The Old Man with a Spray Tan

By James Moore “But let’s all remember Donald Trump is just a flatulent…

Dutton's nuclear vapourware

Everyone knows how it goes, as things get a bit older, they…

Ukraine, Continued Aid, and the Prevailing Logic of…

War always commands its own appeal. It has its own frazzled laurels,…

Illawarra offshore wind zone declaration good news for…

Friends of the Earth Australia Media Release Today the federal government officially declared…

Why bet on a loser? Australia’s dangerous gamble…

By Michael Williss A fresh warning that the US will lose a war…

The Potential Labor Landslide...

I once wrote that the Liberals would be releasing their policies closer…

"Hungary is our Israel”: Tony Abbott and Orbán’s…

It was announced in late in 2023 that Tony Abbott was to…

Mongrels

By Bert Hetebry We are the mongrels Underneath the table, Fighting for the leavings Tearing us…

«
»
Facebook

Climate wars all over again

By Ad astra

Only a naive optimist could believe the contemporary rhetoric that the Finkel Review might bring the climate wars of the last decade to an end.

As long as Tony Abbott lurks in the wings there will be war over climate. His whole persona is warlike, his political book is even titled Battlelines. A pugilist since student days, he has carried unremitting combativeness into his political life, and will do so until he leaves.

Recall Peta Credlin’s observation about how Abbott seized upon the ‘carbon tax’ meme when he was Opposition Leader. Here is an extract from a February 2017 article titled Here’s the audio of Peta Credlin admitting the last seven years of politics is based on total crap by Mark Di Stefano in BuzzFeedNEWS:

“Tony Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin has let slip that one of the most damaging political campaigns in recent Australian political history was based on bullshit. Credlin made her comments during an episode of Sky’s Sunday Agenda:

“Along comes a carbon tax. It wasn’t a carbon tax, as you know. It was many other things in nomenclature terms but we made it a carbon tax. We made it a fight about the hip pocket and not about the environment. That was brutal retail politics and it took Abbott about six months to cut through and when he cut through, Gillard was gone.

“Okay, okay, okay. Let’s just provide some context. Australia has a complicated history in trying to do what many countries have already done – put a price on carbon emissions.

“Emissions trading scheme proposals contributed to the demise of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader in 2009 and Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2010. Julia Gillard finally introduced a carbon-pricing scheme in 2011.

“It was Tony Abbott who re-framed Gillard’s scheme as a “carbon tax”, even though after the first year the price on carbon emissions was no longer fixed, and was instead set by the market.

“Abbott rode the anti-carbon tax movement all the way into The Lodge and eventually had everyone, including Labor and the media, calling it a carbon tax.”

There it is – the brutal truth – straight out of the horse’s mouth!

Abbott fought Julia Gillard with the ‘carbon tax’ weapon and won. Now he wants to fight ‘Electricity Bill Shorten’ in the same way.

Leading a clique of Coalition climate deniers and coal advocates, Abbott wants to implement a strategy that paints the Coalition as the party that will lower electricity prices, while Labor will increase them: “The Liberal Party has to be the party of cheap power, let Labor be the party of expensive power”. “I’ve spent a lot of time talking about electricity and the last thing we want to do is let Electricity Bill off the hook”.

Abbott has already made it clear where he stands on the Finkel report: Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market: “There are two criteria. First of all, does it take the pressure off power prices? And second, does it allow coal to continue?” Moreover, Abbott insists that: “…a new low emissions target should deliver cheaper power and not ‘clobber’ Australia’s economy.”

Note that there is no mention of bringing down emissions – Abbott couldn’t give a fig about global warming, which he discounts. He is quite open about this: “…the nation’s power system should be run to provide affordable, reliable energy, not primarily to reduce emissions”.

He insists: “Australia’s emissions reduction targets under the Paris agreement are “aspirational only, not binding, not mandatory.”

Cartoon by INKCINCT

Abbott has disparagingly labelled Finkel’s Clean Energy Target – the heart of the Finkel Review – as a ‘tax on coal’, and a ‘magic pudding’, a well-worn but derogatory metaphor for a self-replenishing resource that magically serves everyone.

His fighting strategy is already pretty clear. Phil Coorey, writing in the Australian Financial Review, says: “Mr Abbott tore down Julie [sic] Gillard by campaigning against a carbon tax on the basis of high electricity prices and has indicated he will oppose a CET using the same line.”

With Abbott in the wings spoiling for a street brawl, what hope is there that Malcolm Turnbull, Josh Frydenberg, and other less cantankerous Coalition members will be able to counter the Abbott faction to reach a consensus? None.

Turnbull has another adversary in the climate wars when one adds into the mix the Greens who believe the Finkel plan falls short. They want to see coal mining eliminated and coal fired electricity generation phased out rapidly.

Even Labor, which has pledged cooperation with the Coalition, has its doubts. It is already heralding a revision of the Clean Energy Target when in power to make it more stringent. Moreover, its climate change spokesman Mark Butler said the Opposition could never support a CET that allowed so-called clean coal to be deemed a low emissions technology.

But Turnbull’s main adversaries are in his own party. Headed by the argumentative Abbott, about a third of the party room (but only twelve Liberals) spoke against the Finkel Review when it met to discuss the Review. About a third spoke in favour, and the rest were undecided. Several argued that Finkel’s CET was ‘too close’ to that of Labor, and therefore unacceptable, illustrating how pathetic this conflict has become. Abbott’s anti-Finkel henchmen include most of the usual suspects: Kevin Andrews, Ian Macdonald, Craig Kelly, Andrew Hastie, Chris Back, Rowan Ramsay, Russell Broadbent, Angus Taylor and Tony Pasin.

Bernard Keane of Crikey summed up the situation and Turnbull’s dilemma aptly:

“It’s all over but the shouting — Tony Abbott has signed the government’s death warrant by creating disunity within the Coalition over the Finkel review. For as the battle-scarred Labor opposition is so fond of saying: we’ve seen this movie before, and there’s nothing to suggest it will end any differently this time.

“Abbott knows the old maxim ‘disunity is death’ is more than a glib three-word slogan – it’s an undeniable political reality. But once again, a petulant and embittered former leader has judged his revenge is more important than the interests of the party to which he pledged fealty and the nation he swore to serve.

“And on polling day, voters will again express their disdain – not only for the perpetrator but the subject of his vengeance – by tossing out another ‘chaotic’ government because it can’t keep its house in order.

“The Coalition’s debate over the Finkel review appears to be about electricity prices, but it’s really about killing off Turnbull’s attempt to redeem himself with voters through an integrated energy and emissions policy.

“Just as Abbott did with Julia Gillard’s emissions reduction policy, the former PM is trying to provoke voter (and backbench) anxiety about Finkel’s Clean Energy Target by claiming it will increase the cost of living.”

Tongue in cheek, Keane suggests a solution – that Turnbull resign and hand the keys of The Lodge to Bill Shorten – but, knowing that will not happen, says:

”However, there is a way that Malcolm Turnbull can emerge from the conflagration that is yet to come with what little remains of his integrity.

“Given he has little else to lose, the PM could fight to the death on the Finkel reforms, developing a credible energy and emissions policy and using his authority to gain cabinet endorsement, even if unanimous support from the joint party room is unattainable.

“Yes, that would inevitably lead to usual Liberal and National insurgents crossing the floor to vote against any such ‘greenish’ policy. But with Labor’s support in both houses of Parliament, the Finkel reforms would still prevail. This bipartisan signal would give the energy industry the certainty it desperately needs to make the investments that will bring electricity prices – and emissions – down.”

The climate wars continue, and will likely do so for weeks, even months to come. To succeed as Keane suggests, Turnbull would need to convince a majority of his party room to support the Finkel proposal, and then get the support of Labor, the Greens and enough of the Senate to pass the legislation.

That looks like ‘Mission Impossible’. The climate wars will continue while Abbott leads the charge. He will be aiming to kill off everything Finkel recommends, sweep away his hated adversary, and restore himself to what he has always seen as his rightful place – the leader of this nation.

Tragically for our nation, we do have the climate wars all over again. Unless Abbott wins his fight-to-the-death with Turnbull, the war will continue until he gets his way, or is eliminated from the battlefield.

The most pernicious, combative, aggressive, confrontational, and destructive politician in the modern era cares not what he damages or who he destroys. In February we published: Abbott’s legacy of destruction. Abbott has not changed, nor will he!

For him, winning the prize for himself is all that counts.

This article was originally published on TPS Extra.

12 comments

Login here Register here
  1. True Activist

    WHEN ABBOTT – TURNBULL – SHORTEN TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IT IS ABOUT REVENUE RAISING
    There has always been Climate Change as it is part of being in a Solar System and Galactic System and Man and Carbon don’t cause Climate Change. That is just a Croc of shit.

  2. Freethinker

    At the end of the day Abbott alone or even with the support of those 20 or less back bench representatives cannot do much if does not have the support of more.
    That reinforce my theory that he was and is used by some faceless people and others well known.
    The only way to end this will be with a big win by the ALP and the Greens next election where in the senate the join forces of the coalition and ON cannot interfere.

  3. jamess

    The Power struggle is casting a very dark shadow over the NLP, as the chaos fuels their disintegration.
    How delightful.

  4. Matters Not

    True Activist offers very, very powerful insights!

    But only into True Activist. And perhaps the relevant peer group?

    Seems to think that SHOUTING wins arguments. Says much about the peer group as well.

  5. astra5

    Freethinker, jamess
    You are right, and the state of the Coalition today indicates that a strong Labor win is probable.

    The electorate is fed up with Turnbull and his incompetent, disagreeable team. Anything would be better than this!

  6. Freethinker

    astra5, I would be very happy if Dutton, Cash and Canavan are wiped of the political landscaping.
    Yes will be a beauty if more are out but those 3 plus Abbott will be Ok.
    Unfortunately Abetz is number 1 here in Tasmania so he will return.

  7. stephengb2014

    Essentially I am not sure I agree with this analysis, I suspect it is a little more basic than that.
    I think Abbott is a psycopath, his intent is to save face by destroying Turnbull, he also would like to be PM again to rub salt in, but I believe this is secondary to the revenge of ousting Turnbull. I think Abbott knows that the LNP will not get through the next election, he just wants revenge.

    S G B

  8. astra5

    stephengb2014
    I don’t disagree with you. Abbott’s performance over the last two weeks gives credence to your hypothesis.

  9. guest

    The deniers shamelessly exhibit in public their ignorance about Climate Change. Perhaps they are spurred on by the spin and obfuscation provided by Graham Lloyd in the WE Australian, where he writes the usual spiel under the banner of “Inconvenient truths surface amid climate model doubts”.

    The “inconvenient truths” unfortunately weigh against Lloyd rather than for.

    Lloyd tries to make some point about the “slowdown”, the “pause”, in temperature rises in the troposphere despite, he claims, an increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    In the article, Lloyd quotes from the IPCC who assure us that “their paper rules out claims the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide or that future warming is not a concern.”

    It goes on: “None of our findings call into question the reality of long-term warming of the Earth’s troposphere and surface, or cast doubt on prevailing estimates of the amount of warming we can expect from future increases in (greenhouse gas) concentrations…

    “Even though the most recent 20-year warming trend is smaller than in earlier parts of the satellite record, it is still significantly larger than the range of 20-year trends caused by internal climate change variability alone.”

    Tony Eggleton (2013) mentions the troposphere as well( p. 56). He tells us that measurements made in 1970 by the International Investigation Satellite (IRIS) and again in 2006 by theTropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) there is a distinct decrease in the amount of heat leaving the Earth…The increased greenhouse effect of increased CO2 over those 36 years is observational fact, not theory.”

    Eggleton also says (p.133): At present the world is warming at the rate of 1 degree C in 60 years; that is, 20 times faster than any previous sustained rate of temperature change.”

    Eggleton (p. 147-9) says Mann’s ‘Hockey stick’ has been confirmed.

    The “inconvenient truths” are weighed heavily against any point Lloyd would want to make about “pauses”. The heating continues, witness now numerous hottest days and years.

    But Lloyd battles on, calling upon Judith Curry, who claims that any consensus of opinion denies opposing views a voice. Has Curry been denied a voice? While Scott Pruit, new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, calls for a debate between a red team and a blue team about Climate Change issues. Sounds like a Trump idea.

    On that count, we should also have a debate about whether the Earth Is a globe or flat, oer whether the sun hoes around the earth or vice versa. Pointless.

    And another thing to do with coal emissions. In the same newspaper Alan Kohler tells us about the AEC in Werribee, Vic., intends to create 94,000 jobs in education, research and technology. Knocks the Adani mine into a cocked hat!

  10. totaram

    MN: True activist even thinks that Abbott wishes to raise revenue by talking about climate change. I find that very refreshing. Unfortunately, the evidence for such an opinion is nowhere to be seen. But then there are people who don’t much care for evidence anyway!

  11. totaram

    Guest: We can indeed have a debate about whether the earth is flat or spheroidal, and then in the best tradition of “compromise”, we can agree that it is actually more like a jelly-bean! (Apologies to a previous poster who came up with this idea).

    The red team and blue team debating climate change can also compromise: agree that “some” warming is because of CO2 and “some” due to other factors. Then they can keep debating about how much is the “some” in each case, which is where the argument has been for almost a century. But no need to stop there, as long as the US EPA will fund more investigation to move the debate along. Clearly, the new govt. have already decided what is what, as they cut funding for all science related to climate change. They even forbid govt. agencies to talk about it. That doesn’t sound like much of a debate to me, but hey these yanks are funny guys! And world-leading in every way!

  12. guest

    Totaram,

    At first you seem to be suggesting that we debate about which hair we shall split. As for compromise, can you imagine the flat earthers agreeing to compromise by describing the earth as pear-shaped? (“jelly bean” is ridiculous)

    As for some CO2 from human sources and some from natural, we all know that and we know how much. What is the argument? What compromise could there be?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page