KEY POINTS:
The politics of the environment yesterday underwent their own climate change, shifting from influential niche to mainstream economic debate in the campaign for Australia's November 24 election.
Embracing economic and industrial development, employment, new technologies, agricultural production, diplomacy and trade, the debate between Environment and Water Resources Minister
Malcolm Turnbull and Labor counterpart Peter Garrett set new priorities for the campaign.
Reflecting political acceptance of increasing concern at the impacts of climate change and the water crisis facing the nation, both major parties have tied the environment to the broader pursuit of credibility in future economic management.
Both have recognised the importance of attracting green votes, although Labor has gained a significant advantage through a deal to swap preferences with the Greens in all mainland states.
The Greens will not deal with either party in Tasmania because of their mutual support for a new wood pulp mill at the head of the Tamar Valley, on the island's north coast. Whichever party wins power is also likely to have to deal with the Greens in the Senate, where they are likely to hold the balance of power after the election.
Recent polls have the Greens holding about 8 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, and this week election analyst Malcolm Mackerras predicted that the Greens would win seven seats. Led by Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown, they at present hold four Senate seats.
Labor has been losing its previous high ground on the environment, hurt by its support for the Tasmanian mill and gaffes by Garrett.
A Newspoll in the Australian this week reported that Labor's standing as best environmental manager had slipped from 39 per cent to 29 per cent, only five percentage points ahead of the Government.
Yesterday, a poll released by the Climate Institute said the credibility of both parties had been dented: Labor maintained a lead but had slipped from 40 per cent to 35 per cent support, and the Government from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Significantly, 73 per cent of voters polled in marginal seats said climate change would strongly or very strongly influence their vote.
Garrett's credibility on the issue remained higher: 43 per cent thought he was very serious about climate change, compared with just 7 per cent for Turnbull.
Climate change dominated yesterday's debate, linking problems and remedies to economic imperatives for a country heavily reliant on coal-fired energy and whose present Government refuses to ratify Kyoto.
Turnbull argued that Kyoto was history and Australia needed to focus on a new, effective treaty embracing major polluters such as China and India and committing the world to massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this century.
But he also emphasised that negotiations with other economies seeking their own best interests would be tough and require hard decisions to ensure Australia's competitiveness and economic growth was not damaged.
Garrett said the nation faced a stark choice between a Government that had failed to accept the reality of climate change for a decade, whose leadership still included climate change sceptics, and whose main solution was a network of 25 nuclear power stations.
Both saw a mix of solutions blending international negotiations and trade initiatives with a carbon trading scheme, new technologies such as clean coal and locally-developed green cars, and renewable energy sources.
Both also have similar policies for the protection of fragile water supplies.
The major points of difference are the Kyoto protocols and a replacement treaty, nuclear energy - Labor is opposed, but not to increased uranium mining and exports - and specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions and the proportion of electricity produced by renewable energy.
