Tony Abbott released the Coalition’s new climate change policy yesterday, a $3.2 billion plan centering around an “Emissions Reduction Fund” that will allow businesses to sell emissions cuts they make to the government.
Kevin Rudd has already labelled the plan a “climate con job“, while Abbott has presented it to the nation in an op-ed for The Oz.
Meanwhile, the pundits in the Australian media have descended like vultures this morning to tear into it.
The Australian
Editorial, Abbott’s cautious alternative
In the short term, the Coalition’s policy offers a local approach that makes sense at a time when the global consensus on concerted action is missing.
Dennis Shanahan, Opposition scare campaign on ETS
Tony Abbott’s climate change political campaign is based on cost and Kevin Rudd’s is built on belief. The Leader of the Opposition has turned Coalition policy on its head and is going to run a scare campaign on rising costs for energy and food.
Lenore Taylor, Initiative is about votes, not carbon
Rudd might be proposing a great big tax. Abbott’s plan puts a great big hole in the budget.
Malcolm Farr, Abbott’s acid test is selling his policy
Voters want action on the issue, but they want a strategy they can understand. Labor purists might snigger at tree planting being centre stage but as a project it is more familiar than the intricacies of carbon trading.
The Age
Editorial, Abbott’s painless climate policy rings hollow
The opposition’s climate change policy, pitched as an alternative to Labor’s emissions trading scheme, is good politics but bad policy.
Michelle Grattan, Abbott simply looking to election
As Kevin Rudd keeps saying, not so long ago Abbott was talking of the argument as ”absolute crap”. So he is looking neither to the long term nor (realistically) to the possibility of producing a policy to do more than the bare minimum 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.
Adam Morton, Coalition foggy on tackling emissions
This is smoke and mirrors stuff. Some of what the opposition proposes makes sense … But cash hand-outs are the side dish in a coherent climate policy, not the full meal.
Sydney Morning Herald
Ben Cubby, Coalition paints itself into a corner
Tony Abbott’s climate policy is little more than a shield designed to protect Australia’s coal, aluminium and cement industries from change.
Peter Hartcher, Leader needs to be careful that the fig leaf doesn’t blow away
Abbott produced a climate change policy to give him some green colouring, but it’s designed to cover his policy nakedness rather than decisively cut Australian greenhouse gas emissions.
The West Australian
Andrew Probyn, Liberals’ ‘direct action’ policy is suspect
There’s no stick there, nor is there much carrot for heavy polluters to change their ways.
Elsewhere
Alan Kohler, Business Spectator, Abbott’s great big axe
Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have actually come up with a clever climate change policy, and certainly one that will change the debate in Australia.
Ben Eltham, New Matilda, Have the Libs lost faith in the market?
At the heart of the Coalition’s long awaited climate change policy is a belief that polluting the atmosphere should be free of charge
Looks like almost unanimous support to me.
Even from the Trotskyites at Fairfax.
Not a lot of criticism to be found of the plan either, barring the odd facile ad-hom on Tony.
But then the sun shone out of Kevin’s ETS with nary a word of critique from the commentariat.
Predictably though the Aged editorial opines for economic stagnation in favour of environmental salvation:
“…(by) putting a firm brake on ”business as usual”…”
With its credibility ebbing away daily, Melbournes Red Rag believes it can simultaneously hold the view that inviting more people to eat pie is good..but ya just gonna have to make do with the same amount of pie.
Will make a great ad for Fugee Tours Down Under.
Exhibiting such misanthropic duplicity would make their dwindling head-tilter readership most proud.
From a policy point of view, the ordinary tax payers will be paying CO2 emitters for.. emitting CO2? The more they emit, the more they get paid? Doing nothing would be a better policy.
MPM, are you saying pleased with this Coalition policy?
In other words, do you think it is good policy or are you just barracking for Tony?
Most Peculiar Mama you need to tak off those rose-coloured (or is that Liberal-coloured) glasses a moment.
Even though most mainstream media are in bed with the coalits (and you can often tell by the tone of their words that they really aren’t in favour but if they want to keep their jobs in their conservative journals then they must toe the line) … the theme I see is that TA has come up with clever politics that has no, absolutely no, credibility in terms of climate change or reducing emissions.
TA all but admitted in his shaky interview on last night’s 7:30 report that the policy only exists because it is politically necessary.
As to the policy itself (which Greg Hunt laughably lip-sinked most of the time during TA’s delivery yesterday):
Like most ‘funds’ offered to business as incentive to better behaviour, TA’s climate fund will be open to mass rorting and let me guess … all the funding will end up in coffers belonging to companies sitting in Liberal electorates. How cynical of me!
Millions of trees are commendable — but how do we pay for the necessary land and water (ongoing)? Big business certainly won’t have to cough up, will they? No – the budget is the answer — that means health, welfare and infrastructure will have to be pared back … unless of course the magic pudding again rears it ugly, but non-existant head.
Rebates for carbon sequestration in farmland is part of the Rudd CPRS — which will be funded by cost to polluters from the cap and trade system.
Sorry MPM, the mad monk is living in la-la land if he believes thinking people will swallow this crud. Oh, wait, I forgot, the coalits assume the electorate is downright stupid … silly me.
The problem here is which do you choose from labor or liberal. Neither policy will get us anywhere near serious emissions cuts, both offer unjustified handouts to polluters, both are unfortunately focussed more on spin than substance. Abbots is relatively simple and straightforward spin from a highly cynical party that only sees electoral opportunity not a serious imperative. Rudds is more complicated spin from a highly cynical party that only sees electoral opportunity (but that may be ebbing away a little) and not a serious imperative. Miserable choice. The only relevant option is for the election to deliver a green balanced senate and a strong showing for them in inner city electorates probably and then back to the drawing board post election. If Rudd is serious he will back the Greens interim carbon price plan, it has the benefit of making something happen now while we work on the more complex policy structures over time and can get backing of the senate. He can’t say no to it and maintain any credibility at all …Then we can see if the dog of an ETS can be somehow fixed up to do something useful.