Kevin Rudd has found a new word to sum up his political philosophy: balance.

Balance, it seems, is now the be all and end all of his policies, the ultimate virtue. Let others dwell on vision, courage and integrity: Kevin remains firmly (well, giving at least an appearance of stability) balanced.

This approach is sadly reminiscent of the bad old days of the ABC, when the national broadcaster was being ruthlessly persecuted by its minister, Richard Alston. Alston, whose paranoia was exceeded only by his zealotry, found bias in everything poor old Auntie put to air; she was clearly little more than a whore in the hands of a left-wing pimp.

But Alston wasn’t asking that she convert to his side of politics; goodness gracious what an idea. All he wanted was balance. Thus any hint of criticism of the government of which he was a member should be followed instantly by someone extolling its many perfections. Any opinion, however mild, required an immediate reply from the other side.

A terrified management set up committees of oversight to make sure that the ABC could never be accused of holding a point of view about anything. There were times when this was taken to extremes: palaeontologists explaining Darwin’s theory of evolution were alarmed to be confronted by fundamentalist Christians ranting that they were quite wrong, it was all question of intelligent design. Medical experts explaining the need for vaccination gave way to totally unqualified nutters warning in lurid tones of largely non-existent risks. Climatologists expounding the science behind climate change were told by economists in the pay of the coal industry that since last Tuesday had been colder than the previous Saturday their work was not to be trusted. No flat earther, anti-fluoridationist or astrological consultant was denied access to the ABC.

Which brings us to the essential problem with balance: it assumes that the arguments of both sides are of equal value. As with the concept of impartiality, it sounds fine, but in practice leads to absurdity. Brian Penton, a great newspaper editor of the old school, got it right when he told his journalists not to worry about balance and impartiality; instead, they were to strive to be fair. All points of view deserved a hearing, but they were not all equally valid. Sooner or later a responsible journalist had to choose between them.

And so it is with politics. The search for balance is in essence a policy of appeasement, an attempt to please everyone and avoid making a hard decision. In the short term this may appear to be good politics, but in the end the balancer is revealed as an equivocator, someone with out the courage of his convictions — if indeed he has any real convictions. But worse still, attempts at balance at the expense of genuine commitment almost invariable lead to bad policy. Which, I regret, brings us back to the Rudd government.

Rudd’s first major foray into the politics of balance came with his industrial relations policy. He and his minister, Julia Gillard, both rejoiced in the fact that criticism came just about equally from both the unions and the employer groups; this must mean, they concluded, that they had the balance right. I commented at the time that it was a peculiar stance for a Labor government to take, to actually celebrate when they drew fire and disapproval as much from what was supposed to be their own side of politics — indeed their very raison d’etre — as from the traditional enemy. But on the whole the policy was, and is, a pretty good one, and in any case much of the criticism was ritualistic. The claim of balance could be dismissed as a political gloss.

But climate change is a different, and altogether more serious, matter. Rudd appeared to recognise this when he identified it as the great challenge of the age, an issue which transcended politics and economics and had a significant moral component. The implication was that what was needed was a crusade.

But instead, we have been given another balancing act. The fate of the planet has been placed on one side of the scales, and the interest of the resource industries and their associates on the other; and somehow Rudd has found an equivalence.

Thus Australia, arguably the greatest per capita polluter in the world, is not to take a lead, or even to run with the bulk of the industrialised pack, in cutting its emissions in the next 12 years. Instead, we are setting a wishy-washy target which could work out as low as 5 percent, with only an aspiration to move to 25 percent if everyone else can be made to agree.

Rudd’s climate change guru, Ross Garnaut, states flatly that they won’t, and thus must take at least part of the blame for the government’s temporising. His brief was to report on the economic options available to the government, and their consequences, which he did impeccably.

But then he lapsed into politics by giving as his opinion that although a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020 was the absolute minimum required to avert catastrophic and irreversible damage, 10 percent was the most that the rest of the world, particularly the developing nations, would wear. He produced no evidence for this assertion, because there isn’t any: this is precisely the question that will be thrashed out at next year’s Copenhagen conference. But because of his status, his guess took on the status of received wisdom. It may turn out that he is right, but it should be obvious that there is far more chance of bringing countries like India and China to the party if countries like Australia are prepared to lead by example. He and Rudd have decided that we won’t; instead they have opted for balance.

Good luck to them; they are walking a truly perilous high wire. The problem is that in doing so they are risking not only their own safety, but that of planet earth. Happy holidays, chaps.