The Rudd Government has two basic messages on climate change: the “dramatic epoch-changing reform” message and the “don’t worry, no-one’s going to get hurt” message. The Government’s fate may ultimately hinge on the compatibility, or otherwise, of these messages.

In her media release on Wednesday, Senator Wong compared the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS) to tariff reductions and financial deregulation; two reforms which, among other things, saw a dramatic contraction of Australia’s manufacturing sector and an unprecedented exposure of Australian households to the vagaries of global capital markets.

Wong’s claims about the Government’s economic reform credentials, however, sit oddly with the idea that the ETS will also be “economically responsible” by which she means that it will be implemented with little impact on families (aka voters) and business.

Last year, Rudd described climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our time. Many voters clearly agreed with him. In fact, climate change might have been even more important in the defeat of John Howard than WorkChoices.

Winding back Howard’s dream of a de-collectivised workforce is, however, little league stuff in comparison to leading the world on achieving dramatic reductions in our reliance on carbon-based energy.

What’s more, while voters are idealistic in wanting Rudd to “do something” about climate change, it’s unlikely that they are in any mood to shell out any more hard-earned dollars as they confront high interest rates and rising grocery and petrol prices.

On Wednesday, this paradox saw Wong frequently describe the approach in her green paper as “economically responsible”. This is one of those “motherhood” messages that no-one can really oppose. It would be absurd to favour economic irresponsibility. But it is, for that reason, largely meaningless while also potentially creating some unrealistic expectations.

In addition, the notion that compensating everyone is “responsible” just undercuts the idea that the ETS is a big-ticket, quality reform. Big reforms change incentives and behaviours dramatically not marginally. You can’t do that and retain the status quo largely intact.

The use of “economically responsible” is an example of where worrying about the 24 hour news cycle can ruin a longer-term strategy. What might sound economically responsible today can quickly look like an economic cop-out when people start asking what has really changed afterall.

The more the Government tries to argue that it really is doing something about climate change the more the absence of any real winners and losers will undercut them.

Now that the Government has defined “economically responsible” as meaning economic reform without winners and losers they have created a weapon that can be used by just about everyone to whack them over the head as they approach the 2010 election.