I only discovered this morning that my email has been out of action for the last few days. It is now working again, so if you have sent anything since then, please would you kindly re-send? Thanks!

Apologies for the inconvenience.

Simon

The Sunday Telegraph helpfully reminds Malcolm Turnbull of this basic point, in an editorial yesterday:

Let’s recap what is being proposed here: a major reform of the nation’s economy that, for the first time, will put a price on the carbon emissions that underpin Australia’s prosperity.

The Coalition will not be implementing this. The Rudd Government will.

It is Mr Turnbull’s job to hold the Government to account, to expose the flaws in the scheme and to speak up in the interests of Coalition voters.

Instead, he was suckered into negotiating the shape of the ETS by the Government in a classic example of the kind of wedge politics that Labor used to accuse John Howard of playing in government.

He shouldn’t have been co-opted.

The Opposition should have simply waited until the legislation was presented and decided on its stance. Instead, Mr Turnbull was too keen to distance himself from the Howard Government and the allegations that the Liberals were slow to act on climate change.

He forgot that governments govern and oppositions oppose. Now he has been forced to stake his leadership on the success of a Government initiative.

It is needless and strange and a position in which he should never have allowed himself to be put in the first place.

Read it here.

The latest in the long line of Liberal AGW apologists is Tony Abbott, who recently said that the science of climate change is “absolute crap,” but for some reason we still need an ETS to keep the public happy. So instead of standing up for principles, and recognising that the public want “action on climate change” because they have only ever heard hysterical alarmist claptrap from the government and the media, once again we see a politician pandering to popularity, and the precautionary principle:

“I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS,” he said.

“But it’s got to be the right one not one that destroys Australian jobs and damages Australian industries.”

I can’t quite understand how Tony Abbott thinks the ETS is insurance against anything – it won’t the change climate one bit. It’s like an insurance policy with very hefty premiums, but absolutely no cover whatsoever.  You may as well burn your money instead.

Read it here.

Writing in Quadrant Online‘s Doomed Planet section, Bob Carter spells out Malcolm Turnbull’s misunderstanding of the climate issue:

Mr Turnbull has missed the point entirely, and in breathtaking fashion.

No-one is suggesting doing nothing about climate change. Calamitous natural climatic events such as this year’s bushfires and floods have properly convinced the general public that a national policy to deal with real climate events and change is clearly needed. And surely this week’s tragic news from Indonesia and Samoa underlines the reality that government’s responsibilities lie with dealing better with real natural hazards, not worrying about Playstation-4-created imaginary ones.

A proper hazard reduction and adaptation policy to deal with known future climatic threats is a very different matter to the political question implicit in today’s headlines – which is whether introducing an emissions trading system will do anything to prevent hypothetical, dangerous, human-caused global warming. (Answer: an ETS will have no measurable effect on future climate but will have a hugely damaging effect on the livelihoods and standard of living of all Australians).

Read it here.

This could be the best news we’ve heard all week. A group comprising some of the worst climate alarmists on the planet have threatened to withdraw their support for the ETS if it is “watered down”:

The Southern Cross Climate Coalition – which includes the Australian Conservation Foundation, Climate Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Australian Council of Social Service and ACTU – has written to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd warning its support will disappear if the legislation is made ”ineffective or irresponsible” by amendments.

Mr Rudd made much of Labor’s alliance with the group when it was announced in May, appearing in a joint press conference with ACF executive director Don Henry and others to spruik his environmental credentials.

But the letter, which was also sent to Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and cross-bench senators Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding, warns that big polluters should not be offered further concessions.

”It’s not effective or responsible to give windfall gains to booming coalminers or to give billions extra to businesses who bought brown coal-fired generators knowing a carbon price was coming,” the group’s spokesman, John Connor, said.

”We’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Malcolm Turnbull to say these industry proposals would make the [carbon pollution reduction scheme] ineffective and unsupportable,” he said.

Loss of support from the high-profile group would be a significant blow for Labor, leaving it facing widespread hostility from environmental, welfare and union groups, with only parts of the business community onside.

So what will Rudd do now? Negotiate amendments with the Opposition to get the ETS through, but lose the support of the alarmist environmental groups, or cave in to their demands, refuse to make concessions to industry and lose support of the Opposition?

Read it here.

Another excellent article from Miranda in the SMH:

By bowing to Rudd’s threat of a double dissolution and announcing his ETS ultimatum to the media instead of to the party room on Thursday, Turnbull hasn’t even tried to bring the party with him.

But the fact is that you can articulate a position on climate change that does not dispute man’s contribution without buying into a complicated ETS, which benefits global financiers but has doubtful value for the environment. You don’t have to be a climate sceptic to oppose a new stealth tax on Australians before we even know what the rest of the world plans.

But that is the false dichotomy Turnbull has created and on which his future rests.

Read it here.

OK, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong. Please explain why Australia should bind itself to emissions targets before Copenhagen when the US, China and India are doing no such thing?

A top aide to US President Barack Obama said there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen, The New York Times reported Saturday.

The newspaper said the prediction was offered by Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, during an onstage interview in Washington.

It was the first definitive statement by the administration that it saw little chance of congressional passage of this bill this fall, the report said.

Read it here.

It’s been a rollercoaster week in climate change politics, with Malcolm Turnbull throwing down the gauntlet and staking his leadership on the Coalition negotiating with the government on the ETS before Copenhagen. The commentary in the media is mixed, with many saying Turnbull is taking the only sensible course, whilst others question his hot-headed reaction to the issue. Peter van Onselen in The Australian sums it up well:

At the beginning of the week The Australian surveyed the entire Liberal Party back bench. It is something the leadership team should have done a long time ago. Of the 59 parliamentarians contacted, a staggering 41 said they did not support Turnbull’s desire to negotiate with a view to passing the government’s ETS legislation ahead of the Copenhagen conference on climate change in December. Only 12 MPs agreed with their leader’s position. That’s one in five.

Initially Turnbull chose to question the survey’s findings instead of learn from them. At a press conference on Wednesday, soon after returning from a short holiday in Italy, he said: “We can have journalists, you know, ringing up backbenchers and purporting to do surveys. Who knows how accurate they are?”

If Turnbull wants to question the findings of the survey, then that is his prerogative; shooting the messenger is one way to deal with a leadership crisis. Another would be to take stock of the findings and try to do something about it.

Perhaps Turnbull is more persuaded by established survey operations such as Newspoll, which for many months has shown him to be the least popular opposition leader in our nation’s history.

After initial attempts to cast doubt on the findings of the survey, Turnbull turned half circle and realised he should probably emulate it and began ringing his colleagues to better understand their views on the ETS. Better late than never.

However, by the end of the week, Turnbull had had enough with soundings and consensus building, choosing instead to describe backbench colleagues critical of his leadership as “anonymous smart-arses”. He boldly declared that if his party didn’t support his position on ETS negotiations he didn’t want to be leader. (Why he wants to be leader now anyway is another matter.) That was the threat.
…
So where to from here for Turnbull and the Liberal Party? He can’t let the partyroom discredit his leadership by blocking him from even negotiating with the government, but the partyroom won’t want a vote on the ETS legislation ahead of Copenhagen.

So the face-saving compromise is likely to involve getting the partyroom to support tough amendments that the government won’t accept. The vote could then be delayed in the Senate by the Coalition dragging out debate and using its numbers to deny the government the chance to speed up the process. That would effectively meet the backbench desire to wait until after Copenhagen without embarrassing Turnbull (well, not too much anyway).

Turnbull would thus get to the end of the year before being forced to choose between supporting the wishes of his back bench and his desire to pass an ETS, thereby avoiding a double-dissolution election on climate change. In a sign late in the week that he was planning for the worst on this score, he weakened his rhetoric on the chances of the ETS passing, noting that he might well end up voting against it.

There is no easy way out for the besieged Opposition Leader. He has certainly made the situation harder for himself.

Read it here.

Bugger your principles, just as long as we’re popular. That’s the message from Malcolm Turnbull today, as he takes aim at “climate sceptics”. I always thought that honourable politicians stood up for their principles, and didn’t run around trying desperately to be liked – clearly I was wrong.

“If you want to go out there on the climate sceptic platform, believe me you’ll get about 15 per cent of the people voting for you,” he said.

“I’m in the mainstream political business. My aim is to get more than 50 per cent voting for us. And I can tell you the vast majority of Australians want to see action on climate change.”

Ask yourself a question: why is that? Answer: because they have been brainwashed by the media and by the spin of Rudd and Wong to believe that AGW is real and dangerous and that we need to “tackle climate change” by taxing our economy out of existence. Winning elections is only part of the equation, but standing up for your principles is just as important.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the Party – in this case, the Liberal party. The backbenchers need to stand up for their principles and not be steamrollered by their worryingly green-tinged leader:

MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back bench after staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change strategy. Several MPs immediately refused to do so.

If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating amendments to the government’s emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said yesterday, the Coalition would “literally be a party with nothing to say … a party with no ideas”, and that was “not the party I am prepared to lead”.

Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull said: “I am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition.”

“If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that would obviously be a leadership issue. That’s perfectly plain, perfectly clear,” he told ABC Radio in Adelaide.

“I could not possibly lead a party that was on a do-nothing-on-climate-change platform.”

His critics were not cowed, despite the fact that both mooted leadership alternatives — Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott — support Mr Turnbull’s stance.

West Australian backbencher Wilson Tuckey said: “Mr Turnbull has made the ETS a leadership issue and we will now treat it as such.” His leader’s ultimatum did not alter his “total opposition to an ETS and to the suggestion that we might amend it”.

Victorian Liberal senator Julian McGauran said he stood by his vow to vote against the ETS in November, no matter what amendments were negotiated.

Nationals senators also remain implacably opposed to the scheme. “He hasn’t got the partyroom with him on this one … we are going to stand up for what we believe in,” said senator Ron Boswell.

“This is not just another issue. This is not one we can let go through to the keeper,” said senator Barnaby Joyce.

Read it here.