Malcolm Turnbull tells truth
December 7th, 2009 by Robert Merkel | Published in Climate change, Economics, Politics | 84 Comments
I’m sorry, there are more important things going on – there seems to be some optimism surrounding the prospects of a deal at Copenhagen, but it’s going to be a weak one – but for sheer entertainment value it’s worth having a look at Malcolm Turnbull’s latest blog entry:
First, let’s get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.
To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.
Somebody has to pay.
So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, “bullshit.” Moreover he knows it.
Read the whole thing – trust me, it gets better.
I’m sure it must have been cathartic to write. It also happens to be pretty much dead-on accurate.
ELSEWHERE: Harry Clarke, Possum.
That is good… :-)
I think it is safe to presume that the Libs will not have a credible emissions reduction policy at the next election. They will target a 5% reduction and use as much creative carbon accounting as they can to interpret it generously. There wqill then be smoke and mirrors to try to pretend that voluntary action plus a small amount of direct government investement and subsidies (the kind of winner-picking that the Libs love) can somehow meet this small target.
It’s priceless, simply priceless!
I quite like the description of Tony Abbott as “The Weather Vane”
:)
Abbott presser in 15 minutes – will he be doing this every time Malcolm updates his blog?
In a different world where everybody takes climate change seriously, the conservative side of politics would be the ones championing an ETS, and the big-govt side of politics would be asking for a more onerous carbon tax and command-and-control policies.(banning various polluting technologies, requiring clean energy etc).
But instead we have the ALP championing a weak ETS, and the coalition (both during the Howard years, and now, under Abbott) going for more of a socialist-homeopathy approach: dilute, piddling subsidies and grants and lite command-and-control stuff (banning incandescents). Just enough to generate press releases, without effecting any major change. Weird.
A sure sign that many aren’t taking climate change seriously. Malcolm nailed it.
Interesting having a quick look through the comments on the blog – after about the first 40 minutes it went up, the comments from outraged LNP types start up in earnest. Given Abbott has called a press conf. for 11:40, Pollytics remark that “everytime Malcolm thinks Abbott is getting a few good headlines, what’s the bet he drops bombs like this?” we should see Tone being kept very very busy.
And given the rhetoric last week about the Libs not being a stalinist party aka the ALP, quite how then shall they gag Malcolm without being open to the same accusation?
The Liberal Party – the gift that keeps on giving.
That’s a wonderful, articulate dummy-spit. He really can write well, and he seems to have a more radical position than he ever confessed to either in Govt or as Opposition leader.
At last we see the real Malcolm. Can he join the Greens now?
But for all those who think the Libs will be decimated over this, they did better than expected in the by-elections, and no matter how Possum spins it, they’ve got a bounce in Newspoll.
A few more months of Abbott banging on about a “Great Big New Tax” and who knows where they’ll be in the polls.
While he was Minister for the Environment Turnbull said several times that we needed to de-carbonise the electricity grid completely by 2050. I thought he was the one on either side who best understood the science. The problem was always that you couldn’t rely on his view prevailing amongst the drongos of his party.
At a guess, exactly where they’ve been for the last 2 years: behind 56-44.
Alas, poor Malcolm.
His worth has went.
State NSW Liberal party opposed the privatisation of electricity, federal party now supports (apparently) central planning as action for climate change.
It is, I suppose, conservatism write large: Use the policies of the left from 50 years ago. How they manage the cognitive dissonance I’ll never know.
All Mal needs to do is get Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce, who also think Tony is speaking crap, to call for a spill.
The precedent has been set. You can call them every week in The Liberal Party.
Ute Man, I don’t think they’ve ever had any problems with cognitive dissonance – they’ll just do what they always do, and lie about their previous position.
I like this bit:
“Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it.”
A “convictions” politician.
Martin B @ 9: I wish I could share your optimism. Reading comments at LP last week (after Abbott was elected) you would have thought total obliteration for the Libs was inevitable. Instead, they got swings towards them in the by-elections and Newspoll. I know I was disappointed with the results, were you?
I anticipate support for the ETS will soften considerably over the next few months as voters are repeatedly told they face higher gas and electricity bills … and ‘Climategate’ will allow them to rationalise their change of mind.
Please tell me why this won’t happen.
I dont really understand where the “lets worry about Tony” camp is coming from. So, after years of huge poll leads, and noted poll support for action on climate change, even among liberal supporters, changing to a denialist position is likely to improve their vote?
um: how?
So will Mal’s new party be a preference machine for the libs?
While he’s fired up, I hope Malcolm can produce a similar blog entry on the stimulus package, and repudiate some of the nonsense (much of which came out of his own mouth) on that particular topic.
Good on him. I thought he’d walk away. If he sticks this out – he’ll be vindicated and regain the leadership yet.
As Malcolm wants to be next Prime Minister, I doubt that any of his readers’ suggestions for him to become an Independent would have any attraction for him. I guess that means he is going to stay and foment rebellion in the ranks. Although the environmentally aware, anti-monarchist rich person he is pitching his appeal to is rather thin on the ground in Australia so that will be a handicap. It might be a statistical improbability that Abbott wins the next election, but I still think he appeals to the credulous red-neck Pauline Hansonites who for some time have been itching for a new idol since Jonny Howard tried to sign them all up to SerfChoices.
So is Malcolm going to push the envelope and print something in the papers? Is this kind of jostling going to be going on all summer? Or is he going to charge right out of the paddock and a new third force political party? Who knows? Pass the deck chairs and double margaritas with olives and little umbrellas on top!!!!
Malcolm, you warms me heart.
Lefty E @ 16,
Because Abbott is as cunning as a shit-house rat. Sometime in the past few days I read somewhere a piece on Mrs. Abbott. Very good piece it was too. She likes to keep herself removed from politics. But she did make a very interesting observation re Abbatt’s elevation to the leadership of the Libs. “We always knew this might happen some day.” Now, my question is, Why? What did Mr. Abbott say some time in the past that made his missus think he might become leader of the Liberal Party. This, it seems, has been on his mind for quite some time. One can only hope Malcolm keeps sticking pins in him.
I think people have been a little excited by the elevation of Abbott. While I don’t expect he will be a successful leader – because the task he has set himself in near-impossible – I do expect that he will be more presentable than some might think.
I disagree with this interpretation, but even if you say there were swings, they were minute.
Personally I would have loved the Greens to romp to victory in both, so in that sense I’m disappointed but I never thought that was likely.
Do you think the ALP will just vacate the field? Will there not be people pointing out that there will be compensation for price rises? And will there not be people pointing out that every single advanced economy in the world will have decided that the ETS is the most sensible emissions reduction strategy?
I confidently expect that Climategate will be last years news next year.
Because a substantial majority of the population will still want ‘action on climate change’.
Because anything Abbott picks up on the ETS he will lose on Workchoices II.
Because the ETS will not be the sole or even dominant factor in assessing support.
Because the government will still get credit for having steered us through the GFC, and the ‘no magic pudding solution’ line will only underline the economic credibility.
Because Rudd will still come across as an intelligent hardworking PM, and people will still be inclined to give the government a fair go.
Because the Opposition will still look intensely divided without a clear direction.
How’s that?
id say that’s only a risk, Carbonsink, if Rudd also gets pinned as a do-nothing on climate change. And he’s actually vulnerable on this score. A deal at Copenhagen is likely to make tougher action than Rudd proposes a fait accomplit. I think the ETS going down this time has saved Rudd a lot of problems.
“Climate gate” is load of crap- which hopefully reassures you on that point. I think the “insiders” in this country have missed a critical point: action on climate change is popular, NOT because of the science, or debates ovr policy – but rather, becuase the lvied expereicne of odrinary voters is that its getting hotter, there’s more extreme weather events and the climate is changing for the worse.
Thats why Abbott is screwed – they’re effectively trying to argue against ordinary common sense now.
Paul – I repeat my prediction that Abbott’s raft will sink like a stone when his thought bubbles become policy. Where already seeing problems as soon as Hockey pulls a number out of a hat.
In the meantime – the ALP wants to cover its left flank. There IS a risk if the ETS gets scrutinised too closely, punters will realise its also a do-nothing position. That will complicate Rudd’s pitch.
Lefty E.
Hope you’re right.
Don’t forget it’s the Abbott and Barnaby Show: The tories have to wrassle a swag of Qld seats from Wayne and Kev to have a chance of winning, and barmey barney gives them that entre to the frighteningly large hansonite fringe, which pulled something like 22% from memory when it was fresh. Malcolm didn’t present a Qld strategy.
Umm, hint: the Qld economy, cough, cough, runs on coal. Apres coal, rien.
I am hoping that at the next Federal election the Libs either don’t run in the safe ALP inner city seats ot pref the Greens so that what happened in the WA State seat of Fremantle happens in the Federal seats of the same hue. Then the ALP will have to decide whether they are going to deal with the Greens, and the public can find out what true economic vandalism feels like again, or move further towards the centre.
I agree that returning form Copenhagen with a target that is in accord with much of the rest of the industrialised world and stronger than 5% has clear political advantages for Rudd now.
I think that’s wishful thinking. But as I said back up there his emissions reduction policy will certainly not be credible.
Carbonsink at 15: Well, those who thought Tony Abbott would be obliterated in the by-elections and the first Newspoll after his election as Opposition Leader were indulging in highly wishful thinking.
That said, the results in the by-elections and Newspoll were not good for Abbott.
According to the Anthony Green guide, the 2007 first preferences for the Liberals in Bradfield was the worst since 1949 (where his graph starts) and seems to be equal worst for Higgins with 1972.
Now, in the absence of a Labor Party candidate you would think there should have been some increase in the Liberal Party vote, given Climategate has been with us some time and Abbott has received extensive publicity about how he will cut emissions at a far lower cost.
What happened was that in Bradfield the Liberal candidate’s first preferences dropped 3.4 per cent and in Higgins rose 0.3 per cent. Given that with the exception of the Greens (whose preferences were not distributed), the preferences of the numerous other candidates could be, and did, flow strongly to the Liberals, then a final two-party preferred for the Liberal was up 0.4 per cent in Bradfield and 2.5 per cent in Higgins.
Now, let’s us have a look at Newspoll and compare like with like – that is the first Newspoll after both Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader.
This is what happens:
• The first Newspoll (September 19-21 2008) after Malcolm Turnbull took over as Opposition Leader on the category of preferred Prime Minister showed Rudd at 54 and Turnbull 24, a 30-point margin to Rudd. The first Newspoll (December 4-6 2009) after Abbott took over as Opposition Leader on the preferred Prime Minister category showed Rudd at 60 and Abbott at 23, a 37-point margin to Rudd.
• In the Newspoll of September 19-21 2008, the Labor primary vote was 41, the Liberals 34, Nationals 4, Greens 10 and others 10, translating into a two-party preferred of Labor 55, Coalition 45. In the Newspoll of December 4-6 2009, the Labor primary vote was 43, Liberals 34, Nationals 4, Greens 11 and Others 8, translating into a two-party preferred of Labor 56, Coalition 44.
• On the satisfaction rating of the Prime Minister, the Newspoll of September 19-21 2008 showed Rudd satisfied 50, dissatisfied 37 and uncommitted 13, The Newspoll for December 4-6 2009 showed Rudd satisfied 58, dissatisfied 32 and Uncommitted 10. There was no satisfaction ratings for either Turnbull or Abbott in the corresponding Newspolls, presumably because it was considered too soon to take them.
However, comparing the latest Newspoll with the one immediately preceding it, Rudd’s satisfaction rating of 58 was up 2 on November 27-29 2009 and his dissatisfaction rating of 32 was down 2.
I think Climategate will rapidly diminish as an issue (except among the rabid denialists) and one pointer to this is the piece on page 8 of The Sydney Morning Herald where Brett Parris, a research fellow at Monash University and World Vision Australia’s chief economist is reported to have prepared a 48-page document outlining responses to questions and objections proposed by sceptics. In case you are not a reader of the SMH, it says the full document is at http:/www/tinyurl.com/BPClimateFAQs (I have tried it and it is). The Herald has summarised the responses to 10 of these objections.
Then, there is the front page story headed $50b bill for Abbott carbon plan, which the story says was a Joe Hockey estimate two weeks ago when Abbott outlined a list of carbon abatement measures during an Opposition shadow cabinet meeting.
Abbott has not denied this and responded only by saying that not all the measures he mentioned to shadow cabinet would be included in his final plan.
This, of course, was followed up by Turnbull’s blog. And, I think it is significant that Senator Helen Coonan stepped down from the shadow ministry (she had covered Finance) as Abbott began shuffling people in portfolios.
Is it just me or does Malcolm in his photo on his blog’s banner bear a strong resemblance to JR Ewing?
The Hockey comment is fascinating. He’s Shadow Treasurer, so he’ll be the one spruiking the new policy, including defending the costings for it. I wonder how he’ll credibly manage that?
I don’t need to be told that Climategate is crap, but it does sow seeds of doubt, and gives people an excuse to vote against the “Great Big New Tax” come election day.
I agree that people’s lived experience is that the climate is changing, but most people feel it is beyond their control and something the government should be dealing with by building wind farms or something. What they don’t need is a Great Big New Tax on their gas and electricity bills.
I don’t believe Abbott needs a credible climate change policy. All he needs to do is make soothing noises about “appropriate risk management”, occasionally throw in a suggestion that the science is completely settled, and open a few solar power stations. i.e. don’t allow himself to be painted as an out-an-out denialist, but keep hammering the Great Big New Tax message.
That said, I can’t see Rudd losing the next election because he is so far ahead in the polls. What worries me is that public support for acting on climate change is ebbing away, and the end of bipartisanship on the issue will accelerate the process.
“Is it just me or does Malcolm in his photo on his blog’s banner bear a strong resemblance to JR Ewing?”
A bit, Bernice, but it may just be the hat. I still think he looks more like Andre Rieu. He is now playing his violin from the left, though.
http://g8.undercoverhd.com/imgsresized/article/080512AndreRieu120508-9521.jpg
What worries me is that Rudd and Wong are not making any attempt to refute the “Great Big New Tax” scare. Is it scaring them too? :(
I doubt it scares them PeterS@34. They have Judith Troeth on tape, the day of the spill, saying it is nonsense. At election time they would be able to play that over and over. Probably Mal will help out with a nice sound bite, as well.
The article referred to by JohnL @29 is here
The problem for the Libs will be when they come out with policy costings and have to defend them. You can’t do anything about this issue wothout spending a shit load of money.
Martin – my money’s on Abbott’s emission policy being even worse than not credible in the post-Copenhagen environment; as the economic arguments it relies on could well be snuffed out if our competitors act.
And look how long Malcolm’s “bio-char” lasted (about 10 minutes in sunlight)- and he’s NOT a denialist :)
PeterS @ 34 you have raised and joe2 @ 35 you have to some extent allayed a big concern of mine. Reading the comments on Malcolm’s blog today I was touched and impressed by a message of support from an elderly, long term Lib lady, who said that she and many of her likeminded friends had taken to reaching for the off-switch whenever Coalition pollies repeated their “great big new tax” mantra as they tried to imprint it on our subconscious. I guess if thinking erstwhile Coalition supporters respond that way then the population at large might do too. But Joe 2, it shouldn’t be left to chance and waiting for an election campaign to run a counter slogan will be too late.
“Weather Vane” should land more than glancing blow on Abbott, but something much more punchy and telling is needed to counter that massive new tax mantra.
On another tack I was impressed by Malcolm’s use of the Churchill quote: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” This was so apt even at a personal level I for one no longer doubt his commitment to principal rather than ambition here. For him the dye is cast and it could at last be the making of him, as a man if not as a party political leader or Prime Minister.
I’m sure that Tony Abbott will search for a way to burn heretics without producing CO2.
If he succeeeds, then AGW problem solved!
Malcolm Turnbull may well have nominated himself to be Tony’s pilot study.
Malcolm is showing absolutley no loyalty to his new leader
Oh yes, Brendon, its quite unlike the stunning loyalty that Abott and Minchin showed to him when he was leader.
Boom! boom! d.d.
Loyalty to a leader. What a quaint concept. So the standard should apply to Malcolm Turnball, but no one else, certainly the least Shifting Sands Tony.
Don’t know what happened there. Back to work, I suppose.
Penny Wong has done her homework and demonstrated that climate action based on emission trading will be costly, complex and difficult to understand. So it would make sense if she, Kevin and Malcolm stepped back for a while and had a hard look at what could be done if emission trading and comprehensive carbon tax systems were not an option before launching a big attack on Abbot.
They will either come up with something better than CPRS or be better placed to attack when Abbot comes up with a real proposal. One of the reasons Keating was able to attack Hewson’s GST so effectively was that Keating had seriously considered a GST before – He understood both the strength’s and weakness of a GST and how it could be attacked.
Abbot too would be wise to back off until he has a better idea of what will be in his 2020 action plan. Getting locked into a “it will cost nothing” stance right now simply undermines credibility and makes it harder to come up with the best plan.
Some could view this as a dummy spit, but I don’t know how anyone could stay silent while Abbott spouts complete nonsense.
Somebody had to state the plain truth: there is not cost-free way of binging carbon levels down and cap-and-trade is judged by experts around the world – including experts appointed by the Howard Government – to be the most effective and economically responsible option.
To give some idea of the sheer lies and lunacy gripping the Coalition, one of the lines being used is that we’ll all being paying $150 for a steak. Back in the reality world, it’s estimated we’ll pay an extra 4 cents for a steak. I don’t think I’ll be going vegetarian just yet.
One of the other stupid lines being used by the Coalition – a deeply unpatriotic one – is that the world couldn’t care less what Australia’s position is. In fact, the world does pay notice of what this middle-sized country does. Certainly, the Senate voting down the ETS was reported all around the world.
And a question: how can you be both a weathervane and a conviction politician unafraid to speak your mind?
Ginja @47: “…cap-and-trade is judged by experts around the world – including experts appointed by the Howard Government – to be the most effective and economically responsible option.”
Just wondering what you thought of the paper by Dr Splash of CSIRO, on this very topic? And what you thought of his work being suppressed, after being accepted by a peer-reviewed international journal?
It seems that someone important doesn’t want us to know any argument other than that you espouse above.
The latest new is that, after management harrassed and threatened their scientist, apparently all references to him and his work have been deleted from the CSIRO website. Please tell me this isn’t so. That order would have to come from very high up, I imagine. In sum, this all would say something very bad about the current management culture of CSIRO.
Further, is this a sign of intellectual weakness in the current CEO, or is she being heavied by the Rudd government?
So much for hearing both sides of the intellectual argument. So much for the CSIRO being an independent research organisation, using our taxes to fearlessly find the correct answers for Australia on important issues.
What exactly are the fearsome ideas in his paper, that we all should not read?
Oh yeah, that’s going to be some fearsome weapon they’ll have there.
John, I understand that is your view, but it is not one held at all widely amongst the bureaucracy, or indeed any of the external sources of advice the government is likely to turn to.
Nor is Malcolm Turnbull likely to take that view.
So the odds of what you propose happening are essentially nil.
Dr Splash’s paper wants stricter regulations, direct carbon taxes, and less advantage for big business. Nothing Abbott could use.
Turnbull os following the traditional path of the classical hero – starts out as hero of the Republican movement, but commences his fall from grace on loss of the referendum, sinks lower as he joins the Libs, gets preselection then wins Wentworth. Sinks further into disgrace as Leader of the Oppositoin and pervuyor of the Grech emails. Then starts redemption by supporting the ETS to finally being raised uponshoulders again after losing Leadrship and slagging new leader and his no ETS mandate.
Just because one is wealthy doesn’t mean one is conservative or deserves a place in the Liberal Party.
Brendon @51, if so then why is the management of CSIRO so rediculously determined not to allow his work into the public domain? And to “erase” him and his work?
I just tried the CSIRO search engine, and came up blank. Hope this is a weakness of the search engine &/or my own search abilities, and not the sign of soviet-style state control of information.
Is the CEO a control freak with a one-track mind, who can’t tolerate scientific debate?
Or is she a sock puppet for the Rudd government, who are control freaks that can’t tolerate debate?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760312.htm?section=justin
It looks pretty good to me, coming as it is from someone inside the broad church, Craig Mc@49. But mock if you must.
I was just wondering earlier today whether Turnbull was a Churchill fan. Maybe he’s more or less consciously emulating him with some wilderness years of his own? He can speak his mind from the back-benches, organise party revolts on big votes, occasionally flirt with the idea of starting a new party, and then finally, when the world starts falling to pieces, be acclaimed as the man of the hour who was right all along and have leadership thrust upon him? Of course, one big difference is that Churchill was a government back-bencher, not an opposition one, so he was speaking truth to power rather than to impotency.
Or maybe Turnbull simply found the quote in a big book of quotations and liked it …
Elise @51,
There is no direct evidence that the Rudd government was specifically active in this case.
Might I suggest to any entrepreneurs who may be reading that there is probably a niche market for weather vanes in the shape of Tony Abbott. But you’ll have to move quickly; this opportunity will have disappeared in about a year.
Brendon @56, I read somewhere that the Rudd government had changed the rules of engagement for the CSIRO, so that they could not publish material sensitive to government policy. Haven’t seen the document itself.
Presumably it was open to interpretation, or it would have been seen as soviet-style information control, at the time it was introduced? Presumably someone has subsequently been pursuaded to interpreted the rules soviet-style – either from their own needs or due to external pressure?
Otherwise why headhunt someone from the UK to work on economics and then park him in Canberra? So he can play tiddlywinks and practice his nodding-dog impersonations on economic policy?
Just fyi it’s Spash, not Splash.
What Elise deals in does splash!
The Coalition, much as the US Republicans, have simply had a collective nervous breakdown and decided to live in the padded-room quietude of their upbringing, where there are vast left-wing conspiracies and the comforting rants of AM radio shills to inspire and guide them.
They don’t care that they are now a minority, they are blinded by the bonfire of shrill rancour they have lit and flock to it like moths.
Very well put CMMC, with one amendment:
“They don’t
careeven know that they are now a minority, they are blinded by the bonfire of shrill rancour they have lit and flock to it like moths.”I believe the only way to deal with a scare campaign like this is with verifiable facts. The ETS and its effects have been modelled, so we are told, so there is the basis for a comprehensive story, including:
That the aim is to make unsustainable activities more expensive than sustainable alternatives.
That the transition will be disruptive – how are the disruptions to be compensated?
How will improved efficiencies counteract the expense?
What will be the real impact on the average person?
How will newly created jobs compensate for the lost industries?
– and so on.
I assume all this information is in the Garnaut report. Should someone be extracting a Citizen’s Primer from it?
When I was at Nambour High, I was taught to be thorough. I am sad that that they subsequently trained our Kev to be so slapdash. :)
Malcolm on the backbench blogging like this is more valuable to Australia than (say)
i) Malcolm resigning or
ii) Malcolm sitting on backbench writing his memoirs as $weetie Co$tello did
But the memoirs will be worth a look, if they appear during the next couple of years.
A few more Abbott quotes: “Mate, maaaate,… ”
would be worth the price of admission
Good point John Davidson @46. Of course it would make sense for all the main players to load their guns before they start blasting each other again. However, in the end that should not be the game. What these times call for is not short term politiking but stateswo/manship.
This is where it would be interesting to find an answer to Bretts @55 question. Does Mr Turnbull have that Churchillian grittiness and charisma? Is he mad enough to be brilliant, any hint of black dog to keep that ego in check? Is there a worthwhile Biography available to read or a good character study?
He has come up with some very good sounding lines, particularly since the pressure was on lately, but is there substance and commitment? Because the triple bypass equivalent could be the path to destiny.
RM @51: Just because the put a price on carbon keeps being repeated doesn’t mean it is right anymore than the fact that government bureaucrats and advisers are all sprouting the same line doesn’t mean that this view will win in the long term. The ABC reported that:
I rest my case. How can Penny be sure that some alternative isn’t better if ETS was the only thing that the government has considered? Or that Tony may actually come up come up with a much better approach because he doesn’t feel bound to agree with Penny’s amazing statement that “Central to climate policy is putting a price on carbon.” Even if I agreed that putting a price on carbon was the best approach I would find this statement amazing.
Penny, Malcolm and Tony all need to try and think outside of the current ETS or carbon tax orthodoxy.
Elise: sorry, I’m not aware of that issue. I wouldn’t, of course, like to see anything like that suppressed.
My point is that there are all kinds of schemes – like carbon taxes – that people say are better than an ETS, but when very bright people study various approaches in detail they keep coming back to an ETS. For all its problems, the weight of expert opinion is on the side of an ETS.
People say a straight carbon tax wouldn’t involve giving away free permits to industry. I just don’t see that lots of industries wouldn’t want an exemption from carbon taxes, too.
But I’m not one for conspiracy theories (and this issue seems to be attracting plenty) – I think Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK (by himself) and man landed on the moon.
Because the alternatives were considered in the Garnaut report, and Garnaut’s recommendation was for an ETS, you moron.
As luck would have it, Paul Krugman has written on just this topic today. Could someone provide a link?
The great man, yet again, settles the argument.
John Davidson (at 67) – so i/f an ETS and a carbon tax are orthodoxy , why don’t you tell us what are the alternatives
I really can’t cope with Malcolm T’s quote:-”To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.
Somebody has to pay.”
Successive Federal Governments have enabled the State Governments to “steal” equity in farming land. No-one has paid yet for the carbon sequestered in all the regrowth vegetation locked up by native vegetation laws, and in the process making agricultural land worthless. Thats why we have Peter Spencer on a hungerstrike as reported om the Agmates and SOS websites
Here’s an ex-Lib polly and self-described ‘poor bastard’. who’s also telling he truth. A pox on all their houses, he says.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/liberals-have-betrayed-the-menzies-dream-20091207-kf80.html
And this was supposed to be the ‘left’ of the Liberal Party.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/liberals-steer-to-the-right-on-boats/story-e6frg6n6-1225807997148
I shudder to think what kind of horror movie Nick Minchin (Sorry, Tony Abbott) has in mind for the Australian people, but it won’t be one where you munch cheerfully on popcorn and send Jaffas rolling down the aisles. More likely the kind where they carry the audience out because they’ve dropped dead with fright.
The scene opens with an unhappy child looking out the window at all the snow. Its Wyndham,(WA) 2020. The child turns to an off screen adult and asks, “Mummy, why did the commies take away our protective carbon dioxide atmospheric layer?” …..
American cultural lapdogs! The Australian word is “commo”.
SATP,
:)
Actually, SATP, seeing as the Libs are taking all their talking-points from the loony right in America, “commie” is probably correct usage (in this case).
adrian @45, perhaps Brendan Nelson could be asked for an opinion on Turnbull’s loyalty to his elected leader. White-anting is not confined only to the appalling Nick minchin.
Shouldn’t it be a great big book of quotations, Brett @56?
Wow, Pig Iron a progressive! Whoda thunk it?
I’m not so sure that commo pinko bastard rolls off the tongue easier than commie pinko bastard in any accent.
http://www.zazzle.com.au/commie_pinko_bastard_tshirt-235721154603274138
Next you will be trying to tell us to say Boono
As I commented on Malcolm’s refreshingly frank blog post, his comments regarding Abbott’s political position on “not taxing carbon emissions” are spot on.
But I don’t think your support for Rudd’s heavily compromised ETS (CPRS) is warranted. Treasury modelling shows it won’t reduce emissions until after 2030. It also ignores Garnaut’s strong recommendations on no free permits or cash payments to polluters (corporate welfare), nor exempt agriculture and petrol.
We need an immediate cost on carbon and a simple tax would be the best way to do this – not a market based system that provides no abatement.
Immedidate legislated energy efficiency standards and a national gross feed in tariff are needed too.
Peterc, without rehashing debates had elsewhere, I agree that the CPRS is a deeply flawed plan.
The question is whether opposing the CPRS is likely to lead to a better ultimate outcome than passing it.
One assumption in all this is that given a couple of years, Labor will come to its senses and propose something much closer to the Green position. I’m not sure that that is a warranted assumption.
Robert, Labor won’t come to their senses; neither will the Liberals. Both are under the thrall of old polluting industries and their lobbyists. Garnaut stated correctly that a compromised ETS is inferior to a simple carbon tax.
The “ratchet up” assumption is one we cannot make – all evidence to date suggests this simply won’t happen.
It is much easier to ratchet up (or down) a carbon tax as required. But our politicians want the option to buy indulgences (offsets) for when Australia inevitable exceeds even the pathetic 5% committed reduction targets.
Our political system in its current form is not capable of addressing climate change – as Copenhagen is demonstrating.
I don’t think we have to go as far as the political system to find the culprit of our inability to confront global warming. We are not built for long-term across the board compromise. Also, we have this usually commendable resistance to jumping at shadows. To not be spooked. It’s going to get us into trouble, this time. That isn’t a herd of woolly mammoths on the horizon.