Plantaganet: "Abbott recognises the futility of disabling the Australian economy in the name of climate change measures that make no difference."

The Australian economy was not disabled. Unilateral action on climate change intended to dovetail into a global cap and trade system would have made a difference had an ETS developed as anticipated. Exporters are still holding carbon credits in this anticipation: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/10/policy-politics/carbon-pricings-poison-pill?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=453241&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt= Had an ETS market not sufficiently developed we would have made adjustments that maintained domestic carbon pricing and kept us export competitive until it did.

I have argued, on another thread, that we can continue decarbonizing unilaterally and go nuclear(thorium LFTR) without giving up our natural advantage (buried fossil-fuels) if the world does not follow. Coupled with Labor's domestic carbon pricing/compensatory measures encouraging a weaning towards renewables, a sustainable future emerges.

Abbott easily exploited the electorate's uncertainty and misunderstanding about the path Labor was taking, but it was on the right path and that will be seen so in time. Biting the nuclear bullet may have been a problem for Labor, but if "Direct Action" money is put towards nuclear power generation, the future will judge Abbott well.

"The world is industrial and permanently geared to economic growth not one of "moral" environmental issues.Learning to handle the inevitable environmental damage caused by economic growth is the real challenge."

We can have sustainable growth by cleaning up after ourselves, which adds to GDP. This requires generating plentiful clean power, which can also be applied to food production.

Of course, underlying all this is an imperative to mitigate AGW that Abbott does not appear to appreciate.

Labor's carbon tax government resoundingly turfed out by Australian voters. Far fewer votes for the Greens.

Australian voters being forced - through the carbon tax - to cross-subsidize big business carbon spewers - makes no sense.

No plastic bubble over Australia to shield us from the international climate as India and China rapidly burn more coal.

World increase in coal and other hydrocarbon use cancels out any impact of Australian green policies...

Tony Abbott can truly say he got the Prime Ministership over the political death of two Prime Ministers, one Opposition Leader and now two senior public servants.
Randal Stewart,
Are you trying to tell us there wasn't an election in September ? I thought Abbott got voted in by the people.

The open house for green ideology is on display 24/7 in our southern most state.
Pristine, undeveloped, ripe for tourism; bankrupt.
Seems the logical place to house the global warming refugees.

Plantaganet: "Australian voters being forced - through the carbon tax - to cross-subsidize big business carbon spewers - makes no sense."

They were not cross subsidized. Emmitters serving the domestic market passed their carbon price costs on to domestic consumers. The consumers received compensation (tax cuts pension rises) for the cost of carbon passing through the economy, including in their power bills. Exporting emitters received annual carbon credits that were to cease upon the segue into an ETS. This kept them globally competitive. There was no subsidy, per se, as the credits cost the taxpayer nothing.

The purpose was for consumers to avoid carbon costs by opting for efficiency and renewable energy sources such as solar panels, thereby gradually decarbonizing the economy.

Abbott/LNP/Murdoch had a field day. "Direct Action" is not market-based and takes tax money and gives it to chosen projects. If that was nuclear (thorium LFTR), it would be good, but it probably won't.

Luciferase

You again mate :) Wrong again.

Regards

Pete