Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Mar 9, 2011

Climate change cage match: Abbott debates Abbott

Tony Abbott goes mano-a-mano on climate change and a carbon price with his toughest opponent yet -- Tony Abbott. Let's look back on all the times Abbott has spoken about climate change.


As the Gillard government’s plan for a carbon prices sends Coalition stocks soaring, attention is increasingly focusing on what opposition leader Tony Abbott believes in about climate change and how to deal with it. Today in Crikey, Tony Abbott debates one of his most formidable opponents on the issue — Tony Abbott.

Tony Abbott: Climate change is a relatively new political issue, but it’s been happening since the earth’s beginning. The extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have been associated with climate change.

Tony Abbott: I’ve always thought that climate change was real because I’ve always known about the ice age and other things which indicate that over time climate does change.

Tony Abbott: I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s.

Tony Abbott: We have a clear policy on climate change. Climate change is real.

Tony Abbott: I mean in the end this whole thing is a question of fact, not faith, or it should be a question of fact not faith and we can discover whether the planet is warming or not by measurement. And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s.

Tony Abbott: It’s quite likely that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has had some effect on climate, but debate rages among scientists over its extent and relative impact given all the other factors at work.

Tony Abbott: We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change. If they are, we don’t know whether they are exacerbating or counteracting what might otherwise be happening to global climate. Even if they are adding to climatic extremes, humanity may be able to cope with only modest adjustments.


Tony Abbott: What we can say, though, is that we should try to make as little difference as possible to the natural world. As well, prudent people take reasonable precautions against foreseeable contingencies. It’s the insurance principle.

Tony Abbott: OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth,  the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.

Tony Abbott: I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.

Tony Abbott: The argument is absolute crap.

Tony Abbott. We believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.

Tony Abbott: There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.

Tony Abbott: I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.

Tony Abbott: I think there are all sorts of ways of paying for this that don’t involve a great big new tax that we will live with forever.

Tony Abbott: There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.

Tony Abbott: What we need is environmental direct action. We need action which is actually going to make a difference. What we don’t need is a whopping great new tax masquerading as a green measure.

Tony Abbott: The Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost… On the other hand, artificially created markets could be especially open to manipulation… For this reason, many now think that a carbon charge scheme directed at the least environmentally efficient producers would be simpler and fairer than an emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott: We have a policy to reduce emissions, not just to make them more expensive.

Tony Abbott: In the absence of wind that never stops blowing, sun that never stops shining and tides that never stop turning; in the absence of hydrogen cars; and in the absence of nuclear power stations to supply most base-load electricity, big reductions in emissions are impossible without a big increase in people’s cost of living or a significant change in their lifestyles.

Tony Abbott: The important thing is what will it do to people’s cost of living and if it drives up your cost of living it is a tax. It’s effectively an increase in the rate of GST — that’s what it is.

Tony Abbott: If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

*Taken from Tony Abbott’s biography Battlelines and speeches, media transcripts and articles since mid-2009. Additional research by Crikey intern Nikki Bricknell.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

56 thoughts on “Climate change cage match: Abbott debates Abbott

  1. Jimmy

    And it is Gillard who is the Liar.

  2. rossco

    Ah, but we need to know which of these statements were in writing and which were just oral. We know from Abbott’s own admissions we should only believe his written words, the rest are just off the top of his head and may or may not be true.

  3. Jimmy

    Rossco, That is exactly what I find so galling about this whole thing, Abbott admit’s he lies when it suits and is held up to be a example of honesty in politics, Gillard changes from having an ETS to a Carbon tax becoming an ETS due to there being a hung parliament and is damned as a liar.

    Are we through the looking glass here?

  4. denise allen

    Abbott is just a scaremonger…he can say what he likes without anyone challenging him on his policy…the facts behind it and its costs…its about time some journo stood up and began asking questions of him…

  5. Dawn Baker

    Hoisted by his own petard, or is he speaking with a forked tongue? Thanks Bernard!

  6. Jimmy

    Denise – Jon Faine called him on his “going it alone” comments this morning which lead to Abbott blustering Abbott China commissioning 2 new coal power plants every month (apparently this is going to go on forever) but Faine didn’t seem to contiue to press.

    I agree though he doesn’t get held up to enough scrutiny.

  7. shepherdmarilyn

    I can’t work out if he is advocating for more pollution and not one dimwitted journo asks that simple question.

    That should put the cat among the pigeons I would think.

  8. snoodie

    Most news comments discuss whether a politician lied. The BIG issue is increasingly felt climate change and the best way to tackle it. A transition to an ETS will ensure businesses can reliably innovate and invest in cleaner energy sources through an efficient market mechanism. There’s no point lying to future generations that we did everything we could to leave them a better world – the Coalition under “NO” Abbott are stuck in the 50’s. We must act, PM Gillard is showing leadership and putting the nation before politics and polls.

  9. paddy

    Well done Bernard & Nikki. Loved the true irony of your piece today.
    Tony Abbott only grants interviews to……..Tony Abbott. 🙂
    (Or at least a simpering pale copy of himself.)
    He never quite recovered from the shock of Red Kezza actually asking questions about policy.

  10. Altakoi

    Maybe Tony thinks be should be able to speak Ex Cathedra and we can ignore all the other bits.

  11. klewso

    Next week – “That God exists”?
    Rossco – …. that was a “non-scripted” statement of his ….?
    Besides, check out his m.o; it all depends on who he is talking to “now”, it’s not as though they’re “core beliefs” – after an election, he wins, he won’t do interviews.

  12. BSA Bob

    Definitely the issue of the day.
    Can we hope for an analysis of each insightful statement & riposte from the MSM commentariat? I suppose not.

  13. drmick

    A real treat Bernard would be to run Murdoch Press comments on the subject alongside Mr Rabbits for comparison.

    The editorials and “special” articles on the subject have a familiar rhetoric and would identify where the rabbit is getting his detailed and schizophrenic offerings.

  14. jimD

    Thanks Bernard (and Nikki) for an illuminating compilation of Abbott’s utterances on climate. Seems to me Julia Gillard should easily be able to make the case that, following the last election, her own views on the importance of acting on the climate began to change, at the same time as the opportunity to pass legislation that might achieve something arose. Compared to the whoppers that John Howard told throughout his term of office, and the incoherent, inconsistent gibberings of Abbott on the subject as recorded in Bernard’s article, her transgression could quite easily made to look forgiveable. A hard-hitting summary of Abbott’s idiocy on this subject should be obligatory reading for all Labor members, and they should transmit this message relentlessly to the media at every opportunity: Abbott does not know what he is talking about on climate; he has been inconsistent on all important aspects of the issue to a laughable degree; how could a Party with him as leader get anything done on this issue? His only suggestion on what he will do will look increasingly ridiculous as the figures on what his direct investment solution will really cost continue to roll in.

    What else has Abbott got on this issue? The ridiculous figures O’Farrell and others are bandying around on what a carbon tax will cost households are easy to deal with: it can easily be calculated that the cost is trivial (Alan Pears, writing in the SMH Business Day on March 1, suggests that even a $30 per tonne of carbon tax would cost the average household $3 to $4 per week) and Gillard need not wait for agreement on the tax provisions to foreshadow that in fact it will be quite unlikely that consumers will actually pay anything like the full amount of the tax themselves. Even with full compensation to consumers (or a tax cut to offset it, which opens up more opportunity to incentivize reducing household energy usage) there would still be plenty of revenue left over to subsidise low carbon technologies (hopefully on a competitive grants or loan basis, to keep them honest). Finish this argument off with the reminder noted earlier of how much Abbott’s proposal for addressing climate change will cost, and his scare-bag will be starting to look pretty empty.

    The Gillard team really need to get this sort of stuff out there now; batting away Abbott’s attacks with the response that all will be revealed when the multi-party committee gets through with the design aspects looks and sounds like a typical bureaucratic escape clause, because that’s exactly what it is. There is plenty to say now: Abbott doesn’t know what he is talking about on climate, and doesn’t know what he wants. He can’t defend his direct action solution as the numbers on what it will cost are increasingly available. He is frightened of his front benchers – many of whom do not like his approach, and he is afraid of his right-wing – especially the National Party drones – who do like his present do-nothing approach, but who are no more capable than he is of suggesting something that might work. Abbott is now saying that his mission is now a truth campaign. It’s a bit difficult to see how he could tell the truth on this issue when he very clearly does not know what the truth is.

    For goodness sake, Julia: do something, now.

  15. Ed

    The Abbott strategy: say enough things that everyone thinks he shares their opinion.

  16. wyane

    Positive Pt. #1: According to the latest newspol – more Aussie voters would prefer we DON’T have a PM who tucks his singlet into his undies;
    Positive Pt. #2: Given the dwindling number of landline subscribers, and their likelihood to be members of the Venn-set of people who source their news and current affairs information from a very narrow range of , er, sources, newspol is likely to be increasingly slanted and irrelevant, moving forward*.
    Scary, Negative Pt.#1: We’re all doomed to be led by a very strange man who, as previously noted by better commentators than I, will do and say ANYTHING to get elected. The above statements are nothing more than a perfect reflection of that. It could well be that Phoney Tony believes none of the above statements.
    * Maybe Newspol have changed their methodologies and this is completely wrong.

  17. lindsayb

    It is cruel, heartless and really amusing of you to highlight Tony’s inconsistency on this issue. Perhaps a few choice statements on a few prominent billboards would be a nice follow-up.

  18. BH

    Well done Bernard. DrMick’s suggest re Murdoch press articles would be good if you’ve got time.

  19. Gederts Skerstens

    Good post. Shows what people admire or despise.
    Every Politician or Statesman has to pick a side. According to what they represent and believe, regardless of whether it keeps them in power or not.
    There’s no good reason to seek power (in the West) if you don’t know what it’s for.
    Applies to Left and Right: Union guys closing down industries or Conservatives ditching time-tested values.
    Just say what you you think. The Citizenry will do the weighing.

  20. Catching up

    Yes the poll is bad, but that was expected. When you have captains of industry calling for the nastiness to stop and get on with the business of putting a price on carbon to bed as quickly as possible. Where in the Constitution does it say that there has to be an election if there are bad polls?

    How long can Mr, Abbott keep going around the country, ranting “liar liar”. At some stage most people will tire of hearing this.

    When the public turn their attention to the substance of the announcement, they will start asking themselves if a price on carbon is needed, and is this the best way to go. There, I would imagine be a closer look at Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leaders plan. Ranting “liar liar” will not hide that his plan is found wanting by many.

    Much of the scare campaign at this time is not based of facts. In the next few weeks, as the Climate Change Committee works through it agenda, we will be given the data that we need to make an opinion of the proposed carbon pricing. This is very unlikely to support the scare tactics that are being foisted on the public now. It will be similar to the previous PM plan but personally I hope, not so much given away to the polluters.

    The final aim, as many believe to use less power is not strictly true. The aim is for our power to be produced by carbon free processes. In the short term, until alternative sources of power is in place, we need to restrict our use of power produced by coal.

    If coal can be burnt clean, it may play a part in the future. Putting a price on carbon will encourage the coal industry to do the research for this to occur.

    There will, I believe about 1000 companies that will be paying the cost of carbon pricing. It is not coming out of the ordinary taxpayers pocket. When the GST was introduced, the GNP went up around 4%, even allowing for the compensation given to taxpayers and industries. It is suggested that the price on carbon will be around 1%, even without compensation. The wealthy may pay more, but the majority of Australians, in a well planned scheme will not.

    The Opposition’s plan is very expensive, will cost the tax payer and is believed will not work. The money has to come from somewhere, unless Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader has found the magic pudding or his god will come to his aid with a repeat of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader is relying on methods of reducing carbon that are not at this staged, scientifically proven. Mr. Turnbull said on QandA that there will be a cost, no matter the scheme.

    People will or should become concerned that Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader is will to place Australian Industry in danger because of his plan to dump the propped price on carbon, even if it takes a couple of elections. He will leave industry with no security, and us years behind in moving to a carbon free economy.

    Another myth being spread through the community is that no other country has done anything, that we are going it alone. This is not true. There are 30 countries, and 10 states in the USA have similar schemes. The UK has been addressing the problems since the days of Thatcher, a lady not known for wasteful spending.
    China, it is true, is not looking at carbon pricing, but do they need to do this to cut back on carbon. There are stories that China is beginning to address the problem, even if it is to clean up their smog. The coal power stations are supposed to be the state of the ark, but they are looking at alternatives methods of producing energy.

    Can anyone remember how the polls treated the ex PM Howard when he introduced the GST.

  21. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Fuck the polls. Waste of space.

  22. John james

    The Australian public do not have a problem with politicians changing their minds, or altering their position.
    But they have a problem with Prime Ministers, 2 days before a national ballot, specifically ruling out a policy position, in order to assure wavering voters, ‘winning’ government ( if you can call Labor’s last election outcome a victory! ) by the narrowest of margins, and then promptly doing precisely the opposite.
    It is a LIE, ‘bald faced’ and calculated!
    Worse, it smacks of breath taking political ineptitude .
    Just ask NSW Labor Premier, Kristina Kenneally.
    She had structured her entire re-election strategy around trying to convince voters Labor would address cost of living increases better than Barry O’Farrell. And wham!
    O’Farrell couldn’t believe his luck. This won’t be an rout in NSW, its a massacre! Labor will be lucky to have enough seats to still claim ‘party status’
    Moreover, Gillard already had credibilty problems because of rumbling Kevin Rudd.
    After you’ve asked Kristina what she thinks, have a quiet chat to Kevin. The ‘Red Queen’ advised him to drop his ETS, then assasinated him because his polling took a dive.
    Her polling is worse!
    The only other piece of political ineptitude that has emerged that ranks with the above would have to be that of Malcolm Turnbull.
    The ABC, Labor, and the Left, love him, of course.
    There he was last week quoted as saying that he didn’t support Labor’s plan and he didn’t support Tony Abbott either.
    No wonder this guy fractured the Conservative base. That any Coalition Federal member could be seriously entertaining the proposition that Malcolm could one day lead again is mind boggling.
    Urbane and intelligent Turnbull may be, political leader he is not.
    George Brandis and Joe Hockey, please take note!

  23. klewso

    By “polls” do you mean “besides losing the popular vote in that ’98 election, by some 200,000 and the 2PP – but winning enough seats to be able to sow the seeds of the Democrats demise, in stitching them up, as well as, to a deal to pass that “GST stool” of his and theirs?

  24. klewso

    But maybe it was just another one of them seemingly myriad “non-core promises” so much of our media, with their political proclivities, seemed to have no worries ignoring, when it was their boy, uttering them?

  25. granorlewis

    Very clever Bernard – certainly got your fans going hot and strong.

    I really hope you will put the same effort into a Julia v JooLIAR debate. I suspect it could be just as misleading – or true, or damning – as is this analysis of Abbott v Abbott

  26. Venise Alstergren

    JOHN JAMES: As an admitted hard right-wing Catholic, a medico who would refuse to recommend a pregnant teen-aged girl to a Doctor who might be less hostile to the idea of an abortion than you would be, is scarcely in a position to postulate questions of probity in anyone. “”It is a LIE, ‘bald faced’ and calculated!” is your righteous screech.

    Then on a calmer tone you say “”Urbane and intelligent Turnbull may be, political leader he is not”” All politicians lie, a fact you know as well, or better, than anyone. The minor (?) Difference between Turnbull and Tabbott is that the former has a touch of class. Tabbott has none.

  27. briandwyer2@bigpond.com

    Tony Abbott is neither a Climate Change Believer, nor a Climate Change Skeptic. Our Tony is a Climate Change Cynic.

  28. eclectic eel

    “OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.”

    Warmer during Jesus’ time – he’s been watching the “Life of Brian”
    So that’s why they called them the Dark Ages, darker and therefore colder – silly me I thought it had something to do with
    retreat from enlightenment.

    The guy’s a genius – no wonder he outwits the gutter press.

  29. AR

    Bearing in mind his political father, are these core or non-core lies?
    Which is which and who cares?

  30. eclectic eel

    Tony Abbott: “In the absence of wind that never stops blowing, sun that never stops shining and tides that never stop turning; in the absence of hydrogen cars; and in the absence of nuclear power stations to supply most base-load electricity, big reductions in emissions are impossible without a big increase in people’s cost of living or a significant change in their lifestyles.”

    What is Abbott trying to say here? – yes the sun doesn’t shine all the time and the wind doesn’t blow at particular places all the time. – yes we’d rather do without nuclear energy. But the logic is fatally flawed – alternative energies will triumph, and they will take over without a big increase in peoples cost of living, and with a significant improvement to peoples lifestyles.

  31. Son of foro

    “I really hope you will put the same effort into a Julia v JooLIAR debate.”

    JooLIAR … oh, yes, I see what you did there, very droll, you should pass that around, see if it catches on. Already been done with Tony BLIAR (see what they did?) for about the last decade, but yours is good, too.

    I think some effort has already been expended on that debate, anyway. Perhaps we can look forward to Andrew Bolt’s Baillieu v Baillieu debate, there’s already enough there for a book, and it’s only been 100 days. Yet something tells me it’ll be a cold day in hell before we see that article gracing the pages of the Herald Sun.

  32. Climate Change

    We should set the carbon tax at $100 a tonne and increase it $50 a year until 2030 and then reassess the situation. If not measuarble improvements, then increase by $100 a year, and see if that changes behaviour

  33. granorlewis

    Yes – the $100 tonne and rising is a good idea – until you then remember that she is going to give it all back, either to the polluters or the poor people.

    Then you realise that nothing in this proposal – or Julia’s – will change any strategies or behaviour.

  34. AR

    To widen this point, just as an exercise, consider this. Abolish all personal taxation but massively increase the excise on fossil fuelws.
    Suddenly a loaf of bread costs $20, because of the fossil fuel to plough, plant & harvest the fields, the fossil fuel based fertilizer, the transport from farm to the final consumer. However the taxpayer has so much more money in their hands that they can afford it (viz PJK’s Option C “compensation layed on with a trowel.”).
    However the major change in behaviour is that people begin to choose a lifestyle using less & less fossilfuel input, (which would mean that the megacities would be enclaves/ghettos for the rich – perhaps we could then wall them in and only let them out when they have some manners on them? just jokin’.. kinda).
    Of and of course, NO tax breaks for industry of any sort but especially not for fossil fuel input. The irony now is that miners & farmers pay no excise of their massive diesel input because it is all deductible.
    And stop allowing advertising to be deductible.
    In 1960 Commonwealth refvenu was roughly 15% excise, 70% company tax and 15% personal income tax.
    Now excise is a minor component and the company & personal tax ratios reversed.
    Haven’t the rich suffered enough already?

  35. Tom Jones

    Granorlewis – We have had a lot about whether Julia Gillard has told the truth or not in the mainstream press. Tony Abbott in the meantime is being quoted as if he is an honest broker in that same press. Whether he can tell the truth and be believed on anything is a very salient point as he spouts figues without basis.

  36. jojo

    Sounds sensible, AR. People are becoming so broke these days that not eating is another potential climate saving option. I perosnally think that Tony Abbot gets away with this sort of behaviour because his brain is so twisted that nobody wishes to engage with it for too long, for fear of it rubbing off.

  37. twobob

    John James I can see why you might support abort on this thing
    After placing my head in a vice I was able to decipher your contention that,

    “The Australian public do not have a problem with politicians changing their minds, or altering their position. ” and then you arguing against this preface.

    Obviously you believe that liberals may take as many positions as they choose on whichever issue they please but if a labor politician is forced through pragmatism to alter a previously stated position it is a lie.

    Of course I see the difference, do you?
    A. The former are from your team and the latter are not. I love your consistency?

  38. Christine Johnson

    Scary isn’t it. He even thinks carbon pollution will dissipate with tree planning and investment in teething projects like algae biofuel and carbon soil sequestration. In other words there’s no real intent to deal with man-made pollution so Abbott and co have chosen to loiter between denial and agreement just in case nature comes good and repairs itself. Out touring the country selling silly slogans like snake-oil salesmen it is all about avoiding critical-thinking in joint party debate. The challenges of modern society have moved well beyond the Coalition so it seizes on the spades of ignorance and fear within society. All wretched short-sighted stuff yet the guy and his Party are only a bi-election away from governing the country. The brilliant irony of it all is those who stand in their way – the Independents – are those who had the ticker to reject this inferior political advocacy when it started to take hold.

  39. drmick

    For the thinking person, it is all about credibility.
    From an insignificant speck on the planets perspective, I would like to think that if enough of us consider someone else, even in a small way, when we make a decision, then we are moving towards “civilisation”.
    We cannot avoid social responsibility without disastrous consequences. The irony is the bastards that are causing the problems are in the minority, very rich and powerful, abusing the rest of us and then charging us as a final insult.
    I would not pay these polluting bastards a cent. They should pay us compensation for trashing our country and lying about the damage they are doing.
    Look at the crap those bastards raised with the mining tax. 6 months after crying poor they produce record profits and rub our noses in it.
    What, you say if they took their business off shore? Good. Piss off and try this crap in another country; they would shoot you on sight or laugh you off the planet. And you can leave our resources in the ground as well.

  40. wendyjarvie

    fantastic collection!

  41. savetheplanet

    The Coalition is proudly brought to by big oil, gas & coal. Anyone who accepts money from such companies should be put behind bars.

  42. Rohan G

    More evidence for Abbott’s lack of intelligence . He repeatedly refers to the insurance principle. It’s the precautionary principle you cretin!

  43. Captain Planet

    Great collection, Bernard and Nikki. Nothing quite like watching Mr. Rabid contradict himself again… and again…. and again.

    @ AR (10th March)

    The problem with reducing other taxes to compensate for a carbon tax, is that we don’t want to become dependant on a Carbon Tax for our Government revenue.

    Ideally, the amount of tax collected from a Carbon Tax should eventually drop to zero as the amount of CO2 emitted drops to zero. So this needs to be borne in mind before we eliminate personal income tax or anything quite that radical. We’re going to need those revenue streams again once we de – carbonise the economy.

  44. Jimmy

    See Nick Minchin was on Sky today saying the planet isn’t warming. Something tells me the coalition aren’t really serious.

  45. Sir Lunchalot

    @ shepherdmarilyn
    @ Venise Alstergren

    Evening Ladies,

    I see your beloved Julia Gillard went to see Rupert Murdoch overnight to wish him an 80th birthday and chew the fat.

    And your other mate President Brown is sending emails to supporters, as follows….push poll here we come

    Help stop the fear campaign

    Dear friend,

    We are at a critical moment in climate action in Australia and we need your help to stand up to Tony Abbott’s fear and misinformation campaign.

    One great way to counter a fear campaign is to show supporters of climate action that they are not alone. So we spoke to a respected polling company and we can secure properly designed and fair questions in their regular omnibus poll about placing a price on pollution and investing in clean energy if we can raise $10,000 by Monday*.

    Can you give $25 right now to help give our supporters the facts?

  46. Captain Planet

    @ Sir Lunchalot,

    Interesting that as an active Greens Member, I have not received such an email from Bob.

    Are you sure about your source?

  47. Sean

    I reckon you should have matched Mr Rabbit’s skin tone on the B&W photos all the way down with the magic of Photoshop, it would look terrific.

  48. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Capt Planet

    Yes. I cut and pasted part of it into the blog!! Perhaps he is tapping his email base in waves, or perhaps is targetting it based on postcode.

    Perhaps you are flagged as having no money!!!

    Customer Relationship Marketing in action

  49. Venise Alstergren

    SIR LUNCH: I’ve only just sat down at my computer. I don’t have a problem with the twenty-five bucks. But may I ask which organisation wants it because Get Up will ask the same question, as will the Greens?

    For all I know you’ve already told me in the email-I always do things backward-Don’t ask me why. So I’ll go back and have another look.


  50. Gederts Skerstens

    We pay the yappers to do their yapping.
    By our fronting at work Monday morning, to Friday. And again, next week, month, year, decades.
    Here’s an idea: We stop giving them money.

  51. Venise Alstergren

    GERDERTS SKERSTENS: Error. They take it from us before giving it to useless committees and assorted QANGOS.

  52. FalcoPilot

    The American’s decided to re-elect Bush (Mk2) for a second term, and thus had to endure a full eight years with him as president. I understand that the “majority” of Americans now realize that he is a complete idiot!
    Does this indicate that the majority of American’s are just slow learners?
    When it comes to Abbott, let’s hope the majority of the Australians are not nearly as thick as our Americans friends!

    It does beg the question about how thick the liberal MP’s are, as they elected Abbott to be their Grand Poobah?
    Perhaps we should have declared a war against “dumb leaders”, rather than a war against “terror”. It may have been much more beneficial!

  53. Climate Change

    @ FalcoPilot

    As was discussed on this Board last week, a huge percentage American People are very naive and only see local issues and very little of world issues, except where they are fighting.

    Bush Mk2 made his first trip outside the America’s when he was President.

    During the election campaign (which goes for 12 months) I made a $10 bet with a yank that Bush would not be re-elected. He argued that when the US GDP is abouve 3.5% or something like that, the sitting President has always been re-elected. Bush had Kerry against him, which is like having Wayne Swan against you. Walk over.

  54. FalcoPilot

    Yes there seems to be something definitely hard wired into the American psyche.
    I must admit, I am slow learner myself sometimes, “I’m not proud!” (pinched from an Arlo Guthrie song lyrics).
    The re election of Mk2 was a big eye opener for me! An epiphany moment in fact!
    It made me realize, big time, that bad things have to run their course, before any meaningful change will occur!
    You can wave your anti war signs, and your anti nuke signs all you want, but nothing is going to change until after the runny stuff really hits the fan in a big way!
    So it makes me think that no real big changes will be made in regard to say global warning until the consequences are in everyones face.
    I have now learnt to stay serenely calm when I see really stupid decisions being made.
    I have been involved in a couple of local community issues (against a couple local authorities) in the past, where we new we could win, and did, but it is an uphill battle and does wear you out and drain you.
    I am now more than likely to say, let it happen, and everyone will have to wear the consequences.
    I personally think we would have been much better off having a “war on stupid leaders” rather than a “war on terrorism”.
    JMVHO 🙂

  55. HXTOUR

    Amazing collection. Thank you so much for highlighting the things that ALL of the mainstream media will not.
    And why aren’t the Labor Party jumping all over this…???
    Please Australia, we deserve better than this guy…!!!

  56. Captain Planet

    The Labor Party can jump all over it all they like (and they do – listen to Question Time) if the mainstream media do not deem it newsworthy it will not be printed or aired.

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/09/climate-change-cage-match-abbott-debates-abbott/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.