One of the most important and urgent challenges in government today is how to make significant longer-term policy change in a political world run essentially as a game over the 24-hour media cycle.

Ironically, even though elections are easily won on the promise of "change", the electorate inevitably resists it in its detail. There is no better current example than Obama!

I am particularly disturbed by the way our current "debate" on the challenge of climate change is unfolding. The magnitude and urgency of the challenge is being lost in short-term political point scoring. And most of the media has been lost in the "colour and movement" of that political contest.

In terms of the policy imperatives, both sides have squibbed the challenge. A fight as to whose tax is the lesser, to achieve a mere five per cent reduction in emissions, against a policy imperative calling for reductions of more like 25-40 per cent by 2020, is today's equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, in a world where there are many more icebergs as the polar icecap melts.

Beyond that, a combination of Rudd's low base target, together with his failure to develop the need for, and then to adequately explain, an ETS, let alone admit to some of the inadequacies of his proposal, and the perceived failure of Copenhagen, has left the door wide open for Abbott's political onslaught.

To be clear, Abbott' response is mostly political. While there is merit in soil carbon, tree planting, solar, etc, if they were to be well developed policies, as part of a more broad-based overall response, his strategy is the belief that you can frighten and fool most of the people, all of the time.

Forgive me for recalling the GST debate in the early 1990s. I understand just how well Abbott's strategy can work, having been "done slowly" by the Master, Keating. But then the shoe was on the other foot. I was attempting to advocate major change from Opposition. Keating had all the resources and authority of Government to frighten people that I was "too big a risk".

And the substance of policy positions didn't matter then. Keating was able to easily disown his painful past on tax reform in general, and the GST in particular. Nobody bothered to recall his commitment to the Parliament, back in 1985, that he would fight for both until his dying breath, having been rolled by the motel room, back-down, deal between Hawke and then ACTU President Kelty.

The media fascination back in 1993 was in the colour and movement of my slow death. There was virtually no focus on the undeliverability of Keating's LAW tax-cuts without a GST. It was his final admission of that, later in '93, with an added dash of his arrogance, that cost him Government in 1996.

Rudd has the resources of Government. He has the capacity to reach the people. Public meetings, a paid and sustained media blitz, and/or whatever, he should explain and defend his case. He should be able to expose a political fear campaign for what it is!

Unfortunately, while the economics of an emissions trading scheme are pretty straight forward, the politics are admittedly tough.

The policy is to cap emissions, by putting a price on carbon, to force/encourage all levels of our society to change their behaviour, from big polluters to households.

In these economic terms, it is the "price" that principally drives the change, although a complete response to climate change, may have other incentives/mandation as a complement, such as banning incandescent lightbulbs, mandating bio-fuels and other alternative technologies, etc.

In these terms there must inevitably be "losers", at least in the short-term, as relative prices move.

While Governments will always, understandably, want to offset or cushion the impact on some consumers/ businesses etc., or assist in the necessary adjustments, the policy doesn't allow you to push this too far, as you actually want the "price" to bite and force the desired change in behaviour.

Enter the politics! It is so easy to frighten and confuse. Potential "losers" can be screamed about and interviewed and, in the end, it's all too easy to argue that "if you don't understand it don't vote for it!"

It is also easy to scaremonger on the possible consequences for economic growth and jobs, although the counter argument that a full and adequate response to climate change should see a technological revolution, spawning new industries and considerably new employment, is certainly worth the fight.

So, while managing this detail, Rudd must also sell the "big picture", the "big challenge", the imperative, the economic, social and moral imperative, to move to a low-carbon society as a matter of genuine urgency.

The real challenge is for leadership on such a fundamentally important issue. Our political leaders have a responsibility to provide it, and the media has a responsibility to call for it, and to reward it, rather than to just wallow in the "colour and movement" of grossly irresponsible politicking.