Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
Coalition scores own-goals with weak climate policy
|
With the ground carefully prepared, including selective briefing to the home of climate change scepticism, The Australian, Brendan Nelson and the conservative wing of the Liberal Party have stolen a march on party moderates on linking emissions trading to international action. The extent to which Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull have adjusted their language to accommodate a rightward shift is a giveaway that it is a fait accompli. The argument that Australia should not have too low a carbon cap until there is international agreement from the major emitters is a sound one, and likely to be adopted by the Government, even if we don’t know what’s in the Godot-like Treasury modelling. The argument that we should do nothing at all until major emitters have signed on to some agreement is indefensible and weak. It’s weak because it signals the Opposition lacks the confidence to argue on policy detail. The Emissions Trading Scheme and supporting arrangements proposed by the Government are a shocker, with plenty of scope for improvement in areas like encouraging the development of renewable energy and avoiding exploitation of permits by traders. Greg Hunt has been trying to exploit this, but senior Coalition figures evidently figure they lack the firepower to really hurt the Government on this. And emissions trading is an economic reform. Economics is supposed to be the Coalition’s strong point, but with Turnbull as shadow Treasurer and Peter Costello in his usual Zone of Indecision, they have ceded that ground to the Government. This has been the signal failure of Turnbull’s stint as shadow Treasurer. The bloke is brilliant, but he’s no economist. It’s weak because the time to do this was three or four years ago when we were still in the early, low-inflation, high-growth phase of the resources boom. The Coalition refused to do anything then, and left it to its successor to implement a scheme at a time of deepening economic uncertainty and stronger inflationary pressures. In effect it is arguing that we should delay further because of the consequences of its own delay. And it’s weak because it reflects Nelson’s desire to have it both ways, to play populist while pretending that he still has policy credibility. This is the bloke who wanted a 5c a litre excise cut, but didn’t have the guts to argue for a big reduction that would’ve made a genuine difference to petrol prices. This is the bloke who argued the Budget was inflationary, while opposing taxation measures in the Senate. I’m serious about addressing climate change, Nelson wants to say, but I’m not going to do anything. Same old same old. But given the difficulty that Nelson has had in describing his own position in recent weeks, it’s no wonder he wants a simpler position to put. Trouble is, the wait-for-others approach is no easier to argue. What if President Obama (should such a disaster come to pass) makes an Emissions Trading Scheme or carbon tax his first priority? Will that be enough? What if China takes steps to curb emissions but India doesn’t? What if the Europeans decide to start imposing carbon tariffs on imports from freeriders like Australia? The new Coalition position — which can be summarised as “Copenhagen or bust” is predicated on some major international agreement being thrashed out next year, and only doing something in the unlikely event that that occurs. Far more likely is that, bit by bit, major emitters start to address abatement measures in a variety of ways that suit their circumstances. At what tipping point does the Coalition say, “yeah OK, that’s good enough for us”? Not to mention the usual arguments about there being a greater chance of an international agreement if we’re already doing something. Or the responsibility of doing something when we’re one of the biggest per-capita emitters and major carbon dealer to the planet. And given the indiscipline in Coalition ranks, the ceaseless offering of alternative policies and critical commentary won’t disappear. There’ll be no Coalition unity on the issue, because they can’t keep their mouths shut. Greenhouse denialists like Nick Minchin will continue to maintain that climate change is a myth. Moderates who want serious action will express their disappointment. The new position will also make it significantly easier for the Prime Minister to portray Labor as the moderate, sensible course between extremists. Rudd has been demonising the Greens as economic vandals, and now the Coalition is happily giving him the evidence to show it is retreating to the sort of flatearther attitude it clung to for most of its years in power. Labor’s proposed emissions scheme isn’t balanced, it isn’t moderate and sensible, but it will look exactly that by the time Brendan Nelson finishes with the issue. In short, whatever the merits or otherwise of their new policy, the Coalition leadership is kidding itself if it thinks it will make life any easier. |
|
|
15 Comments
The position is a mess on both sides. The Shergold recommendations adopted by The Coalition before the election were sensible. 2012 was sensible. 2010 was and is not. The science is probable rather than certain and the obligations are international but Rudd, when he had the opportunity to make this work played petty party politics and now The Coaltion obviously believes it can win the next election because of this ‘issue’. It could backfire badly on one or other side.
Bernard, what does this sentence mean:
“What if President Obama (should such a disaster come to pass) “
Are you suggesting Obama would be a disaster? For what reason?
EB
Has Crikey’s political correspondent reduced his commentary on the US election to parenthetic flip asides? Safer to toss off an assertion than argue a point, Bernard?
JamesK, did you consult Bolt before offering your piece? (perhaps peace would be a better word?) While it may be a mess on both sides, the bloody great mess is about to occur in the Coalition ranks. Sooner ,rather than later, Nelson will receive the knife his back has been presenting as a target. I doubt very much Turnbull will tolerate much more egg on his face. He is not in this to be kicked around and made to look a dope.
Evan,
“Bernard, what does this sentence mean:
“What if President Obama (should such a disaster come to pass) “
Disaster for Brendan Nelson.
So Dennis you are in accord with Andrew Bolt
Global temperatures peaked in the last decades of the 20th century just as solar activity reached its highest levels in 8,000 years. Solar activity is projected to decline towards the middle of this century. If global temperatures follow it down (as they always have) this debate will come to seem like an historical curiosity.
I’ve been getting the strangest feeling that something is impeding Malcolm Turnbull’s progress from making a direct hit on Nelson. The man’s ambition is boundless, yet I sense a hesitation. What could it be?
As for Peter Peter Pumpkin eater-who had a wife but couldn’t keep her-the Liberal’s very own poisonous Peter, had a Party and couldn’t keep it. Was there no one in big business who shared John Howard’s opinion of Costello as being the world’s greatest treasurer? Is PC unemployable? If so then he is scarcely doing the coalition a favour by hanging around like the proverbial bad smell.
JamesK: Do you have an opinion on everything? I’d hate to be your long-suffering partner. Or do you save all your bile for the pages of Crikey?
So playing the ole ignorant game eh James? Doesn’t cut dingbat, you are dealing with a mature audience here, not the imbociles who get their daily dose of propaganda from the Herald Sun. I wouldn’t support Bolt unless he was doing the paying, not something he is familiar with, usually he who has the hand out. Now get on with it.
So Dennis you’re not one of the “imbociles” I take it….
JamesK: you are all for urging other people to ‘play the ball, not the man’, yet you are the first person to complain when someone makes a typo.
Bernard: I kinda worried about your Obama comment as well. Certainly he is untried, and personally I found his writing to be verging on demagoguery, but failing the emergence of an outsider (don’t the Americans have some sort of weird ‘favourite son’ sort of arrangement ?) Surely you couldn’t suggest another Republican in the form of, “Ah McCain, you’ve done it again”. You cannot be serious.
Venise, I keep our repartee secret…..
Benard Keane wrote a detailed critique of Obama about the time he won the nomination. I did not agree but did find it interesting. He does think Obama would be a poor choice as President of USA.
Do a search on this website to find it if ur interested
Actually even more ‘anti’ than I remembered….
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080604-US08-Obama-equals-disaster.html
C’mon JamesK,
In that article, if history repeated Obama equalled disaster and the Democrats lost the election.
In this article, Obama and the Democrats winning the election equals disaster.
Two scenarios, different disasters for different people.
JamesK: I apologize for missing Bernard’s critique re: Senator Obama. (Bernard, I grovel.) James, I thought I’d made it clear in my first comment, that I was very dubious about the man. Ditto what I perceive to be his demagoguery. Thats why I asked about the Yanks having some sort of ‘favourite son’ thingo.. James, I was asking, not stating. Dear James, do you actually read my comments before sailing into me?
James, I’m not anti everything, no, not at all, at all. I’m very pro-you, and our secret repartee.
Cheers
Venise