Global warming opinion and the role of partisan cues II
February 8th, 2010 by Paul Norton | Published in Activism, Climate change, Federal Elections, Politics, Polls | 84 Comments
Today’s Neilsen poll, published in the Fairfax press, contains some interesting findings about public opinion on the CPRS and on the climate change policies of the major parties.
Just under two months ago, I noted that shifts in public opinion about the reality of anthropogenic global warming appeared to be strongly related to partisan cues, in particular the overt expression of denialist opinion by Coalition politicians. More recently, in a comment at Andrew Norton’s blog, I noted that support for the CPRS was declining in recent months even though the level of sceptical public opinion, as measured by Morgan Polls, had plateaud.
Today’s Neilsen Poll finds that support for the CPRS gas declined from 66 per cent in November to 56 per cent last week. Significantly, it also finds that support for the CPRS has declined as sharply amongst Labor voters (from 79 to 68 per cent) as it has amongst Coalition voters (52 per cent to 42 per cent). Further, whilst 45 per cent of voters prefer the Coalition’s new climate action fund whilst only 39 per cent prefer the CPRS, 43 per cent of voters prefer Labor’s broad approach to climate change compared with just 30 per cent who prefer the Coalition’s broad approach. So what are we to make of it all?
Firstly, whether one thinks climate change is a serious problem requiring a real solution is a separate question from whether one thinks the CPRS is a desirable policy to address it. It should not come as a surprise, then, to find public opinion on the CPRS turning sour even as public opinion on the science of climate change seems to be reaching an apparent point of equilibrium.
Media coverage of the CPRS debate (with some honourable exceptions) usually overlooks the fact that opposition to the scheme is not confined to denialists. As well as being a member of the Greens and a reader of Ken Davidson’s Dissent magazine, I am also a member of the National Tertiary Education Union and the SEARCH Foundation, both of which think the CPRS is a crock. This is also the view of a large part of the grassroots environmental movement in Australia.
Secondly, those commentators who have said the Neilsen poll results indicate public confusion about the specifics of the major parties’ climate change policies, and also reflect the failure of the Rudd government to effectively sell the CPRS to the public, are probably right.
However, the difficulties the Rudd Government now finds itself in on the CPRS are, in an important sense, the inevitable consequence of its decision to support a climate change policy which could reassure the top end of town and potentially gain bipartisan support from the Liberals, and to spurn the Greens and the demands of much of the environmental movement. The CPRS, as it stands, is bereft of support from any of the campaigning constituencies which are able to go to the mattresses and appeal to popular opinion on an issue, and which have done so in the past in support of good Labor environmental policies. The welfare lobby groups which are doing their comradely duty by calling on the Greens to support Labor’s policy in the Senate can’t match the campaigning abilities of the grassroots environmental groups, and the Business Council of Australia and Australian Industry Group (which support the CPRS) don’t operate by going to the mattresses. The government itself can’t campaign for the CPRS with any real conviction because the policy is so obviously inadequate to deal with the problem, and is therefore uninspiring to those ALP members who might be willing to go to the mattresses for a good cause. On the other hand there is no doubting the willingness of the denialists to go to the mattresses against any policy whatsoever on climate change, however inadequate, and the Coalition has spurned bipartisanship and is on the mattresses with the denialists in more ways than one.
Good post Paul. I think the results mean the pubic find the ALP more credible on the issue in general – but for varying reasons, a subset of those people have doubts the current CPRS approach. Some of those will be well-informed Green types, who have discovered it doesnt actually cut emissions at all – others might have some economic concerns, whuch have been magindifed by the choice of a very low target. Why bother for 5%?
I think Rudd needs to go 10% to rescueteh whole approach. Does he really want to sit on the same number as Abbott and his magic climate soil&tree routine?
I’d prefer not to be “going to the mattresses” myself.
– Paul Keating during 1993 election campaign.
Its simple really, most people don’t understand the CPRS, and Abbott is saying its a “Great Big New Tax”. If you were a disinterested punter struggling with the mortgage, petrol prices, school fees etc, what would you vote for?
Its time to dump the CPRS and replace it with a simple fee-and-dividend plan, where the entire proceeds of the tax are handed back, and its obvious that middle-class swinging voters will be better off, especially if they use less energy.
See, this is where the Greens screwed up. If they had managed to help the ALP get the CPRS in place, the debate would move on to questions of targets not mechanisms.
It is even harder to have democratic debate about abatement mechanism than it is to have a popular argument about climate science.
The CPRS did not have to be perfect. Even if it was perfect the public would still have their doubts about it. The current CPRS is not meant to be a silver bullet. It is meant to be a first step taken to build a framework which ultimately will offer us protection against climate change.
The ALP chose an ETS. They thought it would be easier to sell than a carbon tax. Neither is easy to sell. The Greens must learn this very quickly.
WBB is right. The Greens misjudged this issue seriously last year.
The target of the anti-climate change campaigners wasn’t Rudd, it was Turnbull. Now that the Libs are locked into an anti-ETS position, they can rely on all Liberal voters feeling obligated to oppose CPRS, thereby putting pressure on Rudd to back down completely.
Let’s not overlook influences such as this (which predated the release of the CPRS legislation) on Labor’s willingness to negotiate with the Greens.
Maybe you’re right. Me, I still live in hope the Greens refusal to back an imaginary target constituted entirely by fictional nonsense about clean coal being invented in 2030, and imported permits, will lead to a better outcome in the long run.
If it had been passed, Id also be very worried about locking in failure and rent-seeking forever. All of a sudden, polluters own their pollution, and we still arent dont see any cuts. How is that better than nothing? There’sa good case that its worse.
Either way, more significant is the failure of the Kyoto international track.
Maybe the only way to get this going properly now is to start a global race for green tech supremacy with China. A bit of good old-fashioned cold war style, bloc v bloc motivation. Use narrow national interest to our advantage.
Absolutely, Paul@6. The Greens were never going to have the whip hand, or any indeed any hand, in negotiation. They should realise that; grit their teeth, and get the ALP ball rolling. Any result is a good start when half the ALP itself are still decidedly wobbly on climate change. In politics you always take what you can get.
The alternative is to get nothing and worse, allow the Liberals to change the game altogether.
Yes, China and the US ultimately will decide all this. Arguing about which version of the ETS to take up here, is a bit like worrying where exactly to place the Australian navy during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Nevertheless we couldn’t avoid the decision. And I’m sure our presence was a morale booster for all concerned.
Fair analogy & assessment of the signifiance, Wbb. Plus we stand to get royally screwed if the bigger actors fail.
This “if you don’t understand the GST, don’t vote for it” comparison won’t fly. GST sounded like an extra tax for no apparent reason (no matter how they tried to sell it), not a response to an urgent problem that transcends politics.
People know something has to be done about climate change, and this Coalition fiction that the simplest plan is the best is, well, simplistic. The fact that their solution doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny will be an enduring problem for them as well, as will Abbott’s “I don’t believe in climate change, but I’m going to throw billions of dollars at it anyway” approach.
I think the reason Labor are having trouble is that their own approach encourages the idea that it’s not a big issue. 5% sounds like a token gesture to indicate something is being done. They need to decide what they have on their hands: is it an urgent problem or a political opportunity? They’re giving every indication they think it’s the latter. There must be some understanding amongst them that it’s currently a boutique issue – nearly everyone wants to fight climate change, but nobody wants to sacrifice anything to do it. But there’s no middle ground here. That’s a message that isn’t getting through.
There’s always been the danger that the public would get tired of this issue dragging on and I think the poll reflects that. It doesn’t hurt the government, but it will expose the Liberals because they have nothing else to fall back on (I’m not holding my breath about Jenny Macklin’s insane plan to hold ransom welfare payments getting any Liberal outrage).
The GST was a good idea. Labor had concluded that in the mid 1980s, but Hawke sold Keating up the creek for reasons of political expediency. Labor then maintained the fiction that it was against a GST until it was securely introduced in 1999. Beazley could never muster much energy to oppose it as he had been in the discussions agreeing to it in the first place. A tax where revenues are relatively immune to business cycle fluctuations is important, and should be supported by social democrats as it provides stronger foundations for public sector investment.
Well we’re not comparing the CPRS with nothing, Lefty. The outcome of the opposition to the CPRS hasn’t been that more people have supported carbon taxes, it’s been that they’ve gone to supporting Joyce and Abbott’s unpriced carbon scheme with a slush fund for polluters. That’s certainly worse than nothing.
Also, this notable note from Possum:
what
‘Arguing about which version of the ETS to take up here, is a bit like worrying where exactly to place the Australian navy during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Nevertheless we couldn’t avoid the decision.’
I don;t think there was any worry about that aspect of Coral Sea. It was simply ‘put our two ships wherever the Americans tell us to’
The first CPRS proposal put forward by Rudd and Wong was so diabolical that it caused waiting staff to mutiny in the National Press Club and have to be hauled out, James Brown style, weeping that the planet will die if Rudd gets his way on this.
Then the second CPRS proposal gave out $7 billion to big polluters as well as being as diabolical as the first, but would have been passed on the basis of two Liberal senators had the Greens voted for it.
Now the public are concluding all parties are offering much of a muchness and, after Copenhagen are moving on to other things.
How The Greens managed to deal themselves out of one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in recent times will be a topic for future students of Australian politics.
Seems to be working a treat for Abbott and the denialists since he started the “Great Big New Tax” mantra.
Meanwhile Anna Bligh is standing next to Clive Palmer cheering on his $70 billion deal to sell 30M tonnes of coal a year to China for 20 years.
As always, with politicians actions speak louder than words. To quote the great man again:
The trouble is that the CPRS wasn’t simply inadequate on the face of it. It was actually retrograde in paying off the polluters. It also locked in the failure into the 2020s. Almost all of its cuts in emissions were based on CC&S (an improbable technology) working by 2033.
If it had been good as far as it went, though not far enough, it would have been supportable. If for example, it had proposed starting in mid-2010 with a very modest carbon emissions price on all stationary and transport energy (say $20 per tonne indicative with a modest cap of 1% by 2011, 2% by 2012 etc with review in 2011) it would have well short of what was needed, but you could have argued for building on the scheme after 2010.
The government made no such offer.
Possum goes on to say:
“Just with this question alone, if you put aside whatever your personal belief is over climate change, the fact that the government can only get less than a third of the population believing in the laws of supply and demand over carbon when their primary opposition is Barnaby Joyce is, well, it’s pretty hopeless.”
I don’t think anyone seriously expected the ALP to fall apart like this. I mean, we knew they were pretty lukewarm on this whole Carbon thing, but geeze…
d
Terry, after the Federal election, the Greens will be the only game in town. The government will at last be forced to negotiate with us. (I think it’s highly unlikely there’ll be a DD, especially over the CPRS.)
That is not the task. If it is, then the ALP are barking up the wrong tree.
Rudd’s task is to convince the voter that climate change is a serious problem and that he can be trusted to manage it.
Just like on the economy or anything else.
The voter does not vote on the technical merits of any policy. They vote on the priority of the problem and the reputation of the problem solver.
The problem must become in our minds nearly as important as interest rates(!) And Rudd must become much more fluent in his delivery on any discussion of climate. He must talk about it, not Wong. PMs talk about important issues. Ministers deal with fluff or bipartisan stuff.
“How The Greens managed to deal themselves out of one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in recent times will be a topic for future students of Australian politics.”
Hmmm. Why dont we ask the Democrats about the advantages of dealing yourself in to a dubious agenda your supporters have fundamental reservations about?
Oh thats right, there arent any.
Lets not forget the Libs only split from the ALP, like, 2 days before the CPRS vote. The ALP expected the Greens to turn 180 in 48 hours, after all their serious concerns had been blithely ignored? Where was the ALP backup plan to pass it if Turnbull got rolled?
Too early to tell how Abbott’s plan is travelling, I reckon, Liam.
This is just the argument that The Greens can be above parliamentary politics because they are the bearers of historical destiny, and those who vote for other parties are just not yet sufficiently conscious of this destiny.
Its Hegelian dialectics masquerading as political strategy.
No, it’s the entirely banal observation (sorry LE! :-) ) that the electoral responsibility of the Greens senators is to Greens supporters, and not to ALP supporters. It is quite ordinary party politics. In fact it is the argument that the Greens should vote for government legislation that they do not support and on which have not been negotiated with that suggests they should ‘be above parliamentary politics’.
I know that I am getting ahead of myself here, but just in the off-chance that a stronger CPRS is passed with Greens support in the next parliament following a non-DD election, I trust that there will be a flood of commenters coming back to say what a smart tactical game the Greens played.
I’ve just heard Swan on the news saying that the CPRS is a really complex policy. Sorry, that doesn’t help. It really plays into the idea that you shouldn’t vote for something you can’t understand. When Labor can’t sell their own policy, it makes them sound half-hearted, as though they don’t really understand it themselves and can’t be arsed explaining it clearly because they don’t like it much them selves. I suspect the latter might be at least partly true.
Lefty, I’ll turn your question around: what’s the Green backup plan if they don’t get the balance of power David Irving so confidently expects? You got a massive swing last election, but swings go both ways.
Indeed, the Higgins by-election showed that there is a sizeable minority of ALP voters who would rather vote Liberals than Greens if there is no Labor candidate. And that’s in a suburban electorate – the numbers would be higher in regional Australia, where retention of seats is critical to the Rudd government’s political survival.
Obviously that depends on whether the BoP is shared with a like-minded independent or with a denialist. In the former case it would be a matter of shifting slightly on negotiations. In the latter case they would have little parliamentary room and would need to exert extra-parliamentary pressure as now.
But the situation that sees the Greens without sole BoP after the next election is pretty extreme. Remember that the Greens don’t need to pick up additional seats to do this (although that’s possible in Vic, or at a DD). They just need the ALP to recover the seats lost to Joyce in Qld and Fielding in Vic at the 2004 half-Senate.
The composition of the Senate won;t matter if the ALP’s vote collapses in regional Australia, unless you are Tony Abbott.
Coalition wins or at least picks up the seats they lost in 07? That’s not extreme, that’s highly likely.
Is employment a really complex problem? No. Is it simple. We about jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Is interest rates complex issue? No. The government’s track record on interest rates is clear. The average mortgage holder is $X00 a month better of than under the previous government.
Is education a complex problem. No. This government has invested more in your child’s education than the previous government.
Is an ETS a complex issue? No. This government’s CPRS will do more to prevent serious drought, bushfire and flooding and to create thousands of new jobs in renewable energy than Mr Abbott’s plan which will waste millions of dollars of taxpayers money while not offering any protection for our children’s future.
Liam, every credible analysis I’ve seen of the likely Senate results of the next election posit that the Greens will end up with the balance of power. I can’t be bothered going over it in detail, but Anthony Green’s commentary is a good place to start if you doubt this.
Fielding will be gone, and Xenophon will (probably) be irrelevant.
Granted that many Labor voters will vote Liberal rather than Green in the absence of a Labor candidate, why should this, by itself, have consequences for Labor retaining seats in a Federal election in which there are Labor candidates for them to vote for in every seat?
What reason is there to expect Labor’s vote to collapse in regional Australia? And does it make sense to speak of a single entity called “regional Australia”?
This one DI(nr)? It’s a good comparison, with the assumptions he’s used to estimate. Get your highlighter out, here it is:
He’s not assessing the likelihood of anything but the results if Labor flog it in again—which was, then, the current polling. I think it’s still likely, but I don’t take it for granted.
Compared to 2004 the Senate seats ‘lost’ by the Coaltion were 1 in Queensland (Taking them back to the absolutley standard result of 3-3), 1 in SA to Xenophon and 1 in Tasmania to the ALP.
Recovering the first of these in 2010 would indeed be extreme, recovering the second is unlikely but in any case is irrelevant to Greens sole BoP calculations. Only the third of these is remotely likely.
On the other hand, the coalition losing Joyce’s seat is a near certainty, and Fielding (or another conservative) losing his is only slightly less likely.
Actually it’s hard to say what the X vote would be in SA without him standing as a candidate. But as pointed out is irrelevant whether or not the Libs ‘win back’ that seat in 2010 as far as the Greens having sole BoP goes. (It may signficantly alter the dynamics of the place if the GReens do not have sole BoP.)
“[The Greens] got a massive swing last election, but swings go both ways.”
Less than 2% in all States except Tas and backwards in SA. Less than half (I think) the swing we got in 2004. Yeah Huuuuge.
“Coalition wins or at least picks up the seats they lost in 07? That’s not extreme, that’s highly likely.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at Liam. The senators elected in 01 were re-elected in 07. in the States it went from 12/18 ALP/Coal to 16/16 Coal (-2 Coal) The 04 Senators are coming up in 10 and they are 14/19. Are you thinking it’s highly likely the Coalition will pick up two additional Senators for a total of 21? That’s three states returning four Coalition senators (assuming a half-senate election)
d
Clearly the failure of Copenhagen had a bit to do with the decline in poll numbers supporting an ETS and/or AGW.
One of the journo’s (no not him)on the Sunday Insiders program hinted at a possible deal between Rudd/Wong and the Greens emerging this week.
Even with a possible Greens BOP it does not stop the ALP negotiating in a bipartisan
way with the Liberals after the Libs are defeated in the next election and they have a new leader.
pablo #38, the journo in question was Lenore Taylor. She said it was still a long shot but was now a possibility whereas previously she had discounted it.
No, it’s quite possible. Mind you it’s also likely that if the Libs go backwards, a defeated Liberal Party will be more strongly controlled by the conservatives. Even if not they may not dump Abbott immediately.
Yes, *odds are* the Greens will have BOP come July 2011 and earlier if Rudd has the nads to go DD. I think its pertinent to review the non-passage of the CPRS with that always in mind.
Now – back to what happened last year. This is really a no-brainer. The ALP didnt want the Greens involved. That pretty much answers the entire line of ‘why didnt the greens get involved?’ questioning.
Rudd went for a major party approach, and it failed. The Greens were never consulted, courted, or even spoken to until Rudd/Wong finally – too late – realised Turnbull was toast. Let alone have a bone chucked to them – the esssence of cross bench negotiation, uderstood By Howard.
Whenever that is pointed out, the next response is “Well, why would we talk to the Greens, they’d be too radical, there’s no point!”".
Yeah, backing the Garnaut report, commissioned by the ALP government. So radical!
Roll on the new senate, I say.
wbb said “Yes, China and the US ultimately will decide all this. Arguing about which version of the ETS to take up here, is a bit like worrying where exactly to place the Australian navy during the Battle of the Coral Sea.”
wbb – that is absolutely spot on. I think the only point you and I disagreed on in a previous thread is that I’d argue that we should make sure we don’t put our two ships in the front lines, whereas you argued we should be out there leading the charge in the hope that the rest of the allies heed our example and join the fray as well.
Sums it up, Andrew. Makes me sound tough too, which I’m liking.
Wbb – I just don’t trust the allies to follow us on this one…..
Terry’s ref. to the Hegelian Dialectic is close to the mark re Greens as I’ve been arguing “in family” for many moons. Got a feeling though that nothing will change on that front as it seems to me to be the nature of the beast. Not that I’m against them in fact I admire their beliefs and support most of them. How though can they be so ready to bite off their nose to spite their face?
On Abbott’s simple solution to climate change, with thanks to an Age correspondent,
For every complex problem there’s a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.
H L Mencken.
Terry said “How The Greens managed to deal themselves out of one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in recent times will be a topic for future students of Australian politics”
Terry – the Greens are never going to compromise on this enough to be able to become part of the mainstream debate. That’s not what they do. The moment the Greens start compromising then they just become the left wing of the ALP and become irrelevant. They may be a one-trick pony – but boy is climate change a big trick!!
The Greens need to stick to their guns – that’s what the Greens supporters want. However, your point is probably broadly right, The biggest political weakness of the Greens is their inability to distinguish the nuances of the different views along the political spectrum to their right. The Green sentiment seems to be ‘you’re either with me 100% or your against me’….. politics doesn’t work like that.
Folks, read what Lefty E said #42, check the link I posted at #6, and the question remains: can one relaistically talk about the Greens dealing themselves out when very powerful elements within the ALP had taken the preconceived position that the Greens must not be dealt in?
What China & the US decides is the most important game, but these two players need social experiments worldwide to help them work out the impact of these policy decisions on their society. Australia has a long history of leading the world in ‘political experiments’ like universal suffrage and our relative isolation has contributed to the international attention our politics receive.
China & the US will also be paying attention to Australia because we’ve established ourselves as the preeminent economy managers given our gliding through the GFC. They will take how we set up our economy to help them determine how they’d navigate through a hypothetical GWC (Global Warming Crisis).
Hence what Australia chooses to do on our carbon emissions matters more than the actual effect. Being the largest per-capita emitter affects that perception too. If a ‘minimal action’ approach is adopted like Canada, despite us having an ostensibly left government in power, that’ll give a green light to progressive organisations in China & US (think tanks, liberal media, and enviromental organisations) that ‘minimal action’ is fine.
For the sake of the planet I would hope a DD is called after July so we don’t have to wait until mid-2011 to pry the senate from Nick Minchin’s strangling fingers. (It would be a shame to lose Sarah, the junior Greens SA senator, if a DD was called but that’s another story)
I’m also a Greens member and I think we’re on the right track in supporting Greens’ supporters, not ALP’s supporters.
Andrew @ 47, you’ve comprehensively misread / misunderstood the Greens’ position. Just about the only thing we aren’t prepared to adopt a nuanced approach to is nuclear power. (My private view is that this is unfortunate, but I wouldn’t die in a ditch over it.)
Old boy union interests are what’s blocking the ALP from negotiating with the Greens. The perception that action on climate change would have a negative effect on workers drives their opposition to the Greens and keeps union members toeing the union line.
I don’t think it’s any major that the ALP Right abhors the ascendancy of the Greens in becoming the “major minor party”. I think we’re already perceived as a bigger threat to the ALP from the left than the Democrats ever were: there are serious discussions of the Greens winning a couple of inner city seats.
The ALP Right may have initially seen the Greens as a pressure release valve for the Left but I bet the conclusive win in Fremantle really stung.
What absurd nonsense. The Chinese bankrolled the Australian economy through the GFC by increasing imports of our commodities when everyone else was shutting up shop.
China will do whatever is required to produce 8-10% GDP growth per annum (which at the moment means inflating an investment bubble) China will not be modifying its growth trajectory because the west says it should be slowing emissions growth. Hence 20 year coal contracts with our mate Clive.
As for the CPRS vs Abbott’s climate change “policy”, Nielsen says more people prefer Abbott’s policy by a margin of 45-39. Given that the CPRS was years in development and Abbott’s “policy” was scribbled on the back of a napkin in Nick Minchin’s office over the holidays, I’d say that’s a pretty convincing defeat for the CPRS.
If you are prepared to judge the merits of a policy by an opinion poll.
That is misleading. Neilsen also says more people prefer “Kevin Rudd’s broad approach to climate change” to “Tony Abbott’s broad approach” by a margin of 43-30, and 59% support “an emissions trading scheme for Australia”. In other words, the poll was anything but “conclusive”.
Carbon sink said “What absurd nonsense. The Chinese bankrolled the Australian economy through the GFC by increasing imports of our commodities when everyone else was shutting up shop”
China was certainly a key part of it – but it’s more than that carbonsink – our banking system never got into the same difficulties as the banks in the US and Europe. At its heart, the GFC was a debt and capital liquiduty crisis – the banks stopped lending, even to viable projects/investments. In Australia that didn’t happen – partly due to the CHina fuelled resource boom but probably more due to the fact that the big 4 Australian banks remained completely solvent and credit worthy and didn’t require any government bailout.
We’re now seeing round 2 of the GFC in the peripheral European countries (the PIGS as they’ve been nicknamed – Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece) – private debt has been taken on by the public sector in the bailouts and it’s causing sovereign debt concerns. Again – Australia will be relatively immune which makes the last two weeks 10% pullback in the equity market a good buying opportunity.
Andrew @55: “Again – Australia will be relatively immune which makes the last two weeks 10% pullback in the equity market a good buying opportunity.”
Agree with your comments on the root cause of GFC being the debt and liquidity crisis.
It didn’t swamp us, probably because our banks had been somewhat “immunised” with a change in banking regulations after the earlier Asian financial crisis. Also our major trading partners weren’t tightly linked into the US dominated financial system, and thus weren’t swamped as severely either.
Agree also with your above assessment about our more robust situation compared with the Mediterranean countries. Still, it never pays to get too confident… ;)
“the campaigning constituencies which are able to go to the mattresses”
And then make the government an offer it can’t refuse?
Sam @57, you mean several mattresses and an old sandshoe in exchange for the CPRS?
Now, there’s a good idea!!!
The relevant constituencies can then give it a ceremonial burial, in a suitable site for sacred cows. :)
Elise, I don’t think you got the reference.
Sam @59: “Elise, I don’t think you got the reference.”
Probably not! Does it matter? :)
The recent correction was also due to fears that China has created an investment bubble. Australia will not be immune from the bursting of this bubble.
Sure, given the choice between denialism and respectable climate science, the public has sided with the science. And the public likes the idea of a generic ETS, but they’re not really sure what it is. But given the choice between the CPRS and Minchin’s napkin policy, they chose Minchin’s napkin.
What does this tell you? The public wants to do something about climate change, but when confronted with the reality of higher energy prices, they don’t want to pay.
Personally I have my doubts that the Australian public will ever vote for a price on carbon, but to have any chance the policy needs to be very simple and very transparent, like fee and dividend. If Joe Public knows they’ll get an energy rebate every quarter that’s roughly the same as their electricity bill they might just go for it, especially if they realise they can come out ahead if they use less energy.
This sounds like a good alternative. The other problem with CPRS is that you have to be a true believer in the efficient markets hypothesis as applied to carbon trading. Now Turnbull is a true believer in the wisdom of the derivatives traders. But Rudd has called them neo-liberal voodoo merchants, yet his policy depends on their wisdom.
I am puzzled by all the mattresses. I hope that they are very thoroughly killed and dried before being put to service.
Carbonsink@61 asks “But given the choice between the CPRS and Minchin’s napkin policy, they chose Minchin’s napkin. What does this tell you?”
I think it tells you that given a choice between a dodgy ETS and a rebate on solar panels, they’ll take the rebate. The well-publicised bits of the Coalition policy look reasonably good if you aren’t expecting an international ETS in the next few years. Note the results for who we trust on climate policy. There are people saying the napkin is better than the CPRS, but they won’t be voting for the napkin party.
I’m still not sure how much of the CPRS is an outcome of Labor policy and how much of it was put in to split the Coalition.
Elise, please don’t be insulted, but it’s a Godfathers reference.
Watch out for horse heads.
Sorry Long comment – rolling a few current thread topics into one comment and am at work so rushing, sorry typos blah…
Lefty E and Paul, re: negotiating the CPRS with the Greens last year, ah, they weren’t holding the BOP, nor are they still – so what exactly was the point of the Govt negotiating a bill with a party that doesn’t hold the BOP, rather than with the party that did/are and were offering to neg. and support an ETS that they took themselves to the election, and had been ALP default policy (see LO on other thread) all obviously before the deal fell apart so spectacularly?
How could Rudd & Co know that Talc wouldn’t be able to deliver the goods…. okay, his party didn’t even want him on Nov 25, 2007 and then only by a vote or two after Tip finally made up his mind, and Brendo just wasn’t doing it for them etc. And with Talcs choosing to play hardball populist politics on the stimulus and Utegate in 08, the Govt was more than right to go him on those issues and win both, taking Talc’s polling downwards, but they also took down their own CPRS with it, as it turned out. If his polling had been better the situation may not have arisen. It was the Greens who were the major opposition last year in respect of the ETS, not the Libs.
carbonsink mentioned this on the new Turnbull thread – but Talcs chose to go with the Utegate thang and tried to bring down the PM no less, it was his own lack of political smarts that saw him covered in da poop and his polling likewise down the crapper – I don’t see how the Govt or pundits can be blamed for Talc’s big misfire. This is the enigma of Malcolm Turnbull – crown of thorns for losing leadership on ETS, but prior spouting total bull on the stimulus and used some totally weirdo Liberal Treasury stooge to try to bring down the PM & Treasurer – like huh?
And let’s not go even go near the US-China game-on show at Copenhagen.
Yes, Rudd should have been KISSing the voters from halfway through last year, at the exact same time the denialists got all their ducks lined up, it seems the ABC & some opinion writers have finally caught up with this pretty obvious scenario (spose this is what happens when you just repeat Opp talking points the majority of the time.)
But this Govt has been slow to react on many occasions to the 24 hour news cycle, too busy putting finishing touches on their legislative agenda and reports and dotting their i’s and flying to Washington etc. They’ve got an election year to make up lost ground and they are probably a wee bit surprised to re-engage and discover the full extent to which the Opp. and Macquarie Network and Newscorpse have inserted all sorts of messages out there in voterland; wimpy, grandstanding ineffectual, effete, narcissist with a long lists of broken promises, always falling short, wasteful schemes that will never work, nothing being done and so on. Orly?
In terms of throwing money at polluters via the CPRS – this isn’t the end of the world, it’s just business and politics – $7 billion – big frigging deal. These industries ie the “dirty rotten polluters” – are a major part of our economy and the tax receipts they’ve poured into the Commonwealth coffers over the years aren’t exactly spare change – and I’m not crying for them, nor excusing any of their known backroom dealing with Howard for over a decade to stymie any earlier transitions to a new economy nor any of their current astro-turfing or funding denialists etc, that is to be expected yeah – but the ‘big end of town’ as Talc’s knew – had *accepted* the CPRS and were gearing up to moving a first step towards re-tooling towards a new energy economy, as much as this country can move in that direction in a hurry, when we have 400 years of coal reserves and 50 years of LNG gas contracts to fill.
And yes, we should have been re-tooling 15-20 years ago, but then we got taken ‘Back to the Future’ with Michael J. Howard – never mind switching to vaudeville, we kept switching to 1955.
And the ALP can only blame themselves for allowing Fielding anywhere near Canberra, so there is more than enough of ze blame to go around… but Rudd like Obama, have been and still are beholden to unrepresentative swill (in the US, on their own side) at the worst possible time to introduce major reforms. Our Opposition wouldn’t even pass the alcopops bills, FFS. **If** the Greens win the BOP – the whole game will change, but you have to play the hand that you’re dealt by the Australian peeps at the time, and I’m not sure the Greens quite understand this. You can only play the hand you’re dealt – it would be v. interesting to go back and replay 2008 with the Greens holding the BOP….
Obviously there wasn’t an enormous opportunity. It was in neither the ALP’s nor the Green’s political interest to cut a deal at that point, so obviously it didn’t happen. This was pretty clear and was pointed out by numerous people.
It’s just that now, after the fact, there are a whole lot of ALP supporters moaning about the unexpected turn of events and somehow trying to paint it as a failure of the Greens not to get Liberal/ALP policy through parliament, and moreover to portray the Greens reluctance to alienate their support base as some kind of idealistic ‘above politics’ position.
Thats right Jo – as Martin says. I wasnt suggesting the ALP *should* have negotiated with the Greens from day one – just noting that they didnt.
Lets be honest: Nobody in the parliamentary ALP expected the cross benches to rescue the deal when the deal fell apart. They know how it works. You cut a deal, get 90% of what you want, you chuck minor parties a bone, so they can wave it at their supporters.
Howard knew this, and Rudd knows it too. He just tried a different strategy instead – a perfectly feasible one, but it failed.
Soo, the conclusion that this somehow demonstrates the greens are “above politics” / not amenable to compromise / ‘naive’ is simply non-sequitur. The proposition hasnt been tested.
Expecting cross benches to save your butt without a bone to gnaw on IS probably the only “naive” view going around – but as I say, I doubt anyone in the parliamentary ALP could be accused of holding it.
Lefty E – how many weeks between the Turnbull final meltdown and Copenhagen again -like one – there is no way the Greens and Govt were going to come together over 5000 pages of detail, when they were totally poles apart all year – this ‘throwing a bone stuff’ was just not in the scenario as it played out all year…throw a bone, like ditch their CPRS?
Martin B, def. some ALP supporters – but just as many Greens supporters asking why the Govt didn’t consult/negotiate with ‘em last year…see above for eg.
And exactly what happens when Greens’ supporters finally get alienated, where do they go….Torchwood?
It will be interesting to see what happens when and if the Greens have the BOP at some stage. I suspect any comparisons to the Democrats will quickly fall away as the Democrats sort of explicity came from a position of being a party of review firstly and foremostly, with their own agenda subverted to the proper running of the elected Govt – their very formation over the blocking of supply in the Senate ensured this legacy went on for some time etc for both Govts.
The Greens are a whole kettle of fish & chips entirely and it will be v. interesting to see a party to the left of the ALP holding the BOP when and if this occurs.
I’m hoping to see it for the improved legislative outcome angle, but also to witness ‘teh coming of the alienated Green supporter’ …..in a cinema near you.
oops, distracted by multi phones calls and kids yapping – meant the *meltdown and the Senate vote*, and the Dems with both *ALP and Coalition* govts.
“there is no way the Greens and Govt were going to come together over 5000 pages of detail” Absolutely agree. So whence the elements of faux outrage at the Greens for ‘not passing it’, when Turnbull imploded at the very last minute?
“throw a bone, like ditch their CPRS?” Nope. Christine Milne had a very clear public wish list throughout – all of which involved the ALPs CPRS, but closer to the Garnaut version. Which the govt commissioned.
Of course, none of these wishlist items were going to be offered in the 10 minutes between Turnbull’s demise and Copenhagen – as would have happened had the ALP had a cross bench passage strategy.
But the ALP had another strategy altogether. One that didnt involve the Greens. Fine, but folks can hardly blame Brown and Milne for that.
Bring on the new BOP!
Lefty E, I think we are going round in circles – I don’t have any faux outrage at the Greens – they had their possie out there – my point was the Govt didn’t need another strategy as they were negotiating with the party who could deliver the votes and who had the same general policy thrust as themselves *and* who had committed to passing the legislation after negotiation.
The fact that it blew up in their faces so unexpectedly put everyone’s posturing and position on the ETS over the entire year in a totally different light; the Govt’s, the Coalition and the Greens.
It’s all hindsight stuff. No-one expected Lucius Minchin to crawl out of the shadows and engineer Turnbull’s demise. Well, except Minchin and his DeathEaters themselves of course.
Indeed Jo – and I can only assume-slash-hope that ALP/ Green negotiated action after the next election will be superior.
I guess Cap’n Jack *is* the go to immortal for *decisive action*!
jo, don’t make the mistake of assuming that all Greens are to the left of the ALP. While it’s largely true (at least among the Greens I know personally), remember that Guy Pearce (a former member of the Liberal Party) is now a Green. I’d bet quids he still believes in the Market.
A nice series of comments Jo….And I too am looking forward to seeing how the Greens deal with the balance of power (and how the ALP deal with them having it), and how their more active supporters deal with the compromises that will necessarily come with it…
LO, I think you’ll be surprised at how pragmatic most Greens are (except, of course, over nuclear power). After all, our primary concern (unlike either the ALP or the Libs) is doing what we can to ensure the survival of humanity.
Yep DI – my sense is the Greens are gagging at the bit to deal to get some serious national action on climate change rolling. I can understand the ALP wanting to do it via the Libs – but hey, it didn’t work out.
On to the next senate.
“LO, I think you’ll be surprised at how pragmatic most Greens are (except, of course, over nuclear power). After all, our primary concern (unlike either the ALP or the Libs) is doing what we can to ensure the survival of humanity.”
The problem arises because your vision of what is ncessary to ensure the survival of humanity is not shared by the average voter. I’d also note that the Greens platform is full of policies that have nothing to with the survival of humanity and simply reflect your vision of a good society. Nothing wrong with that of course but again you’d have to be a tad blinkered if you thought that vision was widely shared.
So, I stand by my point that you guys will face your fair share of challenges and problems as you decide which principles to give ground on and which not when exercising the balance of power.
“So, I stand by my point that you guys will face your fair share of challenges and problems as you decide which principles to give ground on and which not when exercising the balance of power.”
I agree LO – in the sense than any minor party facing the responsibility of sole BOP must go through that difficult process.
As a member, however, I strongly suspect that anyone thinking this would be *especially* difficult for the Greens – imagining them more “doctrinaire” than other minors – will be proved very wrong, very quickly.
Its got a very broad membership – and mostly people just want something progressive happen on climate change. I suspect people outside will be more shocked at the pragmatic dealing, than those in.
It seems to me that LO and Jo are implicitly posing the question of whether the Australian Greens will, if we achieve the Senate BOP in the next Federal Parliament, experience something akin to the “Realo/Fundi” tensions which afflicted the German Greens when they found themselves in a comparable position in the German political system.
Whilst not impossible, I think it is unlikely. The development of the Australian Greens and our coming to the threshold of the BOP has been a longer and slower process than the rise of Die Grunen in the 1980s. Therefore, whilst many of the differences which manifested themselves explosively in the Realo/Fundi divide in Die Grunen have also manifested themselves here, they have largely been worked out over time over less momentous issues than the problem of how to deal with the BOP in the national parliament. Also, the lessons (positive and negative) of the Die Grunen experience have not been lost on us.
Indeed Norto and LE, in regards to the Greens’ pragmatism. I’ve never said that the Greens weren’t pragmatists, I just think that they misread the situation on the CPRS.
There’s no equivalent AFAIK in the Australian Greens to the kind of vestigial euro-socialism of the European parties. The Australian Greens in a BoP situation would be extremely unlikely to demand or want Cabinet positions—and they certainly wouldn’t be forthcoming.
“I strongly suspect that anyone thinking this would be *especially* difficult for the Greens – imagining them more “doctrinaire” than other minors – will be proved very wrong, very quickly.”
I think people who haven’t actually tried consensus decision-making would be surprised by how flexible the outcomes are. Everyone in the Greens knows *nothing* happens until *everyone* compromises.
Following Paul’s point, I think the Australian Greens are much more likely to founder on internal organisational tensions than on policy strife per se. There’s never been much of an ‘anti-party party’ tendency in the Green parties here, but the confederal structure of the Au Greens creates other tensions and pressures, which are rather different from Green parties in other countries.
d
“The Australian Greens in a BoP situation would be extremely unlikely to demand or want Cabinet positions—and they certainly wouldn’t be forthcoming.”
Senate BoP counts for nothing at all for entering Government. The Greens would have to hold BoP in the House before that even became a question. Remember in the Bundestag, the SDP needed the support of the German Greens to form a government.
d
The global warming is the most talked subject of this century. the rate at which our fossil fuels are consumed it is not far that the global meltdown is too far. the heavy emission of Co2 from our vehicles creates a layer in the earths atmosphere and then this layer traps the sun rays in the earths atmosphere which leads to the increased temperature of earth.