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.

Fortunately, the ETS has been knocked in the head since the writing of this article.

Rudd is unlikely to use the defeat as an excuse for a double dissolution because he would certainly be called upon to explain his scheme and prove to voters that it would have some effect on climate.

He is unable to fulfill either of these requirements.

Abbott's impressive.

A fit, slim, healthy, Bacholar of Economics and Law with a Masters in Politics and Philosophy, a former Rhodes Scholar, who doesn't get drunk, thinks clearly and can speak Australian to Australians and uhmmm to Chinese.

Roll on the next federal election.

Rudd's clearly out classed and on the enviroment, with the Australian Electorate, clearly now left floundering. Roll on Copenhagen. Rudd's so fixated and now panicked judging from the Labor attack ads, he won't be able to back down from his current positions and will sign anything at Copenhagen for which Abbott will crucify him.

I wonder what effect the proposed US Senate enquiry into the UN Climate Change committee and the Hadley Centre 'science' and scientists will have. Especially now since the Climate Change Experts have admitted to 'losing' the 150 years of hard copy raw data their enhanced and reconstructed climate statistics, they claim, 'reflect'. The ones proporting to show climate warming and on which their future wildly scaremongering projections are based.

Ludwig is totally right. Unless and until our third world population growth is recognised as the environmental threat that it is, all else is useless. Forget the little c, worry about the Big P.

In respect of the Trading scheme it is obvious that we should not waste our money on a scheme that will almost certainly fail to meet a threat that is probably not there anyway.(AGW).

For a small fraction of that expenditure we could really get stuck into the environmental problems that definitely exist. Start with weeds, go on with feral animals, follow that up with ruined riparian zones, water issues everywhere with the lack of assured environmental flows, the continuing loss of biodiversity and so on.

Re the Big P from a global viewpoint, when are people going to look at the Big P as THE issue? Try for example the fact that the median age of people in the Gaza strip is 17. There is no hope at all socially, economically or environmentally under those circumstances.

Keith, Leigh & little brother, true, the only Abbott detractors i have seen on any forum are left wing nuts who have never voted conservative & never will. Their, praise Turnbull, ridicule Abbott, rubbish is obvious wedge politics. These left wing elites have always considered the average suburban voter, to be an idiot, in need of a good brow beating.

They and the "Canberra Press Gallery" seem to have forgotten, that labour did NOT win, the last election. Howard lost it, by not organising an orderly hand over & by going too far on industrial relations reform with "Work Choices". Many voters referred to as the "John Howard Battlers" were philosophically, "born labour voters". They were switched off labour by their anti business, anti family, pro child abuse policies.

They were driven back to labour by work choices, but labour have since, Kevin07 been back at, pandering to every lunatic, left, fringe group from climate coolers to femanazis, at the expense of every body else in the formerly silent majority. Tony Abbott may be just the poster boy the coalition needs to win those "Howard Battlers" back again. If he and the coalition play there cards right they could have labour out in the wilderness federally & in all states & territories for decades.

examinator, if you are so well informed on AGW, then why have you never heard of GD, Global Dimming or the "Shade Cloth Effect", or are you just not talking about it. It pops up on google, bing & yahoo, all the info, TV documentaries etc. It would perfectly explain why there was warming from the 70's into the 90's but cooling over the last decade since then.

If the world takes, the wrong action, on AGW now, reducing smog production, faster than co2 production, this could trigger, both, catastrophic Global Warming & GFC series 2 as well.

Tony Abbott recognised and supported the Rudd Government's mandate to introduce an ETS as late as July this year - at least, he said he did. Now he says that "mandates expire".

It appears that he has been happy to say whatever the moment demanded in the past.

That doesn't sound like a man who is guided by conviction

Prediction...
Labor will reintroduce the ETS next parliamentary sitting and will explain to all of the deniers/naysayers what it really means. Remiss of them not to do so in the first place but as the ETS was Coalition policy created by John Howard he probably didn't think he needed to!

Perhaps then you will all understand that this is not a tax nor is it really ultimately about short term economics, it is about the ethics of ignoring our obligation to mitigate the risk for future human generations and animal life with whom we share a potential threatened planet.

Once this is understood (by the rest of the electorate and 70% already do) I think ole Tone will "see the light"

I'm curious as to why Rudd has blinked on this one, and not jumped for a double-dissolution election while the Liberals are paralysed by internal ructions.

After all, wasn't it absolutely, positively, unarguably vital that the legislation be passed before the Carbonhagen conference?

One wonders what Labor's internal polling is telling them?

Is Rudd quietly hoping the climategate scandal will die off over the silly season? Reading Australia's media, you wouldn't think it had even happened, although it's gradually snowballing in the US and particularly in Britain, no matter how determinedly the mainstream media have been chanting "la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!" Sadly, Australia's media are still hiding under the blankets, hoping the climategate bogey will go away.

Formersnag,

Ah yes, but how did they lose government?
IR and climate change inaction i.e. ETS inaction.
FYI, I am against the current political party system. One that views members personal election first, then party and survival, all before public interest

Abbott spent 20 years creating an ideological image, then on election to Party head expect us to believe that he isn't that at all. One or the other it true, not both. Either way he's a liar, an opportunist of dubious conviction, as proven by the other.
Aristotle said in part " we are what we do repeatedly do"

Poirot
Too true.
MM supported, core and non core promises, manipulation in leu of public choice (i.e.the plebiscite), and pure political opportunism calling the 1st unhung senate in 30 years a mandate.
I agree with you, the end doesn't justify the means.

Everyone.

We don't need another blatant political opportunist, but a set of politicians who put public interest first.

Where is the democracy in a choice between two equally dubious sets of policy choices, that we the public didn't/can't have final input in, at the ballot box?

i.e. Hand's up Australia, who thinks The *excesses* of big corps shouldn't be curtailed?
or Who thinks that the financial industry shouldn't be more tightly controlled to prevent another GFC?
or Who thinks that the big polluters should change rather that get massive exemptions?
Or who thinks we the average person doesn't get screwed by the above and would like it to change?

Where is democracy where we have no say over 'our' leader, given that that leader may undo the policies we voted the government in for?

Where is the democracy in an unelected leader of the losers of both the above democratic choices, can veto the decision of the majority?

The contradictions in democracy inherent in this system that encourages all that we dislike about politics.

I think Ludwig, is going to be disappointed, Abbott is there by the manipulation of group who don't think that population (people) are a major causal factor to the world's problems.

Linguist, I can see why there is soem confuciton. I probably should have modified the points and quote to make it clearer.

Examinator.

That is a great site you refer to in your post. I have bookmarked it as a source of science info. Thanks.

In regard to your comments about the article, my central point is we can now have a real debate about addressing greenhouse emmissions with all the strengths and weaknesses of all policy ideas for the environment put forward.

Yes, I agree. Abbott will have to do much more than offer a campaign of smoke and mirrors. We shall see, but I am hopeful.

For Linguist, First sentence from previous post should have read 'I can see why there is some confusion'. I probably should have modified the points and quote to make it clearer.

The problem with the ETS is that hardly anyone understands it. A half-decent journalist would be grilling Rudd in much the same way they grilled Hewson about the effect of the GST. Indeed, does anyone know what the ETS will do to the cost of a birthday cake?

Abbott's strategy should be to focus not on climate change itself but whether the ETS is the best solution. If he can do that, Rudd will be in trouble and quickly. Abbott's problem is that the hardline sceptics in his party will probably feel emboldened to focus even more on whether the climate is changing. That is, take the debate away from where Abbott can win it.

I have yet to hear anyone present a case against a carbon tax, other than it would be a difficult political task to sell it. But, as an economist, I can see it has a lot of advantages over an ETS. Including that it is far more likely to achieve the intended goal of reducing emissions!

“The problem with the ETS is that hardly anyone understands it. A half-decent journalist would be grilling Rudd in much the same way they grilled Hewson about the effect of the GST”

Absolutely right Huonian. The lack of grilling of neither Rudd nor Turnbull or Abbott has been the most incredible omission throughout the Libs leadership debacle and indeed throughout the whole ETS ‘debate’.

Its been like a Clayton’s debate – about the ETS. Well… sort of… with hardly anyone really giving a hoot about the actual veracity of the ETS!

The pressure will now be on Abbott rather than Rudd.

When Parliament resumes it will be post-Copenhagen and the debate will have advanced considerably in the meantime.

We will see how other countries have lined up and know what their intentions are and I doubt that any other countries will be breaking ranks and declaring it all to be some elaborate hoax.

I saw Joyce on Lateline tonight at a bit of a loss to explain where he stands.

On one hand he admitted that human activity has contributed to climate change so he can't declare himself a total sceptic.

On the other hand he has been escorting a sceptic around to address voters at various venues to talk the whole concept down.

Then he couldn't explain away the international carbon tariffs that would be raised against us if we fail to meet America's guidelines in 2018.

Hypocritical, opportunistic or what?

The Opposition is trying have it both ways by cashing in on peoples fears and creating uncertainty but won't offer any real alternative.

Meanwhile Rudd will still have his trigger for whenever the timing suits. The total denialists are still a small (if not noisy) minority.

I suspect it will be Abbott squirming for a way out in a few months, not Rudd.

The use of the term "Denialists" is both just plain wrong & deceitful. There isn't anyone who doesn't concede that man's activities do have an impact on climate. What many, including myself do not accept is that the ETS is doing anything to improve the environment. That is not a denial. It's a cold hard fact.
Going around apologizing for things this generation is not responsible for & making the common man pay so that totally unnecessary/frivolous industries can flourish might Kevin's idea of proactive. Trouble is that its all without substance. Did the apology solve problems ? No ! Would the ETS solve tomorrows problems N0 ! Those who attack the sober thinkers as having no prove have no prove themselves.
If we truly want to be proactive towards a better climate than cut back on motor sport, on air conditioning, on big cars, on unnecessary travel, get rid of the cotton industry, get rid chemical spraying etc etc. If Kevin focuses on this reality he'll have my support but he's not gonna get it with his present antics which sadly only appeal to the indoctrinated in our midst.

Rache,

Yes i saw good old boy Barnaby last night too. He really is a clown, i wonder when he gets up in the morning if he takes an hour to decide if its going to be tea or coffee!

The problem is that while ever the likes of sycophantic journalists such as Alan Jones interview people like Joyce, the public gets little opportunity to see how incompetent they really are...when challenged by a "real" journalist such as Tony Jones they clearly have neither the wit nor the intellect to debate the world's most important issue.

Oh of course, I forgot, the ABC is totally biased compared to fair and even handed Alan and dares to attempt to get a meaningful response that actually might give the viewer an insight into the interviewee's motives.

Tony Abbott's real victory over Kevvy hasn't sunk in yet.

Here is a question I'd like someone to answer, without the usual rancor.

What does Kevin Rudd say at Copenhagen as the leader of a country whose democratic institutions have rejected imposition of a carbon emissions trading scheme and which are likely to reject a carbon tax?

On climate change Rudd is a lame duck and anything he says at Copenhagen that contradicts the stance of the elected Australian representatives will leave him open to ridicule.

Kevvy's best option is to avoid going to Copenhagen. His signature on the Koyoto farce is looking very very silly. Just like Obama, Rudd cannot commit the country he leads to any sort of emissions reduction target.

Gillard's re-introduction of the ETS today isn't designed to do anything other than to give Kevvy the opportunity in Copenhagen to say Australia has an ETS before it's houses of Parliament. That is merely more smoke and mirrors and about typifies both Rudd and the farce represented by the UN controlled bodies set up to administer climate change and environment policy.

Examinator,
If you are so keen on 'democracy' I wonder why you did not comment on true democracy at work, in the article on the Citizens Initiated Refenda outcome in Switzerland.

If you really want democracy, then you should support CIR as a means of overturning government policy which conflicts with what the people want or where politicians do not fullfill their electoral undertakings.

You acheive nothing by simply carping about lack of democracy.

keith,
Although you seem to think that international embarrassment is a good thing, I think the real questions should be posed closer to home.

How does Tony propose to make significant economic structural changes at no cost to anybody?

Given that a flat Carbon Tax was rejected by all because the entire cost would have been passed onto the consumer and that both parties agreed and campaigned on an ETS, what is his shiney new preferred option and how much will it cost?

Who is going to pay for his nuclear reactors and where will they be built? How much more will electricity cost to recoup their initial cost?

Since electricity generation actually represents a small amount of our total carbon output, what is he going to do to fix the rest?

Petrol rationing maybe? Send the remainder of our manufacturing off-shore?

Is this a "never ever" Liberal statement or just political expediency?

Never mind Rudd - the ball's in Abbott's court now. Time to "put up" I think.

Rache,

Our relations with China, India and Indonesia are at a very low ebb all because kevvy has already been an international embarassment. His presence and pretence at Copenhagan only add to our ridicule in many more nations around the world.

Unfortunately your argument is a fallacy. Tony Abbott isn't the PM and as such he doesn't have to have an alternative policy until he needs to present one at a Federal Election. It is Governments who can initiate policy and enact legislation which is then scruitinised by Oppositions and formerly the media and people with opinions. That's been the nature of the very successful operation of our political system for generations. Why do you want to change that? Is it because Kevvy is so berefit of original thought? Is Kevvy hamstrung now because he hasn't John Howard to follow? Now there is nobody else from whom he can copy, pinch policy and cry 'me too'?

This exposure of Kevvy's emptiness was inevitable in the grand scheme of things. You are merely re-inforcing that with your demand Tony Abbott behave like a Government rather than an Opposition.

Banjo,

"Why not comment on Switzerland's decision?" Why? I'm not Switz, and I have commented about their system before, so I wasn't surprised by the the result.

As for CIR, nope, not a fan *under the current system*. It can easily becoming an expensive and disruptive tool for the extremists. Again, this is a topic I have commented at length on it before.

It’s a bit of a tangent to the subject of this thread, but neither am I a fan of Citizen Initiated Referenda.

That’s all. It’s late. I’m going to bed!