Chris Lewis writes;

“Abbott notes that a ‘narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures’ ”

“To conclude, it is likely that the Coalition under Abbott’s leadership will use every idea it can to win over voters”

And the winning idea is:– a policy position centred on genuine sustainability, with a much broader focus than just climate change and with a massive reduction in immigration at its core.

This is what the country desperately needs.

and….

This is what the Australian populace would support, if it was promoted properly.

It is really quite simple. Abbott could set himself and his party up as a very different and very attractive alternative to Rudd at the next election.

Labor MP, Kelvin Thomson is generating a lot of interest with his expressions of concern about the Rudd-imposed record high immigration rate and the overall massively antisustainable direction that his party is heading in.

Tony Abbott ought to sit up and take notice of this!

Chris Lewis writes;

“Abbott notes that a ‘narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures’ ”

But just above, he attributes the same words to Bjorn Lomborg....

I've read this article twice and i'm not sure what the point is.
Tony Abbott may be able to win the next election if... perhaps... provided....
The most i can get out of this is a pollyanna defence of Tony Abbott. For example Abbott would never let his views on abortion etc get in the way of policy. Try telling that to the RU486 proponents.
Tony RU486 amenable?
Tony: NO!

So far all that Abbott has demonstrated that the only thing of importance is returning the COAL-ition to power and will say/unsay anything to achieve that end.

His party has been hijacked by certain internal elements and dragged even further to the right.

The voters of Higgins and Bradfield may have something interesting to say this weekend.

Being 1334 Wednesday it is now known that the CPRS went down (a bad week for journalists, first predicting Hockey as a sure thing and now the voting down of the CPRS).
But the 40 hours of debate has thoroughly investigated the Govts legislation and it certainly has some big holes in it, just look at the different treatment of reforestation, afforestation and regrowth.
Abbott now has this information to develop a campaign against the CPRS which the Govt will take to the next election.
It looks like it will be the reverse of the Hewson vs Keating 1993 election were Abbott will be able to do Rudd slowly as Keating said of Hewson.
This is before we now what will happen in Copenhagen an event that Rudd has spent so much political capital on.
As much as I respect Malcolm Turnbull's intellect and speech making ability I suspect that Tony will be a much better political leader.
As for Tony's belief re abortion, stem cell research and RU486, I believe they are exactly the same as Kevin Rudd's and many other Christian members of Parliament.
Just that Tony is not afraid to explain his beliefs.
Any such legislation goes to a conscience vote in Parliament anyhow and in the case of RU486 Tony was on the losing side of that debate.

Chris,

Congratulations on this piece it is a good piece of objective thinking.

I attempted a similar topic on the forum but with much less success, I attributing it to the new book that question an ETS as a the best option.
http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/11/091127124225.htm>

I also noted Sterns' views last night on "Lateline" in which he refers to both a carbon tax and ETS,in order to cover different parts of the carbon reduction question.
You now raise the question 'was Sterns being overly diplomatic'?

You certainly paint a different picture of Abbott. I tend to see people in terms of Aristotle's observation 'we are what we repeatedly do ...'. Perhaps a closer look is in order.

In terms of leopards and spots, I still don't trust the likes of Minchin, Robb and co, given that they are climate *deniers*, arch conservatives and 'successful puppet masters'. They both have very long records of applying their manipulative trade.

Will their response be as straight forward, as you suggest, or does Abbott's bit last night (on the 7.30) the harbinger of more ruthless tactic. i.e. a campaign of smoke and mirrors, outrageous exclusions for business and industry, with a ridiculously small impact on carbon reduction? After all that better reflects the "natural instincts" (Abbott's terminology) of the Liberal's conservative base.

Add to that the Party attitudes that the primary purposes of a politician are to get elected, get the party into government, keep it there. This clearly means, that the public interest comes a poor 4th.
(Organizational theory)

The other problem is, most voters think in the 'now' and may not see, the frying pan as a consequence of the baited hook.

It is the ultimate good that bothers me in the short term focus environment of Party power politics...which, more often than not,results in lost opportunities.
I hope your option is closer to what happens.