A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Coalition loses plot

That some Coalition members refuse to even negotiate on the Government’s ETS is stupidity bordering on the far side of idiocy.  Coalition members seem to have foregotten that John Howard, as PM, supported a scheme that is close to the current proposed scheme.  Moreover, opposition to even negotiating  on the ETS gives the Goverrnment grounds for a double dissolution of parliament where the Coalition will face electoral annihilation and when, as a result, the legislation will pass the Senate anyway since the government has the numbers.  Finally and most importantly, those climate change sceptics in the Coalition should start to back the science of climate change and dump the silly old fools in their party who deny the science because it offends their political prejudices.

The reported remarks of Tony Abbott that the arguments on climate change were “absolute crap” –  seem deeply disturbing. However his later remarks that an active ETS can be justified on the basis of an insurance principle – close to being sensible scepicism – suggests he may have been taken out of contexct. I’ll wait and see on this one.

9 comments to Coalition loses plot

  • Just because John Howard supported it doesn’t automatically make it a good idea.

  • hc

    That’s true but most of the current opponents of the Rudd ETS supported a nearly identical policy under John Howard.

  • gianni

    That’s true but most of the current opponents of the Rudd ETS supported a nearly identical policy under John Howard.

    A more accurate description of the ETS opponents within the Coalition is that they “acquiesced to” rather than “supported” the Howard position. This reflected their deference to his authority rather than their acceptance of the arguments regarding climate change, whether it be its existence or mitigation. And in fairness to them, right up until the very last period of his prime ministership, Mr Howard reflected their sceptical/denialist position.

    Being in opposition has given them the freedom to publicly revert to their honestly held positions.

  • conrad

    I agree they’ve lost the plot. I feel sorry for Turnbull (and for that matter Nelson), who will never get anywhere because of it.

  • Sir Henry Casingbroke

    Well, here is an opportunity at last, Harry, as an insider to out all those Coalition members who refuse to even negotiate on the Government’s ETS. It is pointless to simply fulminate about the “some”. Name and shame them Harry! Every one of them not just Tony Abbott, whom you spanked with a feather. Do it for the future of the Coalition, do it for Australia, do it for Gaia.

  • hc

    Its true Sir Henry – many of the Coalition members do not merely oppose the governments CPRS. They do not believe in any scheme at all because they reject the AGW hypothesis. Who? Most of the Nationals and quite a few of the Libs. I am reading Abbott’s book at present – he is a simple-minded sceptic whose lack of depth on this issue surprises. There are fools like Wilson Tuckey and more serious pollies (e.g. Nick Minchin) who should know better.

  • Spike

    Howard never supported any form of ETS. He was too far in hock to big carbon to ever to do so. The ‘silly old fools’, a group of which Howard doubtless was a member, knew all along that Howard had made a non-core promise to introduce an ETS, had he been elected in 2007.

    Had that awful event occured, we would have seen the Libs follow the same path as Labor’s ‘lets transfer billions of public $ to big carbon’. The only difference would have been that a few more billion would have been on the table.

  • There were quite a few things I liked about the ETS proposed in the Task Group on Emissions Trading report. Especially that it went beyond anything previously proposed in amount of coverage of the scheme. It also proposed that auction revenue would go towards funding research and development, which is also something that Garnaut recommended but the Rudd government did not go along with. The main disadvantages were that there was nothing for low income households and a lot more money for coal fired generators.

    Its funny, if the Liberals were more sensible they would be critical of the government for not using some auction revenue to fund R&D as they proposed, but I don’t think any of them noticed.

  • There is noticeably a bundle to identify about this. I suppose you made some good points in features also.

Leave a Reply