|
June 26, 2008
Can anyone make any sense of the Liberal's position on the proposed emissions trading scheme?
They are against it and they are for it. They are fully for emissions trading it, but they oppose the inclusion of petrol in the scheme. I've listened to Greg Hunt resolve the contradiction and what he says makes no sense. He says that he is fully in favour of the scheme but he spends most of his time talking about protecting families from petrol increases:
Leunig
The ALP appears to be standing firm on including the transport issue despite the mantra from Penny Wong, the Climate Change Minister, that is designed to skirt the petrol issue. At least there is no double talk from Wong as there is from the Liberals
All I can see is the Liberals adopting a short-term strategy of political pandering. They are thinking in terms a short-term problem with energy , climate change and the oil market. They have turned away from seeing this as a fundamental and permanent change in our energy economy, are refusing to see it that way, and unwilling to come up with policies on the scale of the problem. Is that a fair judgment?
The only way that I can make sense of what is happening is that the political debate about transport emissions is evolving into whether mandatory vehicle regulations or increases in fuel prices due to emissions trading will be more effective in reducing vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. Currently, there are no mandatory regulations regarding fuel consumption in Australia. Greg Hunt is arguing that increases in petrol prices due to the introduction of a carbon trading emissions scheme will have little effect on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions due to the low elasticity between fuel prices and fuel consumption.
|
Hunt and Turnbull may be holding the line of emissions trading scheme whilst the rest of the Oppostion front bench moves to oppose it. The Liberals are divided.
That's my reading of what is happening.