By Peter Hartcher
Australia's climate change consensus has fractured spectacularly.
And the Liberal Party has decided that it's more important to be combative than to be electable.
By electing Tony Abbott leader, the Liberal Party has chosen to fight on climate change and to risk all on an unpopular cause.
This is a fundamental choice, and by the narrowest of margins. The Opposition will now block the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme and campaign hard against it. The next election will be fought on it.
And on the choice of candidate as well as the decision on policy, the Liberal Party has made it harder for itself to win.
The Labor Party's former national secretary, Tim Gartrell, compared the Liberals' ill-fated choice to the Labor decision to elect Mark Latham leader.
''So now I know how the Libs felt when we made Latham leader!'' he quipped.
The Liberals' decision will unify the Coalition, bringing the Liberal policy in line with the Nationals in opposing the emissions trading scheme.
But it pits the Opposition directly against the will of the Australian people.
First, the Liberals chose the least popular of the three leadership candidates on offer, according to both the Nielsen poll and the Newspoll this week. Only one in five voters prefer Abbott as Liberal leader.
Second, the Liberals decided to support a policy that has slender public appeal.
Only 25 per cent of Australians oppose the emissions trading scheme, according to the Herald's Nielsen poll on Monday, while 66 per cent support the scheme.
The Rudd Government will have to decide whether it wants to call an early, double dissolution election on climate change.
Although the Government is very risk-averse and is inclined to run the full term to the end of next year, the wilful combativeness of the Liberals' choice, the spirit of kamikaze fundamentalism, will make it very tempting for Kevin Rudd to bring it on.