|
December 1, 2009
Malcolm Turnbull speaks truth to power, ends up isolated from his party over the ETS, and is forced out of the leadership. The Minchinites link this campaign to cleaning the Wets out of the fractured party, and they argue that this script will deliver them electoral success. What are to make of this scenario?
A three way contest takes place early this morning in Canberra. The rabble that the Liberal opposition has become has changed leaders three times in its first term in the wilderness. Surprisingly, the talk is still about unity in the Liberal party, even though the leadership conflict is also a battle that involves real, and deeply held, ideological and political differences. The politics of climate change has arrived, and it will be increasingly played out over the next decade.
Dennis Glover in The Australian says:
It's not surprising therefore that climate change is starting to pull apart the Liberal Party. Malcolm Turnbull's flawed personality and Tony Abbott's delusional ambition are part of the problem, but the events of the past week can be fully understood only when placed in a wider historical context: this is the first time global warming has produced a leadership struggle in a main political party. Turnbull's agony is the canary in the coalmine, signalling the beginning of the era of climate change politics.
A majority of Liberal Party members appear to agree with the Nationals that electoral victory next year can be achieved by campaigning against the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.Their talk is that Coalition in a 2010 election could say yes to the idea of combating climate change but no to this ETS model.
So what is their alternative model to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions? Silence. Big silence. All we hear is the talking point that a big tax is going send us all broke--a scare campaign, in other words.
An editorial in The Australian rightly points out the core difficulties in the Minchinite conservative's position:
The Liberals have spent more than a week seriously contemplating fighting the Rudd government in a climate change election, with a policy fashioned by people within their ranks whose position is out of kilter with that of the clear majority of Australians...the Liberals will not regain power without a clear direction as a modern centre-right party, drawing on the traditions of liberalism and conservatism while understanding the changes under way in the electorate.
The editorial says that if the Minchinites prevail, the party will be forced to run parallel campaigns at the next election. A split party will require separate strategies -- one for the bush and provincial seats, where the conservative base rejects the need for action on climate change, and another for suburban seats such as North Sydney and Wentworth.
You would have to reckon that the Minchinites have a big problem in persuading the middle ground of the electorate that it is in Australia's national interest to say no to climate change in 2010. Turnbull was dead right on this. Maybe the Minchinites do want a pared-down, pure party that remains in opposition for a decade or so?
Update
Abbott prevails over Turnbull 42 to 41 with Hockey eliminated on first round. Turnbull looks good in defeat. The Liberal Party will now move to kill off the ETS in the Senate. The 2010 election will be a vote on climate change and not an emissions trading scheme, which Abbott dismisses as a giant energy tax.
Abbott says that so they'll keep the greenhouse reduction targets but Liberals will not support any action that causes pain to the economy or to the energy intensive export industries. The mechanism to achieve targets is unclear. In his Battlelines book Abbott says that his position is a sceptical one and not that of a climate change denier:
Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.
So the issue is is how to achieve this: Abbott, who is a big government conservative and centralist, adds:
It's hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they're as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.
He then targets an ETS mechanism:
Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China's increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia's entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.
If night is always darkest before the dawn, then Abbott now presents the Liberal Party with an opportunity to recover its conservative soul, and to argue that this is the only way forward for the Liberal Party.
Meanwhile we need to appreciate that virtually nothing has been done to transform Australia’s economy, even though its economy is the most carbon intensive in the world and Australia, emits more than many countries on a per capita basis. Not a single substantive solar energy facility has been built as a result of the current federal government’s policies, though some wind farms have popped up because state governments have committed to having renewable offsets for installations such as desalination plants. Nor have businesses properly prepared themselves to embrace the challenge of energy efficiency.
|
GST:
"A majority of Liberal Party members agree with the Nationals that electoral victory can be achieved by campaigning against the government's CPRS".
Phew!
Thank heaven for that.
I suppose there is always the off chance they'll wake up to themselves, but their absence from government for another three years is certainly a good thought with which to start the day.
Personally, I think the politics of climate change is really just another battle ground on which to fight the old battle of who pays, eg usually the great unwashed.