In Question Time yesterday, Kevin Rudd accused the Coalition of kicking off a “fear campaign” on climate change. He’s right, according to Crikey’s Bernard Keane, who writes:
The party of greenhouse denialism is back in town.
You can read Keane’s analysis here.
Greens Senator Christine Milne also writes on this topic in today’s Crikey, commenting on deliberate distortions of the Climate Institute’s discussion paper on energy affordability and emissions trading. [Update: Christine Milne’s article has now been posted at GreensBlog.]
I’ve been shocked by Brendan Nelson’s populism on petrol, but, just when I thought the Opposition could go no lower, they managed to achieve it. Cory Bernardi led the charge in the Senate, citing the report as demonstration of the unfair imposition on families of emissions trading.The Government, tragically, made a ham-fisted attempt to defend its position. Instead of calling the Opposition to task for deliberately abusing and misusing the data, they fell back on first principles — that the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of action. That is, of course, true. But when given such an opportunity, surely it would have been better to use the details of the report itself and expose the Opposition on the issue.
This whole episode is symptomatic of the hijacking of the climate debate once again by those who would rather lie and suppress the truth than face up to the challenge. On Insiders last weekend, George Megalogenis’s valiant attempt to discuss how petrol price is actually declining as a proportion of household expenditure was shouted down by Andrew Bolt.
If the Rudd government is serious about long term solutions, their response to the Garnaut Report will be the most crucial decision of this term. I’d have thought that it would be politically feasible to be honest and open about the costs of climate change mitigation (and also about the true quantum of the costs to households - something Milne is right to say was ignored in the pointscoring over the Climate Institute paper), and to introduce compensatory measures for those in the community most adversely affected. Any caving in to the self-serving and abominable politicking of the Coalition on this would be both counter-productive and very dangerous for our future.
Update: Tim Watts at The Tree of Knowledge observes that the Libs have lifted their campaign from the Canadian Tories.
Further update: More developments in the Coalition campaign discussed here.
The temptation to score political points out of an emission trading fear campaign will prove completely irrestible for the Coalition. Watching Greg Hunt these days is almost as sad as watch Peter Garrett.
Unfortunately, Bolt is 100% correct on this one, and Megalogenis 100% wrong (and I don’t say that very often). We can write off transportation being part of the ETS already (unless they do a fuel excise for carbon tax swap, which frankly defeats the purpose) and as fuel prices rise futher, the global recession deepens, and household budgets are squeezed from all directions, what chance a safety-first politician like Rudd thumping people with a hike in electricity prices?
It will take a politician of extraordinary courage, and I don’t think Rudd is up to it.
Links to subscription only Crikey articles leaves me so disappointed
“Any caving in to the self-serving and abominable politicking of the Coalition on this would be both counter-productive and very dangerous for our future.”
Very dangerous? Why? Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are so small compared to the rest of the world they are irrelevant to global warming. The continent could sink into the ocean tomorrow and it would make no significant difference to the problem.
“Global recession deepens”, carbonsink? Did I miss something?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/24/ensuring-prosperity-beyond-the-mining-boom/
I too am a bit disappointed that Labor has not taken this route. They need to tell the general population that climate change policies will hurt “working families”, but its necessary and the alternative is worse. Compensation will be reserved for the poor and if you attempt to compensate everyone (translate that as middle australia) then you won’t have much effect.
If they can’t say these things now when they are so popular and 2.5 years away from the next election, they’ll never be able to say it, let alone implement the policies required.
carbonsink writes, “Unfortunately, Bolt is 100% correct on this one, and Megalogenis 100% wrong” on transport costs as a proportion of income. Bolt’s the one who’s wrong, and Megalogenis correct. This is actually simple - Megalogenis referenced reality on Insiders (it should be here, but the transcript doesn’t appear to be up yet - try the 5 minute mark of the video) by referring to data arguing that proportions of income spent on fuel are lower than they used to be, and Bolt referred to emotion or perception as a counter to this. Now, it may be politically stupid to say this (because you wouldn’t want your politicians to actually say the truth) but if it’s actually the case that transport’s costing us less, what’s the problem?
Yep, that will be the oil-induced 1970s style stagflation that’s coming real soon now. The central banks will guarantee stagflation happens by raising interest rates in a futile attempt to curb the inflation coming out of the oil markets.
Its like watching a slow-motion train wreck.
“They’re back”. Did the Coalition ever leave the house of climate change scepticism? They tried to make it appear as though they did in the year before the election and for a bit after but really who did they think they were kidding? Most people didn’t fall for it and now they’re back to showing their true colours again.
Carbonsink, your arguments are strong enough without pretending to be able to predict what the world’s best economists cannot. It’s enough to say that petrol and other energy prices will rise significantly in the years to come. Predicting a certain global recession with stagflation devalues your otherwise useful contribution.
World energy prices will rise. How the world economy deals with this is uncertain. The point is, we want to be on the smart end of the deal, and there’s no guarantee this Government will put us there.
I agree, Alastair @ 4.54pm. They never left.
Hansen is now advocating a carbon tax plus what he calls a %100 dividend http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html returning the tax to citizens. this might alleviate some of the angst re the costs to individuals and families. however it strikes me as a little unwieldly and open to rorts.
of far more importance, George Carlin is dead, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/george-carlin-dead-at-71_n_108587.html . f@#k, sh#t, and those other words.
appologies for straying so far from the topic.
Alister wrote:
Ok, perhaps I should clarify that. I’m sure George’s data (on proportion of income spent on fuel) are correct — no arguments there — but the discussion on Insiders was all about the politics and emotion, and whether the “punters” would cop a hike in electricity prices on top of the petrol price pain, interest rate pain etc. IMNSHO, the answer is no, and Bolt got that right. As the Bolter said: we all want to do something about climate change, until it actually costs us something.
Yeah, but my comments wouldn’t be half as entertaining without some outrageous statement or prediction
Sure, but in today’s modern economy its primarily the central bank that deals with inflation through monetary policy, not government, and as Bob Gottliebsen put it in today’s Eureka report:
Thanks, Kim.
Guido @ 2 and anyone else, to get around the Crikey subscriber wall, you can read Christine’s piece over at Greensblog.
Carbonsink, kinda the whole point of the discussion is that the climate debate should be based on rigorous assessment of reality, not Bolta’s populist distortions, isn’t it???
Beat me to it, Tim, I was just about to link to the post at Greensblog. Will do so now.
Of course, I’d love for that to be the case, but the whole petrol excise debate has shown that populism will win out. I see the Libs are now talking a 10c cut — they know they’re on a winner.
It really, really sucks, but I don’t believe the average “punter”, with just a cursory knowledge of climate change issues, will actually vote for higher energy prices. Its wide open to a scare campaign even Brendan couldn’t get wrong.
Christine Milne wrote:
Does anyone buy this argument? If energy really does decline as a proportion of household spending then its getting cheaper in real terms, and if something gets cheaper in real terms, you’ll use more of it not less. There will be no incentive to conserve, and no incentive to substitute for clean energy sources.
Seems to me it has to hurt, really hurt, and that’s the whole friggin’ point.
From Christine Milne.
“It is very clear that, if we are to have a sensible climate debate in this country, that debate needs to be between the Government and the Greens, leaving out the Opposition until they are willing to engage sensibly and with intellectual rigour.”
I suggest that on many issues in the next few years the real effective opposition to the ALP will be the Greens.
I frequently see on blogs the idea expressed that some wish the Coalition would get its act together because the country/democracy needs an effective opposition.
I would suggest those persons are looking in the wrong place.
I would further suggest that the Greens will increasingly be seen as the real oppostion by more and more Australians. A small % increase certainly, but a definite trend to be a stronger voice, less able to be ignored by MSM and pundits, and gaining in attention significantly over time.
From carbonsink:
“It really, really sucks, but I don’t believe the average “punter”, with just a cursory knowledge of climate change issues, will actually vote for higher energy prices.”
I am not so sure about that.
One of the features of the last election was the callers on radio who overwhelmingly supported budget increases in government services rather than individualised tax cuts.
And the general population seemed to support that by the way they voted that at the election.
I reckon we too often denigrate the awareness and ethics of the Australian people as a whole.
Well it might help if Rudd and co stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue by using insultingly low “costs to the average working family” in his attempts to see GW.
Its either a crisis and should be treated as one, or its not.
Nothing much inbetween.
The whole premise of a carbon restricted lifestyle will be, less travel, higher prices, more expensive goods. It cant be avoided, and its shuffling deckchairs on the titanic to pretend no-one will lose out.
I am a little dissapointed at the intelectual dishonesty of AGW promoters who try and pretend otherwise.
If its a crisis people will respon, especialy if they see the pain shared. This picking winners and losers, and quite frankly out and out lying to make it seem softer and cuddlier is just bunkum.
If you realy believe the catastrophists then immediate painful action is needed immediately. As it is both sides are playing politics, and neither seem sure of their stance. Both trying to have a bob each way.
Time for a massive Whitlamite Federal government intervention into urban planning. Piss off those loser state government and fly in some dollars from Canberra. Lets improve transport corridors - watch the punters dump their cars like flies.
Petrol prices rises are the greatest potential circuit breaker in Australia in years.
I’ve been hitting the back of the envelope to see what Hanson’s %100 dividend might mean.
If we start with Australia’s emmissions are aprox 8 billion tons pa; http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australias-greenhouse-emissions-twice-world-rate/2007/05/22/1179601374518.html then carbon taxes of $15, $30 or $50 per ton = dividends to the aprox 21.5 million citizens are $5,500, $11,200 or $18,600 each.
however Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006 by the office for climate change gives our co2e as 576 mil tons. = 401, 802 and 1340 buckaroonies each
these are decent sized numbers, obviously the first lot are juicier, and would offset many ‘average punters’ concerns re their personal costs.
For once I agree with carbonsink (gasp!). Rudd is a Carr/Beattie populst, there isn’t a chance in hell he’ll bring in the emissions trading scheme this term, in 2010 as he promised.
He’ll put it off until after the election to negate a scare campaign on what will be a bigger economic change than the GST, and even then next term it will be an ugly, neutered, worthless piece of legislation that doesn’t do the job.
bleh the Lurgy strikes, the 8 bil figure is the total world world output of co2, appologies.
PaulW that’s nonsense.
There is absolutely no chance that major developing world nations will cut their emissions if a medium sized wealthy nation like Australia isn’t taking action (of course they won’t if the US isn’t either). Australia acting is not a sufficient condition for preventing climate disaster, but it certainly is a necessary one.
May be time for a revisit to this with its implications for the near future.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23781070-5013404,00.html
“Penny Wong in clash with carbon emitters…….TENSIONS are emerging between major greenhouse emitters and Climate Minister Penny Wong after a number of hostile meetings before the release of the Government’s green paper on emissions trading in July.”
Particularly noteworthy:
“Senator Wong has told small groups of chief executives from major power and other energy-intensive companies that the Rudd Government’s election promise of a renewable energy target was “not negotiable”.
Note the last two words.
They all come around eventually
I do hold out some slim hope that “the punters” could be bribed with a carbon tax dividend such as Hansen is proposing, but where are we going to find a politician with the courage to champion such a policy? Rudd ain’t it. Penny Wong certainly isn’t. Peter Garrett and Greg Hunt (did you see him on the 7:30 report?!) have sold their souls. I did have some hope for Turnbull, but that’s fading fast.
I think we need Emperor Bob Brown!
The Liberals have abandoned the field because they were never really convinced of it in the first place. As I’ve said elsewhere, the short-term focus of the Canberra press gallery should not be expected to focus on the good of the planet, but at the very least they should stop this crap that Turnbull is ready to pounce on Nelson any day now. When you’re being outpolled by Peter Costello, you’re pretty much buggered politically. As with art, the Liberals don’t know much about the environment but they do know they don’t like Turnbull. That’s Hunt’s and Nelson’s main motivating force.
Never mind the Liberals when they’re being noisy. Remember how quiet they got in 1995 when Downer stepped down? That’s the sign of a political machine getting its act together. Same with Labor two years ago - no histrionics from Doug Cameron or Carmen Lawrence, just quiet efficiency from a political machine getting ready for government.
There’s a fair bit of assumption that Kev has been seeking popularity all his life and will continue to do so. I’m not so sure.
Strategically, if he’s going to follow the recent ALP model, he’ll implement his green agenda, and in fact over-do it proportionally so that his replacement has headroom to move under while maintaining the guts.
Personally, I reckon he’s more scared of the legacy of “could’ve-but-didn’t” than anything else.
I can see that by treating the issue as a mainstream one, as opposed to it’s emotionally laden past, there’s an assumption that the government isn’t committed to it. I for one, wouldn’t want to tackle dead pan Penny on an issue where her position is ‘not negotiable’. There’s nothing wrong with tackling this rationally.
I like to live in hope and I hope you’re right, onimod. Certainly I wouldn’t like to be on the wrong side of Penny Wong! And the point in the post about the lack of any political advantage for the ALP in playing short term populism is a sound one - whether or not that’s understood or not is another question, but getting on the front foot with regard to the opposition’s appalling stance has to be a good sign.
Update: Tim Watts at The Tree of Knowledge observes that the Libs have lifted their campaign from the Canadian Tories.
28 Mark
I agree that the front foot is a good sign.
I reckon the world is in for another round of climate education as part of the US elections - Obama’s ‘hope’ meme seems to travel across oceans pretty well.
It’ll be interesting to see how the ALP man up on the issue - I’m betting Penny, as a Senator, won’t be Rudd’s backup. Garrett hasn’t been as convincing as Bowen, who I’d be nominating for the job.
I don’t think they’ll be using the ‘razor gang’ style campaign.
I’d start with a ‘we’re all in this together’ approach. It’d be nice to have some unequivocal figures to back the ‘now rather than later’ message but I think figures as a metric of facts are pretty much worthless in politics these days. The government needs to have the community ‘feel’ that it’s the right thing to do - not easy.
Negative campaigns can have a lifespan - that’s why Rudd is getting it on the table early so we’ll be sick of it by the end of the year.
An analogy: Once you’ve committed to letting your child cry themselves to sleep, everyone’s life gets easier.
Carbonsink:
I think there are two problems with this argument. The first is that it’s not immediately apparent that decreasing energy costs in real terms are a problem. If, for example, solar is cheaper than coal, or wind is cheaper, then we have no problem. Price signals are working as expected, and people drop coal for solar or wind. If trains are cheaper than cars (and the damn things run where people actually live, and to where people actually want to go), then it’s all good.
Secondly, remember that the Medicare levy seems to be generally supported by the electorate, even though it has the appearance of a tax. I believe that the case can be made for price increases (if it’s necessary - Senator Milne reckons otherwise, and I’d take her word over mine) if you have a government brave enough to make an actual decision, and argue it, openly and honestly, to the Australian people. In short, I don’t think that we’re as dumb and selfish as Andrew Bolt thinks we are.
Gee, I can back hannah’s dad’s plan after being witness to a barren interview between Opposition spokes idiot Greg Hunt and Kerry O’Brien, tonite, involving petrol and environmental matters.
The Nelson opposition is a malign influence and actual threat to civilisation as most people would come to conceive of it.
Greg Hunt’s performance on the 7.30 Report was truly woeful. Not only was he ineffective against some tough questioning, he seemed unprepared and incompetent. This is a real concern for the Opposition. A lot has been said around the Liberal party (particularly amongst the Kroger-ites) that Greg Hunt is the new wave of the future. For the last few months he had been trying to triangulate Garrett and Wong between Industry Groups and the Greens. With one foul swoop he has now completely fucked that strategy up. I expect him and Nelson to get a roasting in the parliament over THAT interview for some time to come.
This is really poor work from the Opposition because it now gives Garrett and Wong open space in the centre to pursue a more weak policy. Malcolm Turnbull must be punching walls right now with frustration at being surrounded by such muppets.
New post on all this here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/25/i-blame-canada/
“There is absolutely no chance that major developing world nations will cut their emissions if a medium sized wealthy nation like Australia isn’t taking action (of course they won’t if the US isn’t either). Australia acting is not a sufficient condition for preventing climate disaster, but it certainly is a necessary one.”
I suggest to you that there is no chance, NO CHANCE, that the developing world will cut their emissions significantly, regardless of what Australia does.
The idea that Australia’s sacrifice will somehow influence China or the US to sign Kyoto or cut emissions is pure fantasy. The US does what is in the interests of the US and China is fully focused on the immediate concerns of feeding its billion plus population and preventing a social uprising.
You people want to hurt working families already struggling with the cost of living by making them pay more for energy.
It is incumbent on you to show that making drastic cuts to Australia’s emissions will make a significant difference to global warming.
Otherwise you have no business trying to impose your Luddite fantasies on the rest of us.
You’re more likely to get Emperor Steve Fielding in this parliament.
ominod, I think we’ll get those figures in Garnaut’s draft report out by the end of next week.
I’m quite hopeful about the Government’s reaction. Rudd came out strongly and called the opposition for their scare campaign and they’ve been at it ever since with all guns blazing. Albanese was ridiculing Hunt today for having no position at all on climate change.
We’ll know when they come out with a Green paper, end of August, I think.
Hunt sounded quite good on radio in the early days of his term. But the Opposition’s policy has gone to shite and he is floundering. When I saw him on TV I realised that he’s lightweight personally. The heavies in the Opposition will let him play in the sandpit and go on regardless.
There was an interesting article in Courier mail today:
The article went on to say that the carbon trading scheme might be introduced in 2010 with fuel to be phased in in 2012, in recognition that it had gone up a lot anyway, and to place the introduction after the next election.
If that’s what Rudd has to do to meet the twin goals of integrity in the system and getting re-elected, it’s OK with me. Unless you’d prefer the other bunch of f*ckwits on the treasury benches.
Price is already reducing demand and by then we should have some more realistic low carbon options, at least in the planning pipeline. Public transport is on the agenda of the infrastructure commission. Tax, including excise on fuel is on the Henry commission’s agenda. The opposition is baying for knee-jerk commitments. Let’s hope Rudd holds his position - it looks as though he will.
Brian
Just watch big oil and the opposition go to work on Garnaut though.
If someone manages to find the slightest sliver to object to in either the report, any work he’s done previously, or even anything in his, or his immediate family’s life then the ostriches will drive the wedge for all it’s worth.
I’ll bet on Hunt for the sacrifice bunt and Turnbull to pinch hit.
I don’t think one set of figures will do it - it needs to be more tangible to convince anyone not already on it to get on the bus. You can’t produce those sort of figures without at least a few assumptions that are controversial.
Ain’t that the truth!
Er, but they’re not, which is why we’re putting a price on carbon. Even if wind/solar were to become competitive with coal without a price on carbon, its not an apples-for-apples comparison, because coal runs 24/7 and solar/wind don’t.
I would say Medicare is generally supported by the electorate, not the levy. With the ETS or a carbon tax, we just get the tax, we don’t get the benefit, or at least we don’t get a benefit (income tax cuts, increase welfare…) that’s been adequately explained.
Relief at Brian’s defacto answer,#38 to grumbling Paul W, #35.
Get with the program, Paul. We live in a world where things have changed. Millions of people out there every bit as good as you or I are set to starve to death in the near futire to subsidise our lifestyles, the least we can do is commence the mental effort required to seperate our needs from our wants: necessities from luxuries.
“Working families” have kids and these kids will grow into a world where the selfishness of people now determines their future quality of life.
Although I do agree with you that places like China, Russia and India need to spend their new prosperity on a social wage and infrastructure rather than just the middle classes hiving off the cream for themselves in pursuit of the Western freeway/ conspicuous consumer consumption model.
Utility first; THEN exchange!
To every problem, the same solution.
Compulsion, painful cuts, government spending, central planning, higher taxes. Not an attractive platform.
All power to the creators. By which I mean scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs who, more than all the politicians in the world, have a chance to do something interesting with this problem.