In an email yesterday to Opposition MPs and Senators, backbencher Wilson Tuckey blasted Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s “arrogance” and “inexperience” on the Emissions Trading Scheme issue.

As for the Double Dissolution that holding out on the ETS could provoke, Tuckey’s message seems to be: bring it. Here is the email, in full and unedited:

The issue of the arrogance and inexperience of our Leader on the issue of the Emission Trading Scheme has to be addressed.

As a simple example of the negative politics of an ETS has anyone asked why Labor now titles it’s legislation the ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’.

As this note goes to all Members I insist that those who support the ETS should write me a detailed response as to how a Government process of selling certificates to pollute will guarantee that Australia will automatically reduce its emissions. One as versed in business as our Leader knows full well that judgements will be made on the commercial basis of “can I pass this cost onto a captive market” or “should I run down my existing investment and leave town” for greener pastures such as China, where Government investment is going to achieve the emissions reductions for me, or the USA where the science could be disproved before their Claytons ETS is implemented and that’s assuming it can pass the Senate, considering 44 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against even this Claytons Bill.

Just in case you didn’t know or don’t care, the total vote in the Congress was 431 with the numbers being 219 for and 212 against, so the Bill only passed by 7 votes with 44 Democrats crossing the floor. If the same pattern of voting is followed in the Senate, where the Bill needs 60 votes to advance, and the Democrats have 58 votes, the Bill will be defeated or further diluted.

Another myth is the proposed massive job creation arising from a Derivates Trading Scheme not a Renewable Energy Scheme. What is more every Green Energy job that cannot reduce the cost of energy is just a further burden to the economy.

There are no amendments to the ETS that will make it work. By its nature, it is either a simple job destroyer or must be so generous as to fail in its purpose.

I can think of no better issue upon which to fight an election be it early or on time.

All that is needed is to differentiate the ETS from the Climate Change response.

I talk to many people and get stopped in the street and in the airport by people who recognise me. Not one has directly raised Climate Change nor do they do so when they are asked to independently list the areas of their concern.

An ETS is a job destroyer and they are worried about that, hence the ACTU 1 million jobs campaign which even Sharryn Burrows can’t make sound convincing.