Interestingly, Turnbull argues the case for letting the market decide on which actions to take, yet he took direct action himself with the light globe change.

It would appear that Turnbull actually believes (in terms of his actions, rather than rhetoric) in a bit of both. Direct action AND an ETS.

Despite a well-argued case for controlling emissions by setting caps (Ends rather than Means), my main worries about the ETS remain.

Firstly, Turnbull says that the ETS avoids pollies picking winners as a result of political expediencies and business lobbying. Then he says that the pollies will give money raised from the ETS to Trade Exposed Industries who are unable to reduce emissions. And how will they decide which ones and how much help they need? Would that involve political expediency and business lobbying?

Secondly, Turnbull says that the permits will be bought on a straightforward basis of a company’s emissions, and sold by farmers on the basis of their emissions reduction efforts. Then he says that the methodology for working out the agricultural emissions reduction is still indeterminate and not globally established. How will the ETS bureaucrats decide on the level of emissions and potential reduction? Would that involve an expensive and intrusive monitoring and surveillance program (thus a large ETS public service sector), with a lot of business lobbying about which emissions are counted and which aren’t?

Turnbull did not address the fact that the emission reductions claimed for the CPRS in the Treasury modelling were mainly achieved by (a) buying “reductions” from third world countries, and (b) somehow inventing successful CCS on a massive scale by 2030. Pure political fantasy, both methods.

When will we see modelling that shows significant emission reductions IN AUSTRALIA, from normal operation of this ETS, not from fantasy items that aren’t related to the invasive surveillance program they are proposing?

When we get satisfactory answers to the above 3 conceptual problems, we can feel more confident in supporting an ETS, and all it represents.

Also in Australia it is a very narrow band of voters who ‘matter’. The Labor ads in 2007 were spot on, angry Jenny and traddie Dave. My guess is if they worry about jobs, cost of living and buying a house. They’ll go to the party that offers this. Recent elections have all been very close except 96 and 07 (and may be 04?). 2010 may well be another blowout but those people will decide. I would suggest so, who knows ….. that would be historic. I can’t see the Libs being smashed in 2016 though, politicians learn and governments age. 2016 is only 6 years away …..

I agree. One can think of what the Libs are doing as “base jumping”. Abbott’s stance puts a floor under their support, but also puts a ceiling on it that I think is too low to win elections in a country that is slowly becoming more socially liberal over time.

I cannot see how small-l libs can remain in or gravitate to the modern Liberal party. They have been completely screwed over for nearly two decades now. They either have to fight for the party or leave it.

I’m still hoping Turnbull contests Wentworth as an independent Liberal, wins, then sets about creating a liberal democratic party.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813351.htm

That’s one small blow in defence of the English language.

As for Turnbull. Good on him, even if now he looks like Don Quioxtie tilting at windmalls.