Is it foot in mouth or simply premature enunciation?

TONY Abbott is suffering from premature enunciation. He spent months railing against a carbon tax on petrol, yet it turns out petrol is exempt.

This highlights the folly of campaigning against something the details for which haven't been set.

Abbott's loose rhetoric continued on Monday when interviewed on the ABC's 7.30.

Asked "can you name a single credible economist who believes that your plan will work", the Opposition Leader proudly responded: "I can certainly name a very credible organisation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, probably the most reputable economic lobby group in our country, which prefers our plan to that of the government."

The only problem? ACCI head Peter Anderson said something quite different on Sky News Australian Agenda on Sunday morning when asked: "Do you have concerns on behalf of business with any price inefficiency in direct action under Tony Abbott's plan?"

He responded: "Well, we do. We think that the right approach for Australia is to calibrate our action on carbon pricing with international action, and direct action or emissions trading or carbon taxes in the abstract all add costs."

That sounds like blanket concern with both major party schemes by the head of an organisation Abbott claims is backing his scheme. Asked whether he had "a preference for direct action over the carbon tax",Anderson said: "Not necessarily. I think you need to look at the details of both approaches. They both can add quite unreasonable cost to our economic activity. We know that there are a range of direct action mechanisms being introduced at a state government level which are quite inefficient."

What the head of the ACCI said is a long way from the endorsement Abbott was claiming. And by the way, Anderson used to be on Abbott's staff as a senior adviser in the Howard government, so Anderson wasn't letting past loyalties get in the road of what he thinks.

Abbott hoped to use a rare appearance on 7.30 to misrepresent support by the ACCI for his direct action plan. Instead he was caught out bending (if not breaking) the truth.

The full details of Labor's carbon tax will be outlined on Sunday for all to see. Inevitably, attention in the days that follow will be on the government's scheme, but after that the debate needs to move on to compare it with the Coalition's scheme.

If that happens people may find the government's offering is the lesser of evils.

Abbott likes to court sceptics who believe that deep down he is uncertain about climate change, but both major parties have the same emissions reduction target for 2020: a 5 per cent cut on 2000 levels. That means they both need to find cuts across industries and households over the next nine years of a similar magnitude to achieve their stipulated targets.

So when Abbott condemns Julia Gillard's carbon tax as a blow to the national economy, it is important not to view the attacks in isolation of the Coalition's alternative plan for carbon pollution reduction. After all, they want to achieve the same cuts. Here is the rub: there is not an economist in this country who believes Abbott's direct action plan is a more efficient way of achieving the 5 per cent cut. The Productivity Commission says pricing carbon is the most cost-effective way to achieve cuts. Professor Ross Garnaut agrees.

In other words, unless Abbott is prepared to admit his direct action plan may not be implemented or retained to 2020, and certainly wouldn't be enacted with such force so as to achieve the 5 per cent reductions promised, it will cost Australians more than the carbon tax. If critics of Gillard's carbon tax want to support a leader who won't waste billions of dollars on the issue, I am afraid Abbott is not their man: unless he is being disingenuous about his intentions.