Overnight, we were moved to bang the ceremonial gong dedicated to Tony Abbott professing a view on climate change, refreshingly unencumbered by any reference to anything he’s previously said on the subject. Feels like it comes earlier every year.
Updating our list from a few years back, here are all (well, most) of Tony Abbott’s core beliefs when it comes to human-driven climate change.
1. I have never believed in climate change
“So I think it is worth stating that the anthropogenic global warming thesis, at least in its more extreme forms, is both ahistorical and utterly implausible. The climate cult will inevitably be discredited, I just hope we don’t have to endure an energy catastrophe before that happens.” (2023)
2. I have always believed in climate change
“Look, I have always thought that climate change happens.” (2010)
3. Climate change exists
”Yes, we believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.” (2011)
4. Climate change does not exist
“The argument is absolute crap.” (2009)
5. The science isn’t settled
“So far reality has stubbornly refused to conform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling.” (2017)
“And, I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.” (2009)
“The so-called settled science is not quite as settled as people say and that’s my position” (2019)
6. Climate change does exist, and it’s a good thing
“In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial … at least so far, it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.” (2017)
7. Belief in climate change is a cult
“While we still seem to be in the grip of a climate cult, the climate cult is going to produce policy outcomes that will cause people to wake up to themselves.” (2020)
8. Belief in climate change is a pagan ritual
“Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause. Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.” (2017)
9. The climate is changing and has been changing forever
“The climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history.” (2010)
“And when I was feeling particularly bold [when asked about climate change], I would add things like this, I would say, ‘you know, 10,000 years or so back we had an Ice Age, that was rather dramatic climate change, but presumably that had nothing to do with mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions’.” (2023)
10. The climate was changing, but it’s stopped
“And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s.” (2009)
“I have pointed out in the past that there was that high year a few years ago and the warming, if you believe various measuring organisations, hasn’t increased …” (2010)
11. The climate is changing (getting colder)
“There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.” (2009)
12. Humans have a small impact
“We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change. If they are, we don’t know whether they are exacerbating or counteracting what might otherwise be happening to global climate.” (2009)
13. 15,000 humans can make a big impact
“We will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions inside Australia, not overseas — and also establish a 15,000-strong Green Army to clean up the environment.” (2013)
14. Governments can’t affect the climate
“At least in Australia, the centre-right has succeeded because it has known what it can and can’t change. We can’t do much to change climate and we shouldn’t do much to buck markets but what’s the point of government if we can’t secure borders and control immigration?” (2016)
15. Governments should be ‘prudent’ on climate change
“We should try to make as little difference as possible to the natural world. As well, prudent people take reasonable precautions against foreseeable contingencies. It’s the insurance principle.” (2009)
16. CO2 has no weight
“This is a draconian new police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance.” (2011)
17. CO2 has enough weight to feed plants
“Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields.” (2017)
18. We need an emissions trading scheme
“There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.” (2009)
“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.” (2009)
19. We don’t need an ETS, we need a carbon tax
“If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon-intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.” (2009)
“If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?” (2009)
20. We don’t need a carbon tax OR an ETS
“I’ve never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.” (2011)
21. Carbon taxes don’t work (on account of weather)
“Just think of how much hotter it might have been the other day but for the carbon tax!” (2013)
“It’s very hot today so the carbon tax isn’t working very well” (2012)
22. We don’t need a carbon tax or an ETS, we need direct action
“What we need is environmental direct action — action which is actually going to make a difference. What we don’t need is a whopping new tax masquerading as an environmental measure.” (2010)
“We wouldn’t be putting two-and-a-half billion dollars on the table to fund direct action measures against climate change if we weren’t serious about it” (2014)
23. International abatement targets are real commitments
“The difference between Australia and a lot of other countries quite frankly, is when we make commitments to reduce emissions we keep them. Other countries make all these airy-fairy promises that in the end never come to anything.” (2015)
24. International abatement targets aren’t real commitments
“[The Paris Accord is] aspirational only, it is not binding, it is not mandatory”. (2017)
25. The renewable energy target — a good thing
“We originated a renewable energy target. That was one of the policies of the Howard government and yes we remain committed to a renewable energy target … the Coalition, we have a position, we support renewable energy targets.” (2011)
“We passed legislation last night — the Parliament passed legislation last night — to reform the renewable energy target, and that will put downward pressure on electricity prices while also providing certainty for the industry.” (2015)
26. The renewable energy target — a bad thing
“Our first big fight this year must be to stop any further mandatory use of renewable power.” (2017)
So just what does Tony Abbott actually believe about climate change? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I am 82 and somewhat of a politics tragic. Fortunately for me I was out of Australia for all of his term as #28 but I did follow news sites very carefully. I still think he was the worst Oz PM in my lifetime – women, Indigenous matters, climate change, the list seems endless – he liked none and understood even less.
No wonder he has been appointed by Lachlan.
Morrison gave him a run for the money on the Worst Ever PM stakes, limited only by ProMo’s laziness.
Interesting that he doesn’t “believe” in “the cult” of climate science.
Sadly, you don’t get to “believe” in science, which uses evidence of the physical world, ie “facts”, to form its findings.
You can only “believe” in abstract concepts, such as religion.
I guess if you believe in a god, it’s possible to believe or disbelieve whatever you decide. Science or critical thinking becomes irrelevant in the face of faith.
Sure you can ‘believe’ in science – it’s called scientism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#
And you can only believe in other abstract or false concepts too. Like that you once fathered a child because your girlfriend said the kid’s yours.
If you don’t believe in gravity you need to be careful around cliffs.
Perfect fit for Sky Noise after dark. Who said he’s unemployable !.
Has to be Howard surely?
Stared an actual illegal war.
Tampa.
Related to the above normalising misinformation and disinformation from the government.
Amending the Marriage Act.
Blowing the mining money.
Creating the housing crises we have now.
Creating the Liberal Party we have now.
Lighting the bomb fire to so many culture wars.
The only things that were worse about Abbott and Morrison were they were overtly on the side of climate change and the fossil fuel industry v humanity but it’s not like Howard did much there either….
All good arguments. Abbott more of a buffoon; never really concerned with actually governing!! He did have the worst Treasurer as his side kick, who can forget Joe Hockey? Yes, yes we would like to! Perhaps Howard will move up the rankings as time reveals just how terrible his policies have been, and continue to be.
Squandering the benefits of the mining boom for example- and it continues!!!
he says whatever it is he thinks will work in the moment – no thought, no consistency – a total nonce
Absolutely. Whatever is expedient at the time to illicit cheers from whatever audience he might be speaking to.
The approach taken by most conservative leaders these days.
“not the suppository of all wisdom”.
I am not sure that he was right!
He also does whatever he pleases in the spur of the moment. Like wear his faith on his sleeve and then wipe his nose on it when he commits the sin of adultery. Mind over matter Tony!
And just on Abbott’s latest argument, that a past ice age somehow disproves anthropogenic climate change. It’s a bit like a habitually drunk driver, arguing that because there’s been plenty of car crashes involving sober people, then there’s absolutely no reason why he shouldn’t drink and drive.
Yes he was never considered to be a clever fellow. Unable to hold 2 related thoughts in his head at one time, well even 1 to be fair. To add to your example of where climate fluctuates naturally and is changed by humankind .. climate deniers like Abbott are arguing that because we had traffic accidents before mobile phones, then using a mobile phone while driving cannot cause an accident.
Yet he’s a Rhodes scholar – go figure!!
As it happens, Rhodes has a fair bit to answer for, too!
You could write a learned article about that. The Rhodes scholarships were originally designed to recruit all-male leadership cadres for the British empire from the Germanic peoples (apart from the British Empire, Americans and Germans were eligible). The original rationale for the Rhodes scholarships, by today’s standards, was thus elitist, racist, imperialist and misogynist. Over time, these scholarships have evolved to become more academic and have been opened up to women, which in itself would have Cecil spinning rapidly in his tomb.
Tony Abbott’s grades at Sydney and Oxford were never outstanding (the Sydney ones used to be published in the SMH, so were in the public domain), but four or five decades ago, to get a NSW Rhodes Scholarship, you had to be a bloke, study Law or Medicine at Sydney Uni and play manly sports like rugger, rowing, or boxing. Plus some demonstration of “leadership” like being a right-wing student politician. Tony was a good fit back then.
Disgraced judge and former Royal Commissioner (appointed by Abbott), Dyson Heydon, was on the panel that awarded Abbott the scholarship.
Thanks, also a very relevant point!
The quote from the SMH at the time was, I believe, “Third rate sportsman and fourth rate scholar”, does that cover it?
His father was friends with the governor of NSW.
If you add zealot that pretty much sums him up
he ticked the athletic box for the Rhodes by taking up boxing. According to a fellow scholar at the time, he fought three times against some very ordinary and desperate opponents in a similar boat- ie, incompetent at any other sport. Hilariously, our sporting PM got beaten by a Labor opponent in a 10km fun run- none other than Bill Shorten!
He reportedly knocked down Joe Hockey at rugby practice at Sydney Uni once, but maybe Hockey was a soft opponent.
He was a Boxing Blue. Knocked out a lot of important neurons. Why do people still bother to report what this clown says?
The fact that the Australian people elected the likes of Abbott, Morrison and Howard says everything we need to know about the bleak future for reconciliation and any socially beneficial causes in Australia. Incompetent people can only block and destroy, never create or improve. Australians are remarkably susceptible to negativity.
Yes. John Howard says he ‘always had trouble’ with the concept of multiculturalism. He struggles to get over the fact the British Empire is history. I bet Tony and him lament the demise of the ‘White Australia Policy’. I am not surprised both of them think climate change is bunkum. They should audition for Dumb and Dumber 3.
Now been a generation of retro nativist authoritarianism inspired by the 18-20thC eugenics, including imported US deep south, planter or segregation socio-economics, tracking less diverse and less educated oldies and boomers, via consolidated RW MSM cartel; too easy.
An excellent summary of his relentless dissembling. So I’ll just add the reminder, that this is the man who spent a year or two in high dudgeon, because he reckoned that the Gillard government introducing a price on carbon, was a great betrayal of the trust of the Australian people.
One could simply follow his travel plans to gauge what views he has adopted, not just a RW MSM proprietor’s i.e. locally IPA & CIS, US Heritage Foundation & Christian ADF Alliance Defending Freedom, in UK IEA, Global Warming Policy Foundation etc. at Tufton St. and in Hungary Danubius Inst. (linked to Heritage Foundation & whiff of Russian influence) and their MCC Mathias Corvinus Collegium (esp. Sheridan too).
The common theme to all is, Atlas or fossil fuel Koch Network with dollops of climate science denial, faux Christian ‘values’, white nativism (sharing donors with Tanton in US) and shared interests with Putin vs. EU, NATO, liberal democracy etc. to avoid constraints on fossil fuels, business and <1%.