The politics of 'direct action' on Climate Change
February 3rd, 2010 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Climate change, Politics | 63 Comments
After last night’s round of interviews with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce, one thing is clear about the Coalition’s climate change policy.
No one believes in it.
They’ve come to this pass because of the momentum of the twin drives to dethrone Malcolm Turnbull and the internal politics of climate change denialism in the Coalition and among the so-called ‘Liberal base’.
Abbott’s ‘direct action’ is supposed to provide a point of contrast between bike-riding muscular Tony (and don’t for a minute think all these photos and all the tv vision of him in togs and exercising is coincidental) and that blancmange of a bureaucrat, KRudd. But the Coalition is stuck with the windy rhetoric that none of them actually care for – either because they don’t believe climate change is real, or because they know it is, and this is an epic fail.
That’s another reason why the contradictions in this thing won’t easily be papered over, and selling it will be very difficult.
The Coalition itself might not believe in the ERF, but Alan Kohler is giving it the thumbs up in today’s Business Spectator, obviously after glowing reviews from his close contacts in the Melbourne-based resource houses.
Kohler thinks it’s a master-stroke that Abbott is offering to use taxpayers money to encourage the La Trobe valley power companies to convert from brown coal to gas.
His view is that this is a more targeted, less politically risky scheme that ticks the green boxes while ensuring the coal industry is compensated.
In the meantime, he sees Rudd Labor as gravely at risk of being seen as like a shag on a rock with a hard to understand and hard to communicate ETS at a time when the global movement in that direction has stalled.
A bit short-termist, to be sure, but I can see his point.
What Kohler doesn’t seem to grasp is that shutting down Hazelwood and Loy Yang doesn’t get you there if emissions are going up like crazy everywhere else round the country.
As well Kohler’s first few paras don’t seem to gel with the body of his report – if this aspect of the ERF didn’t get into the media at all on the launch day because of all the kerfuffle what makes him think it will 1) become the killer app of the ERF and 2) win public support and where did he get 3) Rudd will consider a deal with the greens from? Last I checked the Greens and Labor still don’t have the numbers.
Kohler perhaps hasn’t been paying attention to the statement that the negotiations with The Greens on the CPRS have been “constructive”. I still think the notion that the government’s position is that of an immovable object is doubtful.
And despite Abbott’s claim that electricity generators are our new best friends, I don’t know that the wholehearted support of big business has ever won an Australian election (cf. WorkChoices).
I’m also not sure Kohler is right that business in toto supports Abbott’s plan. Lateline Business painted quite a different story:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/201002/s2808403.htm
The gist of it is doubts about the meaningfulness and coherence of the policy, and that the absence of predictability on a carbon price makes it difficult for long term investments.
The only biz lobby groups I saw supporting Abbott last night on the telly were the ACCI (who I thought were more of an industrial relations mob) and the power generators themselves. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as clearcut to say that “business” supports the Coalition.
The renewable energy sector was highly critical as well.
@3 – Leinad, no, but that doesn’t really matter. Although there are calculations premised on picking up The Greens and Xenophon and one Liberal Senator (perhaps Troeth who is retiring), what’s more important than Senate passage is (a) what version of the bill Rudd can take to a DD and therefore pass if he wins; (b) the final position of all parties – which could conceivably be Garnaut’s interim solution + further negotiations on the design of an ETS for Labor and The Greens.
I’m not saying this will happen. I am saying that I think it’s wrong to suggest that Rudd is incapable of movement on this particular station.
It seems to me that Abbott has used the words “direct action” only as a selling point in my humble opinion. In an effort to be seen as doing something about climate change, the Liberals will spout “direct action” to hopefully appeal to voters that are frustrated with the government’s current “action” on tackling climate change.
If the press conference was anything to go by the Liberals will have a very tough time convincing people their policy will be “direct action” on climate change.
Yes, Robert, but the climate change end game here really doesn’t matter. The end game for the Coalition and its spinners (as it is for Labor) is getting elected in six or nine months. That’s the horizon in this debate.
So you have to judge the merits of each policy on the basis of how politically sellable it is and how it comes across on TV. Rudd unwisely pinned all his hopes on an international agreement on climate change. The Copenhagen failure is read by the public as his failure.
Now here comes Tony Abbott with a policy that gets a big tick from the polluters while convincing the 98 per cent of the population that pays little attention to the detail that the coalition has done enough on green issues to get their vote.
Rudd could rescue his ETS by reaching a compromise with the Greens, but then he risks being characterised as the radical one – not Abbott.
@7 – Particularly since Barnaby Joyce appeared greatly pained at even having to mention “climate change”, and Abbott’s performance was all over the shop – “look, deniers, this policy is for you too! Carbon is teh good!”, etc.
@8 – Or, Mr Denmore, Labor could blame Liberal denialism for its lack of a bill, turn the focus back on the Coalition and mine their policy for all its worth – the fact that it’s uncosted is a real problem for them, and plays to the risk factor on economic management.
And I’m sure about 100 public servants in the Department of Climate Change are pouring over Abbott’s screed this morning.
One of the reasons Oppositions don’t like to put out big policies is the near certainty they’ll be fingered as being full of holes. And Barnaby’s claims that they couldn’t cost it because the Henry Tax Review hasn’t been released is pure nonsense.
Look, I hate to keep harping on this theme, but a correspondent from the main source of independent news in Australia told me this morning that Abbott did a ‘reasonable job’ of selling his poor excuse for a policy, ‘certainly better than Mr Rudd’.
If the incoherent and impausible nonsense that any fool could tell Abbott didn’t even believe in, sounds reasonable to a ‘seasoned’ political reporter like Alison Carrabine, you have to believe that the ABC kool-aid currently dispensed in Canberra is a particularly strong variety.
The idea of paying power stations to convert to gas is half of a good idea. The main sticking point for me is the lack of a paying the money back type arrangement. Abbott seems to have an overly benevolent view towards these kindly corporations who bring us the miracle of electricity. Does he not know who built the power stations in the first place?
Adrian @11, the ABC correspondent will have judged Abbott’s sales job on how easily she could get a grab out of the presser. That’s her measure.
Rudd and his team desperately need to start working on some simple, boiler-plate language to sell their ETS as better and more economically responsible than Abbott’s. They need to cast a complex policy in terms that resonate for people with their everyday lives.
I’m not sure what their media advisers are up to, but they’re not earning their keep as far as I can see.
Get Julia onto the case.
@13 – I thought Rudd did quite well with his three point explanation on last night’s news. No waffling, made sense, made a contrast with the Coalition. I’m sure it’s been worked over thoroughly by spinmeisters and we’ll be hearing more of it.
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6459
“I’m not sure what their media advisers are up to, but they’re not earning their keep as far as I can see.”
Agree Mr Denmore. That’s a good explanation by Rudd above. But it’s the first time I’ve seen it and it needs to be tied to what it’s going to do to mitigate climate change. Also, will Abbott’s policy do anything to mitigate change change and if so, why not? I’m really not hearing a clear message from government yet.
Fine, I suspect they’re in the process of refining it and trying out a few angles. This show has a while to run yet.
I guess the point I was making Mr Denmore is that it’s a lot more difficult for Rudd because he is judged by such different standards than Abbott or whoever happens to be leading the coalition, even by the supposedly impartial ABC.
Abbott just has to string a few meaningless phrases together, interpersed with a few er Kerrys, and he passes the reasonable test. Rudd presents a coherent, logical argument and he fails to convince. It’s laughable.
It’s actually worse coming from the ABC because most people believe that they’re impartial, so where they might disregard News Ltd spin, they’ll lap up any garbage the ABC has to offer.
Abbott and company can stick to four points:
1. Rudd was committed to Copenhagen and it was a total failure.
2. Rudd’s proposals are going to cost you lots of money.
3. The Coalition has a balanced approach that also recognises other environmental issues.
4. Australian emissions are coming down anyway so where’s the crisis?
I reckon that will make climate change an electoral non-event with the possibility of it being a liability for Labor if people start to believe point 2. The amount of media coverage being given to the Moncktons and Plimers and Bolts etc make it likely that those whose vote is influenced by climate change will be split about 50/50, given the conservatives “Well it’s probably all crap anyway” behind the hand talking.
@11
Look, it’s been said before and I have to say it again, the electorate does not look at these things in quite the same way as journalists. Abbott looks and sounds scary. Getting about all togged up on a bike has zero value for a leader. The inconsistency of having said climate change is crap and then putting out a policy to mitigate it is not lost on the electorate. Sitting next to B. Joyce is a worry.
Today’s journalists aren’t very good at the medium wave let alone the long wave, your source’s assessment is shallow with reference to the actual policy and the electorate. I honestly don’t know why we pay for this type of pitiful analysis dressed up as news.
@19 – 2 is a straight out lie, Ken, which Abbott couldn’t convincingly defend last night.
As to 1, I think everyone outside the political class has well and truly forgotten about Copenhangen by now.
And I very much doubt the claim about the Moncktons, etc. The last research from Morgan gives the lie to the assertion that there’s been some radical shift in the general acceptance that climate change is a real issue. It’s fallen off a bit among over 50s, and most of the shift has been among core Coalition voters.
But Abbott has to win over the middle ground.
And I don’t think from what we’ve seen so far that’s going to be at all easy when he still wants to give more than a nod and a wink to the denialists.
Adrian @18, I see your point. And I agree with Mark @14 and 15 that Rudd’s description is tight, pithy and well argued. Problem is he’s only started doing this as far as I know. He should have been hammering this theme last year. Instead he went to radio silence and allowed the sceptics and nutters to fill the vaccuum.
Now, he’s got some catching up to do…and fast. These messages don’t sink until political junkies like some of us here are sick to the teeth of them. I agree with the Shaun Carney piece that someone posted from today’s Age, saying that Rudd comes across too often as a policy boffin – even when he’s trying not to.
You need to be wary of the media narrative which can built up a head of steam regardless of the actual facts of the situation. And the narrative they’re building now is that Rudd is an all-talk-no-action milksop blowhard, while Tony is a call-a-spade-a-spade hairy-chested action man.The upshot is I think Rudd’s image, which once was a positive for him, is now becoming a negative.
And that’s why, as Barrie Cassidy argued this week, the Labor Party’s best foil for Abbott is Gillard.
I agree that Abbott and Joyce do not appear committed to their policy. Even a brief read of the first one or two sections of the policy shows that by the Coalition’s own logic and recent public statements that it is not feasible.
@22 – Carney also commented that Rudd had been clear in his messaging in the lead up to the 2007 election. I suspect that will return now. I think the Labor Party had a more or less deliberate strategy of vacating the media field over the holidays, and allowing Abbott’s cockiness to grow. What we’ll see now, I suspect, is the “do him slowly” thing.
And the election’s probably eight or nine months away.
And anyway climate change is always going to be a loser for the Libs. Firstly it’s not a vote changer and thus a waste of time and effort and secondly they’re in enemy territory. They’d be better off with some nastiness with regard to asylum seekers, they’re far more at home there and it appeals to unspoken racism. It’s a secret ballot remember. But even xenophobia can be repressed if the alternative govt. looks and acts like the mountain dwellers from Deliverance.
“don’t for a minute think all these photos and all the tv vision of him in togs and exercising is coincidental”
It seems that Tony has learnt something from Vladamir Putin, who used similar tactics to raise his testoterone profile. (Robert Merkel reported on this some time ago)
Is Tony a closet communist dictator??
@26 – I’m sure we’ve got lots of xenophobia ahead from Abbott and co, PatrickB. I’ll venture to wager that it’ll be wrapped up in the stuff about population.
If you were Abbott, you might be highlighting the reliance of Rudd’s ETS on the purchase of offsets on the international market, whereas the Libs investments are more skewed towards investing directly in the local economy.
New Matilda has an article on this aspect of the ETS.
http://newmatilda.com/2010/01/21/can-we-talk-sensibly-about-ets-now
“But even xenophobia can be repressed if the alternative govt. looks and acts like the mountain dwellers from Deliverance.”
Tones and Barnyard with the banjo and the gumbo. What a mighty scary image.
Mark @ 21 I know they are lies but they sound plausible, which is all that matters. Only point 2 will be an important element of the Coalition platform; the rest is just a matter of having answers to awkward questions. As I wrote on another thread, the election is unlikely to be decided by people who watch ABC current affairs programs or read blogs.
Now that I think about it some more I can imagine a bronze of TA in some prominent part of Canberra. A muscular Tony in a forward and upward looking pose left foot forward with right hand extended upwards open palmed with a floating healthy globe just above. Our environemntal saviour! I wonder if the speedos would be better on or off?
@31 – and as I said on another thread, Ken, the government has a lot of ways, particularly in an election year, to get its message across to a broad public over the heads of the media. Rudd won the 2007 election convincingly. I don’t recall that he had a favourable press; quite the opposite, really. We had just about a whole year of solemn reminders of John Howard’s political genius.
It surprises me that people don’t remember that the art of the election campaign goes far beyond what message is conveyed through the media. Yes, the point is to shape that, but the point is also – and more importantly – to circumvent it.
I just Joyce on ‘Lateline’. Is he on some sort of prescription drugs? His slow blinking and slurring was so weird. The main things I got from the interview is that he doesn’t lie being Shadow Finance Minister and he still talks as though his only audience is Queensland farmers. That and Leigh Sales obviously thought he was very strane in an entertaining sort of way. Does anyone think his schtick will play outside of a very narrow audience?
Oh, and the fact that he literally has no ideas about how he would make budget savings. And it’s all that nasty Mr Swan’s fault. Sales: “But surely you some idea?” – almost pleadingly.
Fine, I was wondering if he was drugged up or even pissed. Not a very clear communicator last night, to put it charitably.
Can’t a bloke go for a ride, run or swim just because the media might photograph him? At least with the Monk you know it is genuinely what he does, not a put up.
And if you are going to be photographed, then you may as well make it a good one?
I wonder what Julia looks like in the lycra?
Yeah poor Tone, can’t even strip off without a bunch of his advisors tipping off the media that it’s going to happen.
Saw Barbyard on LL ( I do like Leigh a lot – something about smart attractive redhead females – unfortunately we are both married) – rather unconvincing. Can’t say I am a huge believer in making any Opposition commit to hard budget figures, because they won’t know the true budget situation until they actually take over and see what sort of a mess they’ve been left.
Mark, he seemed off his face on downers to me. As if he’s hit the Temazapam too early. “Whaddya mean I gotta go on tv? I already taken sleepy time drugs.” But maybe pissed.
M@14: ‘I’m sure it’s been worked over thoroughly by spinmeisters and we’ll be hearing more of it’:
It certainly has, he trotted it out on Sunday morning in an ‘interview’ with Laurie Oakes. It was the most wooden performance I’ve ever seen of Kev, rehearsal written all over it. You could all but see the autoprompter: if there’s one thing Kev is solid on, his first nature as it were, it’s the phatic and fatuous ‘you know Laurie/ Can I just make one thing clear’ cliches he lays on like a bad panel beater’s bog.
That’s why it stood out like the proverbials when he went all uncharacteristically tongue-tied and spluttering, trying to deliver “Well, I beg to di- di- differ on that one Laurie…’: obviously his brain was stuck between a choice of two familiar cliches, ‘beg to disagree/differ’, the teleprompter script going one way, and the Ruddbot mouth momentarily another.
I wonder if the working script actually has diacritics for when he’s supposed to use ‘Dead Spider Now’ etc rhetorical flourishes.
Mark @ 33 I’ve written that I expect Labor to win. I just don’t think climate change policy will be a significant factor.
Mark, Fine, others, I’ve been wondering if Barnyard’s been hitting the piss hard for quite a while. He’s gained weight, his complexion is unhealthy, and he’s even less coherent than he used to be.
I have to say I can’t recall Barnabasaurus ever making much sense. Why did he take Shadow Finance if he knew it wasn’t really his thing? Or did he seriously think it was like being a bush accountant?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/barnaby-joyce-stumbles-over-billions-in-climate-policy-funding-explanation/story-e6frg6xf-1225826449371
Barnaby tries to find $3.2 billion in savings from $1,400 million – reported in the Australian
I had a look at Barnyard on Lateline and think he looked pretty sober. The main problem was that he is now completely out of his depth…slowly drowning, actually.
All Leigh Sales did was treat him like he was someone in the economic know and he just could not keep up.
People will start feeling sorry for him soon.
No they won’t. They’ll be screaming for his head. Tones will probably make him environment minister.
Paul, nobody would really enjoy seeing this man continue to self-destruct so publicly . Apart from me.
wbb @48: “I don’t know if I’m totally fascinated with that, I’m the only one in the Parliament, let’s see how we go.”
Yikes!
And did you see the body language that went with it?
joe2,
Actually, I’m quite enjoying it. The Goose asked for it. Of course, I suppose they could make him shadow treasurer.
wbb @ 50
This got quite a run on “The 7.30 Report” too.
(A Labor Treasurer was forced to resign by RJL Hawke after a similar blunder at a press conference.)
This is should be a golden era for political comedy in Austrlia, but there is nuffin on the teev. What has happened to Aussie comedy? Is there anything on cable?
Oh well, I guess Abbott and Joyce are cutting out the middle man and just doing their own gags.
Indeed, furious.
It’s such a Pity Costello wimped out. I was so looking forward to a decade or three of “Who’s on first?”
I think the comedy is around. How could there not be with this material? It just does not make it to the idiot box, anymore.
Aunty was the main supporter of the piss take. Now she is too scared to take on anything that will upset the liberal party poopers on the board….”we will not be mocked, Mark.”
Drill, Barnaby, Drill.
The guy really is an idiot.
Bit harsh, Mark! He once made the big bucks working with numbers, he tells us. The only one in parliament, too.
He’s single-handedly making the once dreary Finance portfolio way sexy.
You don’t think Lindsay Tanner’s sexy, wbb? ;)
Lindsay is very sexy, wbb. But does he wax?
Greg Combet must wax because otherwise he would not look so good in his superman suit.
I most certainly do not think Lindsay Tanner is sexy. The last fashion statement he made would have been in about 1975