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.

Malcolm Turnbull’s defense of the CPRS better than Rudd’s

I regret that Malcolm Turnbull was replaced by Tony Abbott as Liberal Party leader. To me it is the replacement of a decent hard-thinking politician by a populist clown who stands for nothing of consequence. Turnbull has stated he will cross the floor to vote for the Government’s CPRS. It is hard to see he could do much else given his stated views and, indeed, those of the Liberal Party itself, going into the 2007 elections.  In doing so Turnbull provided a more cogent analysis of the reasons for supporting a CPRS than Rudd ever could.

Here is a transcript of Turnbull’s speech – perhaps his best.

Moves by others in the Liberal Party to support Turnbull either in the House of Representatives or- much less likely – the Senate might suggest a rebuild of one of Australia’s important political parties.  Currently it is a party of clowns.

Update: Samuel J probably the worst of the right-wing ignorami at Catallaxy gets it horribly wrong by suggesting that an individual nation cannot implement a CPRS so that Turnbull is a traitor to liberalism and small government! What a bad joke!

7 comments to Malcolm Turnbull’s defense of the CPRS better than Rudd’s

  • conrad

    I found Turnbull quite reasonable too — far better and more reasonable than Abbott (on almost everything as far as I can tell). It’s also hard to see how the Libs are going to get decent people if they keep on chucking those they have out (where are they going to be in 10 years from now?) — it seems to me their main appeal now is to fools, and god help us if we end up with Barnaby Joyce as treasurer.

  • MAGB

    “by a populist clown who stands for nothing of consequence.”

    If you read his book “Battlelines” you will see that your comment could not be further from the truth.

  • observa

    Much ado about nothing it seems-
    Just boils down to who do you trust to keep the tax grab the smallest perhaps?

  • Ros

    But if it is only 10 million of taxpayers money it is OK? The rain making funding provided to his mates, (decided just before caretaker period though granted during, so OK), was a good demonstration of Malcolm’s ready understanding of science and probity. And how not to get sucked into picking technologies and winners. Or was that debacle plus his singlehanded driving of the Godwin disaster just naivety, I am being kind. He can never be Leader of the Coalition again, and I doubt very much that Malcolm would have any ambition to be an invisible independent.

    Still he has provided some laughs. This must have been priceless,
    “the National Water Commission, which insisted on a presentation of the technology for local physicists.
    The Rain Corporation presented research documents written in Russian, explained by a Russian researcher who spoke to local experts in Russian.
    “It’s kind of difficult, because he didn’t speak English or understand English, so we didn’t get a lot of information there, and as I said, such written information as they had was all in Russian. So couldn’t get anything out of that,” Professor Fletcher said.”

  • Samuel J

    Harry – you obviously haven’t read my blog properly. I never said that a CPRS (ETS) cannot be implemented by a single country. I said it was unwise and that a necessary condition for an ETS to be efficient (cost effective and with efficacy) was for a world trading system. Since there isn’t an agreement – and unlikely to be – then it is suboptimal and a straight carbon tax would be superior.

  • hc

    Samuel, I quote you directly:

    “In theory an emissions trading scheme can provide a sound market-based means of capping carbon emissions. But a necessary condition is for a world-wide trading scheme. It is clear that there is no such scheme. And it is clear that there is no possibility of such over the next decade.

    Under these circumstances, for Australia to introduce a perfect ETS would be silly. But to pass the amended CPRS would be lunacy. It would be considerably superior to introduce an appropriate carbon tax, which would be more efficient and less prone to corruption and rent seeking. The dead weight cost of the CPRS is magnified with relatively low emissions reductions targets – the community bears this cost. It does not deliver least cost abatement – more likely it delivers maximum cost abatement”.

    This is wrong. It isn’t a necessary condition at all.

  • […] The case for reform has weakened but it has remained a mile stronger than support for other reforms such as the GST and tariff reform.  Support has weakened since 2007 partly because Australian politicians have displayed ambivalence on this issue – the most coherent declaration of pollie support for an ETS came from Malcolm Turnbull after he was replaced as leader of the Coalition.   This statement coherently argued the case for an ETS. […]

Leave a Reply