For once, Craig Emerson wasn’t indulging in spin or hyperbole on Lateline last Friday when he claimed that there was a new emissions trading scheme policy every day from the Liberals. For Monday’s edition of Liberal lunacy, we reproduce Bernard Keane’s commentary from Crikey today (with permission).
Coalition scores own-goals with weak climate policy
Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:
With the ground carefully prepared, including selective briefing to the home of climate change scepticism, The Australian, Brendan Nelson and the conservative wing of the Liberal Party have stolen a march on party moderates on linking emissions trading to international action. The extent to which Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull have adjusted their language to accommodate a rightward shift is a giveaway that it is a fait accompli.
The argument that Australia should not have too low a carbon cap until there is international agreement from the major emitters is a sound one, and likely to be adopted by the Government, even if we don’t know what’s in the Godot-like Treasury modelling. The argument that we should do nothing at all until major emitters have signed on to some agreement is indefensible and weak.
It’s weak because it signals the Opposition lacks the confidence to argue on policy detail. The Emissions Trading Scheme and supporting arrangements proposed by the Government are a shocker, with plenty of scope for improvement in areas like encouraging the development of renewable energy and avoiding exploitation of permits by traders. Greg Hunt has been trying to exploit this, but senior Coalition figures evidently figure they lack the firepower to really hurt the Government on this. And emissions trading is an economic reform.
Economics is supposed to be the Coalition’s strong point, but with Turnbull as shadow Treasurer and Peter Costello in his usual Zone of Indecision, they have ceded that ground to the Government. This has been the signal failure of Turnbull’s stint as shadow Treasurer. The bloke is brilliant, but he’s no economist.
It’s weak because the time to do this was three or four years ago when we were still in the early, low-inflation, high-growth phase of the resources boom. The Coalition refused to do anything then, and left it to its successor to implement a scheme at a time of deepening economic uncertainty and stronger inflationary pressures. In effect it is arguing that we should delay further because of the consequences of its own delay.
And it’s weak because it reflects Nelson’s desire to have it both ways, to play populist while pretending that he still has policy credibility. This is the bloke who wanted a 5c a litre excise cut, but didn’t have the guts to argue for a big reduction that would’ve made a genuine difference to petrol prices. This is the bloke who argued the Budget was inflationary, while opposing taxation measures in the Senate. I’m serious about addressing climate change, Nelson wants to say, but I’m not going to do anything. Same old same old.
But given the difficulty that Nelson has had in describing his own position in recent weeks, it’s no wonder he wants a simpler position to put. Trouble is, the wait-for-others approach is no easier to argue. What if President Obama (should such a disaster come to pass) makes an Emissions Trading Scheme or carbon tax his first priority? Will that be enough? What if China takes steps to curb emissions but India doesn’t? What if the Europeans decide to start imposing carbon tariffs on imports from freeriders like Australia?
The new Coalition position — which can be summarised as “Copenhagen or bust” is predicated on some major international agreement being thrashed out next year, and only doing something in the unlikely event that that occurs. Far more likely is that, bit by bit, major emitters start to address abatement measures in a variety of ways that suit their circumstances. At what tipping point does the Coalition say, “yeah OK, that’s good enough for us”?
Not to mention the usual arguments about there being a greater chance of an international agreement if we’re already doing something. Or the responsibility of doing something when we’re one of the biggest per-capita emitters and major carbon dealer to the planet.
And given the indiscipline in Coalition ranks, the ceaseless offering of alternative policies and critical commentary won’t disappear. There’ll be no Coalition unity on the issue, because they can’t keep their mouths shut. Greenhouse denialists like Nick Minchin will continue to maintain that climate change is a myth. Moderates who want serious action will express their disappointment.
The new position will also make it significantly easier for the Prime Minister to portray Labor as the moderate, sensible course between extremists. Rudd has been demonising the Greens as economic vandals, and now the Coalition is happily giving him the evidence to show it is retreating to the sort of flatearther attitude it clung to for most of its years in power. Labor’s proposed emissions scheme isn’t balanced, it isn’t moderate and sensible, but it will look exactly that by the time Brendan Nelson finishes with the issue.
In short, whatever the merits or otherwise of their new policy, the Coalition leadership is kidding itself if it thinks it will make life any easier.
You can see NOW why this gutless bunch done nothing & will never do anything.
The other problem with the Coalition’s argument is that they seem to think that delaying action is an economic win.
That’s not what Garnaut (and Jeffrey Sachs, in an op-ed that Tim Dunlop was linking to) have said; the longer you wait, the more severe the economic dislocation when you do move.
I don’t know how scientific this survey is, but an article in today’s Herald Sun stated that environmental concerns were a major factor in Rudd’s victory.
Swinburne University demographer Katharine Betts has analysed the data in a new report, The 2007 Australian Election: Blue-Collar Voters, Migrants and the Environment.
Almost one in five respondents said health was the most important issue, followed by the environment and global warming (17 per cent), industrial relations (12.2 per cent) and education (12.1 per cent).
………….
In 2007, about 53 per cent of voters said Labor was closer to their views on the environment, and only 18 per cent preferred the Coalition’s stance, the survey found.
…………….
Dr Betts said the data suggested that environmental policy and the workplace laws had cost the Coalition dearly.
“Its apparent reluctance to tackle global warming and come to grips with other environmental problems appear to have lost it votes across the board,” she said.
“With its unfortunate adventure with WorkChoices, the Coalition lost many of its blue-collar supporters.”
Guess which OzPol Party once (1983) had a slogan “We’re not waiting for the world”? Saved for posterity on a number of web pages inc UniMelb “soapbox” http://soapbox.unimelb.edu.au/media/Video/1983-NoSave/1983LIBwerenotwaitingfortheworld1.html
Brendan’s latest slogan: The point at which “conservative” becomes “arch-reactionary”?
Bernard Keane is becoming quite good. Wasn’t so sure at first…
Guido’s right - no-one seems to have woken up that polls consistently show that green issues resound with marginal voters. Graeme Richardson was well aware of it and used it as the decisive factor in Labor’s 1990 election win against the odds, but no other Labor hardheads have picked up on it since.
If you think the coalition looks sick now, just wait till that compensation package comes out. The ETS will raise a lot of money, and the punters won’t appreciate people who want to take away their carefully politically targeted bribes - err, “compensation”.
I think they may have had a bit of a clue last year, dd!
The sooner the liberals dump Nelson the better. Australia really needs a bipartisan approach when it comes to addressing global warming.
Chris, the way things look, an approach to global warming is likely to be more polarised opposites than bipartisan.
satp - yes and unfortunately it means that whatever Labor do on the global warming front it looks good in comparison to the opposition.
It’s boring watching the Federal Libs in that same denialism in which the various state Libs spent their first terms in opposition.
Not boring. Reassuring. It means it will be years before they get back into office.
Maybe the Federal Liberals and their Pineapple Party mates still drunk on champagne are longing for the good old days of drilling for oil on the Great Barrier Reef. A dead reef would make their shares far more valuable.
“It was eventually revealed that several Queensland Cabinet Ministers owned shares in companies that had successfully applied for sand-mining leases at Cooloola. In 1969 fellow Parliamentarians asked the member for Barambah (Joh Bjelke-Petersen) to sell his shares in oil and mining companies, including a number that were involved in drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, and he refused 4. Oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, which had begun in 1967, was a contentious issue for many years.”
http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/1972cabdocs/background.asp
http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2008-06-26.23.2
The problem is we are faced with climate emergency and need to decarbonise with haste. And we have a weak Wong and a pathetic opposition. The CPRS is already too compromised. In two year’s time it will be completely gutted.
We need to find a way to get climate change policy out of the hands of politicians and economists. They are proving that they are incapable of taking real and immediate action to tackle this problem. Its like Neville Chamberlain all over again, but rather than a dealing with madman, the future of the planet is at stake.
As I’ve argued at my blog http://rapturousthinking.blogspot.com/2008/07/gambling-future.html
The long term damage to the Libs is more the effect this sort of behaviour has on the membership than on the voters. Party members have much longer memories than the electorate.
At forst I felt a bit sorry for Brendan Nelson on the 7.30 Report tonight (Wed. 30 July) as he was being grilled by Kerry O’Brien. Until I realised Nelson was being an evasive little sh*t over whether he’d apologised to his party room this morning. But then it dawned on me that the Libs in fact had not set ANY date to introduce an ETS, and that, JUST LIKE HOWARD, Nelson was lying his bloody face off to the electorate about a future date to begin action against global warminmg if they’r4e in Government. As always, this pack of conservative bastards CAN”T be trusted ,ever, to look after our future.
If my language is slightly more crude than usual, its because I’m very angry about these Liberal liars.