Turnbull brands Abbott an ETS 'weathervane'

Writing on his blog yesterday, former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull declares it's time for some straight talking on climate change.

WHILE a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy. So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal-fired power stations with cleaner gas-fired ones, or renewables like wind, let alone nuclear power or even coal-fired power with carbon capture and storage, is all going to cost money. To get farmers to change the way they manage their land or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit". Moreover he knows it . . . Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the [emissions trading scheme], the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this, but . . . ".

Tony Abbott writing in The Australian on July 24:

THE government's emissions trading scheme is the perfect political response to the public's fears. It's a plausible means to limit carbon emissions that doesn't impose any obvious costs on voters . . . Opposing the legislation in the Senate ultimately could make poor policy even worse because the government could negotiate a deal with the Greens. Alternatively, after several months in which political debate focuses on climate change and opposition obstructionism, the government could call a double-dissolution election on the issue of who's fair dinkum about trying to save the planet.

Abbott in The Australian on October 19:

AFTER a fortnight in which internal party debate has largely mirrored debate in the wider community, Turnbull and senior frontbencher Ian Macfarlane have crafted a set of amendments that recognises concerns about harming the Australian economy prior to effective global emission reductions while also recognising the need to insure against credible environmental threats. Their recommendation to try to negotiate a better deal with the government was backed by lengthy meetings of the shadow cabinet, full shadow ministry and partyroom. The subtext of almost every contribution was the importance of party unity if policy is to be effective.

Abbott in The Australian on November 27:

I WOULD prefer that Malcolm Turnbull did not give up the leadership of the Liberal Party but I would like him to change his mind about the government's emissions trading legislation; not necessarily to reconsider the merits of an emissions trading scheme but not to rush one through the parliament just so Kevin Rudd can look good at Copenhagen.

John Passant, writing on the National Times website yesterday, on the performance of the Greens in the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections:

THE failure of the Greens to fundamentally alter the overall result and attract voters in what is traditionally a sympathetic demographic for them at the same time that there was a leadership crisis in the Liberal Party last week indicates they have not, through their parliamentary do-nothing else strategies, been able to move out of their electoral ghetto.

Indeed, the fact that the Greens are euphoric about the results in these two very rich electorates shows they view the ruling class as the best vehicle for action and explains their commitment to market mechanisms for addressing the very problem the market created climate change.

It also reflects their contempt for ordinary working people and their ambiguous cross-class ideology, which rejects the working class as the agency of fundamental change.

[e-mail]