to such a degree that they've even given up on socialism.