Coalition Climate Change Policy

Previous Next Up Home

These are complicated problems. In dealing with them, the public needs to be a lot less tolerant of stupidity, especially from our politicians.

In compiling this article I read through a number of interviews and statements from Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt. It became difficult to tell the difference between a gaffe and a lie they got away with. They highlight the extraordinary generosity on the part of the public in tolerating low standards in our nation’s leaders. Have a read for yourself.

Greg Hunt’s “market based” mechanism
top

Steve Cannane interviewed opposition climate change spokesperson Greg Hunt on March 31 this year. The interview was broadcast on Lateline [full transcript]. Greg Hunt started the interview by claiming that the opposition’s grants-by-tender program for emissions reduction is in fact a ‘market based’ mechanism. This was in response to the release of a report by the Grattan institute which stated that offering grants by tender would be the most unproductive and wasteful option. As with almost all independent economic analyses, it concluded that market based mechanisms (the term used by economists to describe a tax or trading scheme) are the most effective. This is because they establish a price on emissions that allows all participants in the market to take advantage of every cheap or easy opportunity to reduce emissions and save money, no matter how minor the decision. A tender process on the other hand excludes most opportunities to reduce emissions by limiting them to big projects that the government will get involved in. For example, they provide no financial incentive to switch from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs unless you can be bothered applying to the government for a grant. Under the coalition, it takes a few hundred bureaucrats to change a light bulb.

The Grattan Institute’s report is mainstream economics. Hunt’s ‘interpretation’ of it is a blatant lie. One positive implication of these remarks is that the public is absorbing the message from economists that market based mechanisms are the way to go, even if Hunt is now attempting to redefine a market based mechanism.

“STEVE CANNANE: OK, so you reject the characterisation of Commonwealth grants by tender being applied to your program, but quoting from your direct action policy document it says, "The Coalition, through their emissions reduction fund, will call for tenders for projects that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions." If you fund those who win that tender, isn't that a grant tender scheme?

GREG HUNT: We will set up a market, if you also go to what's in our policy, and we will seek, just as the water market works in Australia in a highly effective way ...”

STEVE CANNANE: So is that a grant tender scheme or not?

GREG HUNT: It is a market-based mechanism....

In an earlier interview on March 23 [full transcript] Hunt an even more ludicrous claim – that the proposed tax on emissions won’t work:

And, it's very simple to understand. The Government [Labor] will operate by trying to force people to reduce their usage of electricity. That won't work. The history of economics in Australia is that if you drive up electricity prices, it doesn't affect demand in any great way because it's an essential service. We'll provide incentives which can find the lowest cost way to reduce emissions, just as it's done in NSW.

The reason economists favour genuine market based mechanisms is that they target the cheapest ways to reduce emissions – something that cannot be done with the coalition’s grants scheme. Hunt has skilfully exploited the language used by economists to mislead the public.

Greg Hunt on soil carbon sequestration
top

The quote that captured immediate media attention is this one from the March 23 interview. In response to criticism of lack of scientific backing and questions about how much land mass would be required to achieve the coalition’s goal of 60% of emissions reductions from soil carbon capture, Hunt said:

GREG HUNT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates.

The Government [Labor] will trot out different estimates on different days.

Fortunately the scientific community was a bit quicker of the mark. Eight days later [31/3/11- transcript], Greg Hunt was on Lateline again. Not only had Greg Hunt changed his mind, he had actually altered the transcript of the interview and posted it on his website.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.

However, Greg Hunt still has great difficulty justifying the science behind his new claims.

Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

On the forum:

Greg Hunt's 100 square km comprehension problem

Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership

Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt went through a phase of claiming that a $30?—?not $40?—?price on carbon would produce increased electricity costs of $1110 a year. This year, they quietly abandoned the $1100 figure and reverted to saying it would lift electricity prices by $300.

Professor John Daley slams oppositions carbon fix - I can't wait to hear how Greg Hunt responds to this study

Extremism exposed

Greg Hunt must rely on dubious studies and fudging CSIRO data

Greg "I don't know my math" Hunt

...so all you have is a statement made by ... Greg Hunt? Question: does he know what 100 km2 is yet?

Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview

'anti-market forces' Abbott in dire circumstances

Death Rides a Horse, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Tony Abbott’s ‘1000 year’ reading comprehension problem
top

Still, at least Greg Hunt corrected his more glaring errors. Not true for Tony Abbott. The opposition leader recently attempted to mislead the public about comments made by renowned scientist Tim Flannery. This is what Tim actually said, in a radio interview with Andrew Bolt on March 25 this year [transcript]:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

On March 28, Tony Abbott offered this interpretation of Flannery’s comments to Parliament [transcript]:

Finally, there is the carbon tax—the ultimate betrayal of the Australian people.... We heard from the government’s principal climate change salesman, Professor Flannery, just last Friday that it will not make a difference for a thousand years. It is the ultimate millennium bug. It will not make a difference for a thousand years. So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia—and for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment anytime in the next thousand years.

The extraordinary thing about this claim is not so much how badly Abbott got it wrong, but that so many of Abbott’s supporters ‘believe’ it, even after the simple logical errors are pointed out. The figure below illustrates the difference in meaning between Flannery’s statement and Abbott’s ‘interpretation’ of it:

Should Tony Abbott apologise to Tim Flannery?
top

Should Tony Abbott apologise to Tim Flannery?

At first this appeared to be yet another gaffe from the coalition, however Abbott has not made further comment on it, while his supporters are running with it. It must be pointed out that Abbott did not come up with this himself. Andrew Bolt made it clear during the interview [transcript] that he interpretted Flannery's comments the same way Abbott later did. This should be taken in the context of Bolt's habbit of (perhaps deliberately) misunderstanding technical comments from Flannery and then interpretting his misunderstanding as some great intellectual victory over Flannery. [See other interview transcripts here and also the introductory comments from Bolt's blog here and here.] The Australian did little to correct Bolt’s misinterpretation [read article here] with a title reinforcing Bolt's misinterpreatation, prompting Flannery to write a letter to the editor [republished here]. By the time Abbott made his claims there had already been significant media coverage. Follow-up coverage after Abbott’s comments [article here] did not draw any attention to the difference between the two claims, though it did quote Flannery as saying that Abbott had "quite wilfully misrepresented" him.

If the coalition keeps stumbling on such basic mathematical and logical concepts, how can they be expected to grasp the science and the economics of the issue? It appears that their strategy is to simply not bother and instead to target their message at an audience that does not care or cannot understand. For some reason, Abbott’s supporters are remarkably reluctant to change their mind about his misrepresentation of Flannery, no matter how patiently it is explained. See for yourself in the forum:

Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem

Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM

1000 years plan

Carbon Tax Wars

This person is our finance minister

One Bolt - and a Few Nuts

Abbott: climate change is crap
top

Perhaps this is giving Tony Abbott too much credit for being able to come up with a plan. Remember, this is the same politician who described the science behind climate change as crap, then tried to blame his outburst on the ‘hostile’ audience [more here].

"I think I was nodding off down at the back of the room when all of a sudden he came out with the comment that the science around climate change was `absolute crap' and I kind of jumped back awake and wrote down his quote," Wilson says.

In the fourth paragraph of Wilson's article, he quoted Abbott as saying, "The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger."

Wilson says Abbott made the comment "fairly passionately" and "he certainly wasn't on his own in the room that night".

Since his election as Liberal leader, Abbott has described his use of "crap" as "a bit of hyperbole" and not his "considered position" and said it was made "in the context of a very heated discussion where I was attempting to argue people around to what I thought was then our position".

In Beaufort, no one remembers the meeting as heated. Branch secretary Margaret Barling describes it as "a very happy night". Former mayor Robert Vance calls it a friendly gathering of like-minded people. Stoneleigh farmer Phil Bennett says Abbott's explanation is "a very difficult interpretation".

Cox says Abbott's comment was "very well received" and he quickly realised "he was on a bit of a winner". McCracken says Abbott looked relieved by the applause. Deb Bain, a former rural woman of the year, says there was "quite a buzz" in the room afterwards.

Warren Truss: Carbon Tax Won't Work
top

This claim was made by Warren Truss, leader of the National Party, in parliament on the same day as Abbott's now-infamous comments.

This is the kind of ‘wonder’ tax that the government wants to impose upon the Australian people. Economists say it will not work. If you give all of the money back to people by way of compensation, they will not try to change their behaviour, so it will make no difference whatsoever to CO2 emissions. Indeed, it will probably make them worse, because one of the things that this tax will do—as we heard today in question time and as we have heard in the media over recent times—is make doing business in this country more costly.

Surprisingly, the media did not pick up on this comment. His reference to economists is especially interesting, as there is a strong economic consensus in favour of pricing mechanisms. Truss' explanation shows an unfamiliarity with basic economic principles that is bewildering for a political leader. If the money is returned to taxpayers (eg via reduced income taxes) there will still be a very strong incentive to reduce emissions. Most items will actually become more affordable, as they incur relatively few emissions and the increase in price will be more than offset by the reductions in income tax. Those few items that incur high greenhouse emissions (think of the 80:20 rule) will become far less affordable. If the compensation was 'perfect' people could theoretically buy the same things and pay more for some and less for others. However, the reality is that unless people will die without an item then they will gradually substitute the now less affordable ones for the more affordable. Even if an item is necessary, there are many ways to obtain it that will have varying levels of emissions associated with them. Upstream of the consumer, suppliers will be faced with similar choices when it comes to their costs. This is the reality that economists refer to when they talk about 'supply and demand'. This is the reality that Warren Truss claims to reject when he says the tax will not work. This is the reality that Warren Truss rejects when he claims that economists share his view.

Transcript of interview of Greg Hunt by Steve Cannane, March 31 2011, Scientists question Coalition's climate change policy
top back to article [2]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

The Coalition's climate change spokesman, Greg Hunt, is under attack from the science and research community who claim he has made a major error in his policy on emissions reductions.

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The Federal Coalition's Climate Change spokesman is under attack from scientists and researchers who claim he's made a major error in his policy on emissions reductions.

Last week Greg Hunt told Lateline that 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year could be abated through soil carbon sequestration over a land area of just 100 square kilometres.

Mr Hunt now claims he was misunderstood and that he was talking about a much larger area of land, but critics say the Coalition's policy still doesn't add up.

Steve Cannane reports.

STEVE CANNANE, REPORTER: At the CSIRO in Adelaide, scientists are measuring soil carbon levels. It's work like this that will determine to what degree more efficient farming practices can increase soil carbon capture, something that could help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

JEFF BALDOCK, CSIRO: To define the amount of carbon that we can get in soils we've got to consider two things: one is how much carbon we're putting into the ground and the other is how fast or how much of that carbon is being lost.

STEVE CANNANE: When native land is converted into agricultural land, carbon is released into the atmosphere. The carbon levels in soil drop on average by 40 to 60 per cent in the process.

But some of that carbon can be recaptured by reducing erosion, improving irrigation and fertilisation and turning some crops into pastures. Both sides of politics agree it has great potential.

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: We're going to have a system where they can get a new stream of income through carbon credits, through things like soil carbon.

STEVE CANNANE: But the Gillard Government doesn't count soil carbon in its targets because it's not Kyoto compliant.

The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020.

In a recent interview on Lateline, Greg Hunt said an even greater figure could be achieved on a relatively small area of land.

GREG HUNT, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN ON CLIMATE ACTION & ENVIRONMENT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates.

STEVE CANNANE: But Lateline has spoken to experts in the field who dispute the claim.

MICK KEOGH, AUSTRALIAN FARM INSTITUTE: There's no science to indicate that it's achievable.

PETER COSIER, WENTWORTH GROUP OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: Well, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to suggest that they could achieve that volume of carbon.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO would not comment directly on the Coalition's estimates. But its scientists can tell us how much carbon dioxide they believe can be abated per hectare.

JEFF BALDOCK: The best estimates that we've come up with right now, which is based on a fairly serious review of the scientific literature that's been published over the last 20 years or so, we see that on a C02 basis, somewhere between 0.3 tonnes of C02 equivalents per hectare per year, up to an upper limit of around about two tonnes of carbon per hectare per year on average.

STEVE CANNANE: Mick Keogh says that based on these estimates, Greg Hunt's figures don't add up.

MICK KEOGH: To reach the 150 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalence would be 75 million hectares at the upside, that is at the two tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per annum, or about 500 million hectares at 0.3, which is the lower level of the estimate.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.

Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed.

Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.

PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.

STEVE CANNANE: Steve Cannane, Lateline.

Transcript of interview of Greg Hunt by Steve Cannane, March 23 2011, Hunt: Taxing electricity will not lower emissions
top back to article [2]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3172045.htm

Opposition spokesman for climate change Greg Hunt says the Grattan Institute report has vindicated the Coalition's 'direct action' plan.

STEVE CANNANE, PRESENTER: Joining us now in our Parliament House studio is the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, Greg Hunt.

Greg Hunt, welcome to Lateline.

GREG HUNT, OPP. SPOKESMAN ON CLIMATE ACTION & ENVIRONMENT: Good evening.

STEVE CANNANE: Let's begin with today's rally, and tonight the Greens leader Bob Brown says he hopes your leader will apologise to the Prime Minister for speaking at the rally in front of offensive banners. In the rough and tumble of Australian politics, is Bob Brown being too sensitive?

GREG HUNT: Free speech only matters when people say things with which you disagree. There will be statements made today which neither side of politics would endorse. But I would put this to the Prime Minister today: that whilst we were not responsible for any of the language of individuals, we stand for the position of no carbon tax.

The Prime Minister is responsible for the comparison at this moment on the ALP website where it compares Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, with a Nazi war criminal. So, that's the test. The ALP website right now is comparing Tony Abbott with Hermann Goebbels, a Nazi war criminal. If the Government is offended, they should start by looking in their own backyard.

STEVE CANNANE: Did you go to the rally today?

GREG HUNT: No, I met with carbon tax - no carbon tax rally representatives and I also met with Climate Institute representatives.

STEVE CANNANE: Your leader spoke at the rally. As the Coalition's Climate Spokesman, you didn't feel any need to go to the rally?

GREG HUNT: No, I met with representatives of both sides, as well as representatives of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition as well as business representatives. And so I think it was an important rally, he did the right thing.

And let me give you an example of one of the people that has been characterised as an extremist, one of the gentlemen I met with today. He was the son of a farmer, he was a teacher for many years, he was a home renovator, a very calm, genuine person who was a little surprised at the attacks by Greg Combet and the Prime Minister on ordinary Australians going about expressing their views. And that's what we're entitled to do in this country, and I hope that the Prime Minister will not attack ordinary Australians and try and take away their right to free speech.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Combet said in Parliament today there were anti-Semitic groups there at the rally and he criticised the Opposition Leader for attending. Were you uncomfortable with any of the sentiments expressed at that rally today?

GREG HUNT: Look, there's language that I wouldn't have chosen, as there is on emails that we all receive every day from everybody, but the core message of no carbon tax is absolutely something in which we believe.

The core message that there's a better way than a massive increase in electricity prices for mums and dads and pensioners is something we believe. And if the Government is sensitive then they should start by dealing with the comparison between a Nazi war criminal and the Leader of the Opposition on their own ALP website and it's up to the Prime Minister as to whether or not that's there in the morning.

STEVE CANNANE: Let's move on and talk about the Grattan Institute research mentioned in Margot O'Neill's report. And it suggests that the most unproductive and wasteful policies for reducing emissions have been those that offer Commonwealth grants by tender. Isn't that what you're offering under your direct action plan?

GREG HUNT: I don't accept either your characterisation of the report or of our plan. This report is a disaster for the ALP Government. The worst programs identified in the report are the Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans program. An enormous waste of money and an enormous waste of effort.

The best program identified in the report along with energy efficiency is the NSW emissions reduction scheme. That is the very model that we are using as the basis for our approach. So the worst programs are the ones which this government has designed, and you would add to that the idea of a massive electricity and petrol price rise; and the report finds that the best program is the NSW approach of providing incentives through a market, which is the very model of what we're doing.

STEVE CANNANE: OK, so you reject the characterisation of Commonwealth grants by tender being applied to your program, but quoting from your direct action policy document it says, "The Coalition, through their emissions reduction fund, will call for tenders for projects that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions." If you fund those who win that tender, isn't that a grant tender scheme?

GREG HUNT: We will set up a market, if you also go to what's in our policy, and we will seek, just as the water market works in Australia in a highly effective way ...

STEVE CANNANE: So is that a grant tender scheme or not?

GREG HUNT: It is a market-based mechanism. That's the approach, that's what we do and I have no doubt that it has worked with the water market. And the very model of the most effective system identified in the Grattan report is the NSW scheme and that's what we've used as our basis. And that's why it's a much better approach.

STEVE CANNANE: The NSW scheme is a carbon trading scheme, isn't it?

GREG HUNT: Actually, again, that's incorrect. What the NSW scheme ...

STEVE CANNANE: That's what they call it; they call themselves the world's first carbon trading scheme.

GREG HUNT: It's actually a greenhouse gas abatement scheme, and the way it works that is different from the Government - and really there are two great schemes on offer here and it's a good question.

The Government's approach is to tax electricity and petrol and for families that means $300 of electricity price rises and 6.5 cents per litre in petrol. Our approach and the NSW scheme approach is to provide incentives through a market of finding the lowest cost incentives to reduce emissions by doing real things, and let me give you examples, such as cleaning up your Lorne power station, cleaning up coal mines, capturing carbon in soil or in trees or through energy efficiency.

So, they're the two models: taxation versus incentives.

STEVE CANNANE: You're describing the direct action plan as a market-based mechanism. I think some people might be surprised to hear that, including Malcolm Turnbull, because he consistently says he'd prefer a market-based mechanism to the Coalition's direct action plan. He seems to be making a strong distinction between your policy and a market-based mechanism.

GREG HUNT: When we announced this policy we made it clear it was a market-based mechanism. It is a market-based mechanism. It is modelled on, based on the most effective system identified in the Grattan report, which is the NSW approach, and how did we know this? Because we worked with the very people who designed the most effective system identified in this report.

And, it's very simple to understand. The Government will operate by trying to force people to reduce their usage of electricity. That won't work. The history of economics in Australia is that if you drive up electricity prices, it doesn't affect demand in any great way because it's an essential service. We'll provide incentives which can find the lowest cost way to reduce emissions, just as it's done in NSW.

STEVE CANNANE: OK. I want to move on and talk about your soil carbon plan, because it's a major part of your direct action plan. In fact, 60 per cent of the reductions in your plan are due to come from soil carbon. Now the CSIRO wrote a report about this and they concluded a general lack of research in this area is currently preventing a more quantitative assessment. Now if the research is not there to back it up, how can you be so sure it will work?

GREG HUNT: Well we've actually worked with groups right around the country identifying soil carbon and what we see is very simple: that it is real. The Prime Minister herself on the Q&A program last Monday night referred to soil carbon as one of the extraordinary opportunities facing this country, and she was right on that point. Now in terms of the groups that we've worked with, they've identified ...

STEVE CANNANE: What about that CSIRO report? What about that CSIRO report? It's saying that it has limited field data on soil carbon. Isn't it a major gamble if 60 per cent of your emissions reductions are coming from something that CSIRO says has very little research?

GREG HUNT: I know that CSIRO report well, and with great respect, you are mischaracterising it badly. This is a report about the potential of soil carbon. There are field trials which have been successful right around this country. You go to the area near Dubbo ...

STEVE CANNANE: How large are those trials?

GREG HUNT: Well, the Dubbo area has been running field trials for over 20 years. They have detailed records ...

STEVE CANNANE: Over how many hectares?

GREG HUNT: ... of the way in which soil carbon - it covers tens of thousands of hectares. And it is important not to misrepresent what's happening right now.

The important message that we can capture in our soils a reduction in global CO2 by improving the soil carbons, by improving the carrying capacity. So irrespective of where you stand on the climate debate, you improve the soil productivity, you improve the water retention, and this is one of the great opportunities and it's one of the reasons why I am fundamentally optimistic that with the right incentives we can reduce emissions, improve our water yield and improve our productivity.

This is something that should be embraced on all sides. And as we speak, the Government is preparing its carbon farming initiative. We support that approach because it's about using soil carbons, it's about capturing carbon in trees and in Mallee and in mulga and doing real things to reduce emissions.

STEVE CANNANE: How much land across the country will be needed to be turned over to carbon soil to meet your emissions targets?

GREG HUNT: I've seen the Government's approach on this and what we've been told is that it is possible to capture - if you increase soils by half a per cent per annum in a small percentage of Australian soils you can capture 150 million tonnes per annum. Now there are differing estimates. There are differing estimates ...

STEVE CANNANE: Over what kind of land mass are we talking about here?

GREG HUNT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates.

The Government will trot out different estimates on different days. They were against soil carbon. Now the Prime Minister embraces it. Now they're introducing a carbon farming initiative. That is a small version of what we are proposing and that's a good thing. We are winning that debate. This approach was rejected by the Government, by the Prime Minister and now it has been embraced by the Prime Minister and they are bringing in a mechanism which will help deliver our approach.

STEVE CANNANE: In your plan you're offering farmers $8 to $10 a tonne in abatements for soil carbons. How much money per hectare are they going to get at that rate?

GREG HUNT: Well this will be determined on the basis of cost per tonne, and the reason why is that each farm is different. So the currency right around the world is about the cost of reducing emissions per tonne. And through soil carbons if, as we expect, the market is likely to deliver an abatement cost of between $8 to $10, we can more than achieve our targets.

It is worth comparing that with what the Government is doing. The Government is hoping to use the electricity and petrol tax mechanisms. That's going to require $16 billion a year and that's going to mean that families ...

STEVE CANNANE: OK.

GREG HUNT: ... pay $1,000 a year and will get less than half of that back and most will get nothing.

STEVE CANNANE: OK, if we could just stay on the soil carbon issue. You're offering electricity generators $25 to $30 a tonne. What if the farmers don't take up your offer, thinking they'll get more per tonne if they sit and wait?

GREG HUNT: With great respect, again, you are incorrect. What we have said ...

STEVE CANNANE: How do we know that because this is down the track? How do we know that won't happen?

GREG HUNT: What we have said is not an express offer. We've said that the lowest cost will win. So if a soil carbon farmer were to put up their model and to say, "Look, we will tender 1,000 tonnes," and to compare that with somebody else, the lowest cost will win. What we were setting out is what others through written proposals have indicated is the likely range that they will put forward abatement.

STEVE CANNANE: Soil carbon is not currently recognised under international carbon accounting rules. If that's the case, you've got a big hole in our emissions target, don't you?

GREG HUNT: Completely false.

STEVE CANNANE: That's completely false? It's not used - carbon soil ...

GREG HUNT: No, you're completely false, because as of 2012, one of two things will occur in the world. Either, a new international agreement will be struck which will include soil carbon. That's currently under negotiation with the United States and Australia engaged. Or there will be no international agreement, in which case nations will be able to pledge their own figures and soil carbon would also be admissible. Under either of those scenarios, soil carbon will be on the table.

I should also refer to the fact that the Prime Minister herself embraced this mechanism last week, and the reason why is she knows it's going to be part of the international system.

STEVE CANNANE: OK. Greg Hunt, just finally, a few weeks ago Malcolm Turnbull was asked on Q&A if there were economists who thought your direct action plan was more cost effective than an ETS or a carbon tax. He couldn't cite any economists; can you?

GREG HUNT: I can. Let me start at the top; let me start at the global level with the noble laureates of Thomas Schelling, of Vernon Smith, of Finn Kydland, all of whom believe in climate change, demand action, were asked to rank the most effective mechanisms. They put a carbon tax at the bottom of the 15 different approaches because driving electricity prices up is inefficient ...

STEVE CANNANE: But they didn't compare it to your policy. They wrote that paper in 2009. I've read that paper; they wrote it in 2009 before you released your direct action policy?

GREG HUNT: And they put it in their top two incentives for technology, incentives for direct action. Now in terms of our Australian approach, let's start with the former Reserve Bank board member Dick Warburton. Let's go on to John White, let's go on to people such as Exigency Consulting.

STEVE CANNANE: OK.

GREG HUNT: There are many people out there and as we've seen in the business sector ...

STEVE CANNANE: I'm not sure that they've all compared it with your direct action policy though.

GREG HUNT: Well, actually, all of those have referred to direct action and all of those have made it clear that they are delighted to support that. So, we begin with the laureates because right at the top ...

STEVE CANNANE: OK.

GREG HUNT: ... this is a choice between two different mechanisms: taxation and incentives, and taxation of goods where there is very high demand for people to use such as electricity is a very inefficient mechanism. So the bottom line is, it's going to hurt families and there's a better way.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt, we're out of time, but thanks very much for joining us on Lateline tonight.

GREG HUNT: It's a pleasure.

Andrew Bolt interviews Tim Flannery, March 25 2011
top back to article Bolt's commentary

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

Bolt: How much will it cost to cut our emissions by the Government’s target of 5 per cent by 2020 and how much will world temperatures fall by as a consequence?

Flannery: Sure. We do have economists on the commission who will be giving a very in depth look at that this evening and I don’t want to pre-empt their assessment of the various cost options, but in terms of how much it will cut temperatures that really very much depends upon how Australia’s position is seen overseas …

Bolt: No, no, we’ll get onto that, Tim. I’m not going to dodge that. The argument is indeed that we have to set a lead and the world has to follow and on our own we can’t do blah blah, but just looking at the basic facts so people can figure it out for themselves (that) the world needs to come on board. On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?

Flannery: See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation…

Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences - about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?

Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.

Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.

Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.

Flannery: Sure.

Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.

Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.

Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.

Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.

Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?

Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal…

Flannery: What’s that sorry?

Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal. If we spend trillions of dollars to cut world’s emissions that we won’t notice the difference, well our great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren won’t even notice the difference.

Flannery: It will just keep getting worse if we don’t. That’s the problem.

Bolt: I just want to get back to the facts. Someone surely must have done the sums—and I’m looking at some sums here. Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars we’re spending in programs that it’s got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the world’s temperature. So you don’t know about Australia, you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?

Flannery: It’s going to be slight.

Coverage in The Australian, March 26 2011, No fast result in cuts: Flannery
top back to article

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173

THE Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years.

Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists.

In an interview with Macquarie Radio yesterday, Professor Flannery told hosts Steve Price and Andrew Bolt that if Australia achieved its aim of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases on 2000 levels, it would have a negligible short- or even medium-term impact on world temperatures.

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years," he said.

Professor Flannery leads the Climate Change Commission, an organisation created by the Gillard government charged with "leading public dialogue covering the science of climate change, how climate change may affect Australia, how carbon pricing could interact with the Australian economy, and what other countries are already doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

The commission is currently in Geelong, 75km southwest of Melbourne, the first of many host towns to hold discussion forums.

In the interview, Professor Flannery said he was not there to offer comfort to employees or talk about the carbon tax, but added he would speak about the broader economics of the situation.

Professor Flannery also admitted that the Prime Minister had incorrectly stated that her side of the argument was "backed by every reputable climate scientist in the world". He agreed that there were reputable scientists who did not necessarily believe in the science of climate change.

But Professor Flannery said doing nothing risked "triggering a change we can't control".

Before last night's forum, Professor Flannery had compared climate change deniers to flat Earth believers and said the level of debate on the issue in Australia showed "a lot of heat, but not much light".

Speaking to The Weekend Australian, he also defended the lack of a climate change sceptic on the federal government's new commission, saying deniers were not sceptical enough to allow for the possibility of climate change.

"Climate deniers say they know the future; they know what will happen; the climate isn't changing. That is not a scientific way of approaching things," he said.

About 500 people attended last night's forum, in an industry and trade-exposed city, filling the town hall to standing room.

At one point, a man in the audience asked how much he had profited from years of "scaremongering and alarmist false predictions", but it was an isolated comment and Professor Flannery was applauded when he replied that what was needed was a clear and level-headed discussion.

Flannery's letter to the editor, March 28 2011
top back to article

http://climatecommission.gov.au/2011/03/28/letter-to-the-editor-of-the-weekend-australian/

The Weekend Australian reported on a radio discussion between myself, Steve Price and Andrew Bolt about the impact of Australia’s ambition to cut greenhouse gas emissions, by 2020, to 5% below 2000 levels. It’s a promise made by both the Liberal and Labor parties, and thus a key element in the Nation’s climate change strategy.

The Australian reported correctly that I responded by saying that if humanity ceased emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would take centuries for their concentration in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial (1800 AD) levels. This is, however, not an argument for complacency, or abandoning the target. Rather, it highlights the importance of avoiding every kilogram of greenhouse gas emissions we can, for once in the atmosphere, they are extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences.

The importance of turning emissions trends downwards as soon as possible is emphasised by the relationship between emissions and temperature. If all major emitters adopt a similar level of effort to our 5% reduction target in 2020 (or better) and continue to decarbonise thereafter, we’ll cap the temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees later this century and temperature will begin to drop at the end of this century. If we fail to achieve these targets, we’ll likely see temperature rising to 4 degrees towards the end of the century and it will still be going up at 2100. What we do in this decade will be crucial in determining whether we have a world we can live in at the end of the century.

Tony Abbott's Speach to Parliament, March 28 2011
top back to article

Source: Hansard, March 24 2011, p3244, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr240311.pdf

The SPEAKER—Order! The sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Sitting suspended from 5.02 pm to 10.00am

Monday, 28 March 2011

GILLARD GOVERNMENT

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (10.00 am) —

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion forthwith—That this House notes the incompetent and untrustworthy way the Gillard government has operated over the past six months and:

(1) in particular, the incompetent and untrustworthy way the Government:

(a) dumped over 23 pages of complex amendments to the National Broadband Network legislation into the Parliament late last week breaking key policy promises and leaving regional consumers worse off;

(b) has handled the Christmas Island detention centre crisis with federal police having to re-take the centre which was partially destroyed after the Prime Minister had asserted, only 24 hours earlier, that the situation was “well in hand”; and

(c) has announced the introduction of a carbon tax, breaking the Prime Minister’s solemn promise five days before the election that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”; and

(2) importantly, that this House now calls on the Prime Minister not to introduce any carbon tax without first seeking a mandate from the people.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! I am required to adjudicate on whether the motion is in order, and I cannot hear the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr ABBOTT—

If the Prime Minister is so sure she is right that the people will support her carbon tax, what has she got to hide by letting the people decide? As this parliament resumes this morning, is there not an extraordinary pall over government members? Is there not an extraordinary shadow over government members, who have fled this chamber en masse lest they hear the truth that they are in denial over?

In New South Wales this weekend we saw the most comprehensive defeat that any government in this country has suffered. Not since the late 1800s has the Labor Party in New South Wales been in such an appalling position in the state parliament, and what we have seen in New South Wales is not just the rejection of a Labor government; it is the rejection of Labor’s style of government. We all know that Sussex Street is the spiritual home not just of the New South Wales Labor Party but of the Labor Party in general, and that is what has been rejected by the people of New South Wales.

As the ex-Premier said on Saturday night, ‘It is not that the people walked away from us, it is that we walked away from the people,’ and there is no example of Labor walking away from the people that is more pertinent than the imposition by federal Labor of a toxic tax on the people of Australia.

This suspension is about the trust that the Australian people should be able to have in the government of our country. Members opposite have betrayed that trust again and again in the six or seven months since last year’s election. They betrayed it over the East Timor detention centre, which plainly is never going to happen. They betrayed it over the onshore detention centres, which are sprouting like mushrooms all around Australia and will continue to sprout now that the Christmas Island detention centre has been all but destroyed. They betrayed trust by calling for a climate change citizens assembly, which did not even last a fortnight after the election. They betrayed trust by assuring the people that the mining tax was settled, when plainly it is unravelling. They betrayed trust by promising a public hospital takeover which is never going to happen, and they betrayed trust by promising that the national curriculum would start at the beginning of this year, when plainly it is not.

This parliament is here today because this government has lost control not only of its policies but even of its legislative program. We all know that the National Broadband Network is a $50 billion white elephant and we all know that this government is attempting to do what no other government is doing. Not even in China—where they say, ‘We actually believe in competition’—are they trying to create a government owned telecommunications monopoly. But four months after the legislation was introduced the government dumps a whole series of complex amendments into this parliament and expects us to pass them within 24 hours. It is just wrong; it is no way to run a parliament, let alone a way to run a country.

Those amendments, at least at first glance, look to betray the government’s assurances about a level playing field for all people in the telecommunications sector, and they certainly look to betray the government’s assurances that regional consumers would not face a different price regime to consumers in the city.

Nowhere is this government’s failure more evident than in the total loss of control of our borders. Not only have they lost control of our borders but now they have even lost control of the Christmas Island detention centre. What could be more indicative of a government that is utterly incompetent and utterly untrustworthy than a Prime Minister who says that the situation is well in hand and within a matter of 24 or 48 hours Australian Federal Police have to retake the government’s own detention centre by force which in the process has been partially destroyed by rioters? There is one thing that the Prime Minister should do if she is serious about taking control of our borders, taking control of our immigration policy and restoring proper border protection. She would pick up the phone to the President of Nauru. Forget this East Timor fantasy. It is never going to happen. There is one offshore island which is only too happy to host a detention centre. It is the one that hosted it before. It was the detention centre that was built with Australian taxpayers’ money and it is the detention centre which, above all else, helped to stop the boats. It is the detention centre in Nauru and the Prime Minister should pick up the phone today.

Finally, there is the carbon tax—the ultimate betrayal of the Australian people. This carbon tax is going to drive up prices again and again and again, starting with the $500 that it will add to power bills in New South Wales, starting with the 6˝c it will add to petrol bills right around Australia. And for what? We heard from the government’s principal climate change salesman, Professor Flannery, just last Friday that it will not make a difference for a thousand years. It is the ultimate millennium bug. It will not make a difference for a thousand years. So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia—and for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment anytime in the next thousand years.

What we have seen in the recent New South Wales election is, on the one hand, the just departed Premier of New South Wales roaming around the country promising fairness to families. And how is she going to deliver fairness to families? By cutting a couple of hundred dollars off their power bills. What was the Prime Minister doing? She was running around promising to add $500 to their power bills. Nothing could be more calculated to have sabotaged the New South Wales Labor government’s re-election campaign than this utterly maladroit intervention by the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who wants to inflict a toxic tax on the people of Australia—a tax which is not only toxic to families’ standard of living and not only toxic to jobs in manufacturing industries but utterly toxic to the re-election campaign of the New South Wales Labor government.

We all know that members opposite are in denial. They are in denial. What do they think caused their defeat? ‘Well, it might have been one or two problems that happened in Wollongong. It might have been one or two problems that happened at Ken’s of Kensington.’ Mr Speaker, I will tell you what caused their destruction in New South Wales: they have walked away from the Australian people. Nothing illustrates this more than the toxic carbon tax. I say to members opposite: if you want to walk again with the Australian people, if you want to regain their trust, do not even think about introducing a carbon tax without seeking a mandate first. Do not run away from the people yet again.

(Time expired)

Mr Albanese—

A point of order, Mr Speaker: the so-called resolution which the Leader of the Opposition has moved is out of order in the last part. It is a rhetorical press release that has been put on letterhead and it should be ruled out of order.

The SPEAKER—I think it would assist the House if I simply indicated that I rule the last sentence—from ‘If the Prime Minister’ through to the question mark—out of order and allow the rest of the motion to stand. Is that motion seconded?

Coverage in The Australian, March 29 2011, 1000-year vision fuels climate fight
top back to article

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904

TONY Abbott has leapt on a declaration by Tim Flannery - Julia Gillard's hand-picked salesman for action on climate change - that emissions abatement is a 1000-year proposition to renew his attacks on Labor's proposed carbon tax.

And Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has distanced himself from Professor Flannery's concession last week that even if all carbon emissions stopped today, it would take 1000 years for the atmosphere's average temperatures to drop. While Professor Flannery, a paleontologist who is also the Prime Minister's chief climate change commissioner, has expanded on his comments to insist the need for action in climate is urgent, his admission in a radio interview on Friday has compromised Labor's sales pitch on its carbon tax.

In the radio interview, Professor Flannery said: "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."

In a letter to the editor of The Australian, submitted on Sunday, he expanded on the comments, saying his observation was not "an argument for complacency". But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor's massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as "the ultimate millenium bug".

"It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament. "So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

Mr Combet said through a spokeswoman that the Gillard government believed in the science of climate change and was determined to act.

Asked whether Mr Combet backed Professor Flannery's comment, the spokeswoman said: "Professor Flannery is an independent person who leads an independent commission."

In his letter to The Australian, Professor Flannery wrote that if all major emitters adopted a similar level of effort to reach a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and continued to "decarbonise" after that date, the global temperature rise would be capped at 2C later this century and that temperatures would begin to drop by the end of the century.

"What we do in this decade will be crucial in determining whether we have a world we can live in at the end of the century."

Yesterday, Professor Flannery said he feared Mr Abbott had "quite wilfully misrepresented" his statements by failing to mention the letter. "I am extremely disappointed with the Leader of the Opposition," he told The Australian. "It is not responsible to delay action - that would cause future action to be more expensive. If nobody acts, we are in danger of seeing temperatures spiralling out of control . . . it is urgent we act this decade to lower emissions or we risk temperatures rising 4C this century."

He said both sides of politics had only eight years and nine months to deliver on the bipartisan commitment to lower Australia's carbon emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. This would require "calm deliberation of the best measures of achieving the best outcome for our country".

The debate came as the Prime Minister and Mr Abbott traded blows over the NSW election result. Ms Gillard said Labor's stunning collapse in the NSW poll had nothing to do with her plan for action on climate change. Voters had decided long ago to oust Labor, she said, and could easily separate state and federal issues.

Ms Gillard rounded on Mr Abbott, describing him as an extremist out of step with Liberal moderates such as new NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell.

She described Mr O'Farrell as "a sensible man" with whom she could work, while Mr Abbott was extreme and inflexible.

Mr Abbott said the carbon tax was "toxic" and Ms Gillard was "utterly incompetent and utterly untrustworthy".

Abbott: climate change is crap: Town of Beaufort changed Tony Abbott's view on climate change
top back to article

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009

TONY Abbott says it was a visit to the Victorian country town of Beaufort that crystallised his thinking on the folly of supporting Labor's emissions trading scheme and set him on the path to ousting Malcolm Turnbull.

During 24 hours that altered the course of Australian politics, Abbott concluded that the Nationals and a substantial number of Liberal Party MPs would vote against the ETS; there was a lack of certainty in opinion polls and regional Liberal MPs were facing a bush revolt over the issue.

When Abbott arrived at a gathering of the Liberal faithful in Beaufort, it was clear he was exhausted.

By the time he left, flush with the energy of farmers such as David "Rocky" George -- whom he calls "practical environmentalists" -- he had dismissed the science underpinning climate change as "crap".

The next morning a long phone call with ally Nick Minchin convinced him that voting for the ETS would fracture the Coalition and split the Liberal Party.

The Weekend Australian this week returned to Beaufort to talk to those who were with Abbott when he set his foot on the road to Damascus. Among them was Joe McCracken, the young vice-president of the Beaufort branch of the Liberal Party.

"He did say crap; he did say I'm a sceptic and there was big applause," McCracken says.

For Abbott, Wednesday, September 30, began with an early-morning flight from Canberra to Adelaide for a shadow cabinet meeting.

At 3.45pm, he flew to Mount Gambier, where he was met by David Hawker, Liberal MP for the blue-ribbon seat of Wannon and a former speaker of the House of Representatives. They flew by charter to Ballarat, where they were met by Hawker's wife, Penny, who drove them to Beaufort -- 158km northwest of Melbourne -- where Abbott was to speak to local Liberals at a function centre at the football ground.

Abbott arrived about 8.20pm in the town of 1200 people. As he came through the door of the Beaufort Community Bank Complex, he was exhausted.

"He was rooted," recalls Beaufort newsagent Jim Cox, who had organised the event and had begun to fear that Abbott would cancel. "You could see the man was shot."

There were about 130 people in the room, from Beaufort, surrounding towns and farms in between. Senator Julian McGauran was there, along with state MPs David Koch and John Vogels.

There was also Craig Wilson, editor of the Pyrenees Advocate, standing at the back of the room. Wilson was bored.

Abbott spoke for about 20 minutes, plugged his book Battlelines, outlined the difficulties confronting the party and then opened the floor to questions. After several questions on the ETS, including the impact on farmers and whether it was wise to commit to a policy before Copenhagen, Abbott called for a show of hands on whether the Coalition should support the ETS. Only a handful voted yes.

Abbott, until that point Turnbull's main defender on the ETS, became increasingly blunt. According to many in the room, he left no doubt that he was a climate change sceptic. He ruminated there had been many changes of climate over the millennia not caused by man. Finally, he said the science behind climate change was "crap", at which stage Wilson snapped awake.

"I think I was nodding off down at the back of the room when all of a sudden he came out with the comment that the science around climate change was `absolute crap' and I kind of jumped back awake and wrote down his quote," Wilson says.

In the fourth paragraph of Wilson's article, he quoted Abbott as saying, "The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger."

Wilson says Abbott made the comment "fairly passionately" and "he certainly wasn't on his own in the room that night".

Since his election as Liberal leader, Abbott has described his use of "crap" as "a bit of hyperbole" and not his "considered position" and said it was made "in the context of a very heated discussion where I was attempting to argue people around to what I thought was then our position".

In Beaufort, no one remembers the meeting as heated. Branch secretary Margaret Barling describes it as "a very happy night". Former mayor Robert Vance calls it a friendly gathering of like-minded people. Stoneleigh farmer Phil Bennett says Abbott's explanation is "a very difficult interpretation".

Cox says Abbott's comment was "very well received" and he quickly realised "he was on a bit of a winner". McCracken says Abbott looked relieved by the applause. Deb Bain, a former rural woman of the year, says there was "quite a buzz" in the room afterwards.

One of the climate change questions that night came from George, who asked whether farmers would still get drought assistance if climate change turned drought into dryness.

At his farm opposite the dry Lake Goldsmith, where ducks were last shot 15 years ago, George says he agrees with Abbott's opposition to the ETS, which he regards as no more than a tax gouge.

Like most farmers in the area, he says, he believes climate change has been exaggerated.

"I think this could be one in 500 years, this cycle we are in, and it might take a little while to come out," he says.

After the function, Abbott stayed at Trawalla, a stately home owned by former Victorian Liberal minister Roger Pescott and his wife Caroline, who put Abbott up for the night. They drank brandy and discussed the ebbing fortunes of the party until 1am.

The next morning, Abbott was feeling his usual sprightly self. "He came in here bouncing," Cox says. "He was a different boy." He read the papers, made some calls, had a coffee at Angel's Cafe with Bain and met local councillors.

About midday, Abbott left Beaufort for Melbourne in a government car. On the way, he writes in his new afterword to Battlelines, he had the long phone conservation with Minchin that crystallised his new thinking, after which he had decided that "the politics of this issue really had changed".

Commentated transcript of interview of Tim Flannery by Andrew Bolt, June 9 2010
top back to article more of Bolt's commentary

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_vs_bolt_transcript/

Here’s the transcript from my confrontation yesterday with alarmist Tim Flannery on MTR 1377. (Listen here.)

It was extraordinary to have Flannery deny what I had before me in black and white - his wilder predictions, his previous support for nuclear power - and even stranger to have him claim that non-existent desalination plants save cities such as Brisbane from avoiding the warming-caused dry he predicted.

I’m sorry I ran out of time to ask him about the $90 million his geothermal investment received from the Rudd Government last year, his conflicts of interest, his concession that there had been an inexplicable pause in global warming, his frequent-flying hypocrisy, his baseless scare about Antarctic melting, his involvement in Sir Richard Brazen’s joy-flights in space and more. But enjoy:

Flannery: I’m unlikely to vote for him because my trust has been eroded away… He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and he’s then withdrawn that with very little justification…

Bolt: He said he wouldn’t move now until the rest of the world did something which is a direct repudiation of what he said before. But, Tim, part of the reason, of course, that he’s backed down is that there’s been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing, there’s a rising tide of scepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?

Flannery : There is some swing in sentiment. And I think it’s very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time. So there’s some, but what is happening around the world should give us all heart. We’ve seen China now pledged to reduce is emissions intensity by over 40 per cent.

Bolt: It’s still going to build a coal-fired power station every week or so.

Flannery: And what that is going to do if that’s achieved by 2020 is put us on track to avoid dangerous climate change. But for us to do that, places like Australia and the US, the wooden spooners in this debate, actually have to do their part.

Bolt: But, Tim, I’m just wondering, there has been a rise in scepticism. That’s precisely why the Liberals, for example, have switched from supporting an ETS to opposing it ... and they dumped their leader over it. Now I’m wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising scepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.

Flannery : Well, many of the things that scientists highlight may happen are very alarming. They’re not alarmist but they are worrisome. Rises in sea-level for instance are a significant issue.

Bolt: Well, let’s go through some of your own claims. You said , for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?

Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ..

Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly!

Flannery: And thankfully, Andrew, governments have taken that to heart and been building some desalination capacity such as in Perth.

Bolt: Only in Perth.

Flannery: No, there’s plans in every capital city..

Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There’s no desalination plant, there’s no dam. It’s now 100 per full.

Flannery: That’s a lie, Andrew. I didn’t say it would run out of water. I don’t have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.

Bolt: I’ll quote your own words: ”Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.” That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.

Flannery: Yeah, sure. There’s variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.

Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 century’s first ghost metropolis.

Flannery: I said it was… may.

Bolt: It’s all “may”.

Right? Because at that stage there had been no flows into that water catchment for a year and the water engineers were terrified.

Bolt: Have you seen the water catchment levels here, see, they’re tracking above the five year level. I’m showing you now.

Flannery: You know what I came in here to talk about, Andrew, here? it’s our farm day we’re doing with our Deakin lecture series in Bendigo, at the Bendigo town hall today. And it’s a really exciting event…

Andrew: All that’s lovely, Tim. But I think you need to be held to account for the alarmism that is in part your stock in trade, your schtick,, and is responsible for what you now see – the retreat from global warming policies.

Flannery: You want to paint me as an alarmist.

Bolt: You are an alarmist.

Flannery: I’m a very practical person.

Bolt: I ‘m asking you to defend these quotes.

Flannery: Well, I’ve done that already

Bolt: You said the Arctic could be ice free two years ago.

Flannery: No I didn’t…

[Price interrupts, and we argue over the questioning.]

Bolt: I’m asking Tim whether he repents from all these allegations about cities running out of water, cities turning into ghost cities, sea level rises up to an eight storey high building. Don’t you think that is in part why people have got more sceptical.

Flannery: I don’t, actually, because some of those things are possibilities in the future if we continue polluting as we do. And we’ve already seen impacts in southern Australia on all of those cities. Everyone remembers the water restrictions and so forth. Just because we get a good, wet year doesn’t mean we should forget about the problem. We actually have to deal with this long term drying trend and that means securing our water supply.

Bolt: You warn about sea level rises up to an eight-storey building. How soon will that happen?

Flannery: Asking that question is it’s a bit like asking a stock analyst when the next stock market crash is going to happen and how big it’s going to be. No one can. We can all see the underlying weakness in the market in the months before the crash..

Bolt: Thousands of years?

Flannery: Could be thousands of years.

Bolt: Tens of thousands of years?

Flannery: Could be hundreds of years.

Bolt: Hundreds of years?

Flannery: It could be hundreds of years. The thermo- dynamics of ice sheets are very, very difficult to predict., but what we do know when we look back is the fossil record is that when the world is a degree or two warmer than it is now seal levels rise very significantly - between four and 14 metres above where they are. We can’t say how long it takes for that rise to happen because the fossil record just isn’t good enough, it isn’t accurate enough…

Bolt: Should we also have nuclear power plants?

Flannery: In Australia I don’t think so. We’ve got such a great load of assets in the renewable area that I don’t think there’s an argument here that they are ever going to be economic.

Bolt: Four years ago you did. What changed your mind?

Flannery: No, I never did. I’ve always had the same argument.

Bolt: No, no, no. Here’s your quote: “Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal –fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world”. That was your quote.

Flannery: I don’t recall saying that at all.

Bolt: You wrote it. You wrote it in The Age. There it is, highlighted.

Flannery: Well ,very good.

Bolt: That’s the point, you know, you make these claims and when people confront you , you walk away from them.

Flannery: But that was about “may”. No, no, you said “may”. And Australia may be able to do that. It’s not what I recommend and I never have recommended it. But what I do say…

Bolt: “We would have done something great for the world”.

Flannery: But what I do say, nuclear power, right, getting away from coal would be great for the world. Why should we take the most expensive option in this country, which has always been recognised as having the most expensive and difficult option. We are going to see a whole lot of other technologies and innovations which are now well under way which we could use instead of nuclear power.

Bolt: Such as?

Flannery: Such as concentrated PV technology, geothermal technology, wave power, wind power…

Bolt: You’re an investor in geothermal technology , aren’t you?

Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed.

Bolt: How come you don’t declare that.

Flannery: Well, I’ve just done it.

Bolt: You just did because I told you. You said that geothermal , which you are in investor of, you’ve got a plant, you’ve invested in a plant in Innamincka and you said the technology was really easy. How come.that plant....

Flannery: Not really that easy.

Bolt: Well, yes. It’s actually had technological difficulties and it’s been delayed two years because it’s not that easy, after all, is it?

Flannery: Well, any new technology is going to be difficult to bring to fruition. It’s a bit like generation for nuclear. There’s challenges all the way. But in terms of geothermal there are many places in the world where you can actually drill down and get into a hot rock body such as ...

Price: Andrew, we’re going to have to go.

Bolt's blog, June 11 2010, Flannery can’t take the heat
top back to article

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_cant_take_the_heat/

HMM. So how has Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery got away with it for so long?

Answer: because he seems nice.

Oh, and because journalists just won’t hold our leading global warming spruiker to account for his litany of dud predictions, exaggerations, falsehoods and bizarre conflicts of interest.

Click here to have your say at Andrew’s blog

But on Wednesday - and give him credit - he wandered into our studio at MTR 1377 for some reason best known to himself.

Was it a false confidence, born of years of near unquestioned adulation?

Was it that being named Australian of the Year in 2007 made him feel above any pesky but-but-butting from the few media sceptics?

Or was it - as the following transcript suggests - that Flannery, now head of the Rudd Government’s Coast and Climate Change Council, has an eerie ability to forget inconvenient truths about his past finger-wagging?

Whatever. What we do know is that our chat this week was the first time I can recall that Flannery, the highly influential author of The Weather Makers and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has been confronted at length.

Read on, to see how even this giant of warming alarmism dealt with it. You may well then wonder if the great warming scare of the past decade would ever have taken off had more journalists fact-checked the wilder claims and predictions of not just Flannery, but other professional scaremongers such as Al Gore, David Suzuki, Peter Garrett, Rob Gell and Bob Brown.

Flannery started our interview by paying out on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for walking away from what he’d sold as “the great moral and economic challenge of our time”.

[see transcript above]

And we could have gone on - to discuss the $90 million grant the Rudd Government last year gave to Flannery’s Geodynamics.

Or to ask about the preferential treatment the Government also gave to Field Force, a “green loans” company Flannery spruiked for.

Or to ask how much Flannery profits from preaching doom.

Or to wonder how this green crusader could lend his name to Sir Richard Brazen’s planned joy rides in space.

Or to ask him to explain his concession last year that, despite his great scares of rising heat, “there hasn’t been a continuation of that warming trend” and “the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees”.

Yes, you may think I’m just picking on details. But details are like pixels - put enough together and they form a picture.

Flannery’s details, unquestioned, form a terrifying picture that has helped to panic millions of people into believing their gases could kill our world.

But, once challenged, those same details of Flannery form a very different picture - of self-serving scaremongering with not much more than hot air to sustain it.

Bolt's blog, March 25 2011
top back to article

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

On our MTR 1377 show today:

- Our fine Resources Minister Martin Ferguson pays out Greens Leader Bob Brown as “Soapbox Bob”.

- An anecdote that helps to confirm that Ferguson is a climate sceptic.

- Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery joins us - but refuses to say by how much the world’s temperature will fall thanks to Julia Gillard’s global warming policies. Later he concedes that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years. Doesn’t sound like much of a deal to me.

- Flannery agrees that Julia Gillard was wrong to say that every reputable climate scientist backs her view of man-made warming.

And more. Listen here.

UPDATE

A partial transcript of my interview today with Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery:

[see above]

UPDATE

Yesterday we tried to get precisely the same answer (listen here) from Professor John Daley, CEO of the Grattan Institute, which is releasing a report which finds that our state and federal governments tipped $12 billion into emissions-cutting schemes that were close to useless, and which argues we should go for emissions trading instead:

Bolt: To get to Julia Gillard’s target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, how many more of these billions would we need to have spent…?

Daley: Well, if you’re going to do the whole lot through rebate schemes, you’d have to spend in the order of about $300 billion …(Gillard’s emissions trading scheme) is a much more efficient way to go…

Bolt: You say go to carbon trading, or emissions trading. Iin your report you of course have look at whether this is worth doing – you’ve looked at what you would get for your money. By how much will the world’s temperatures fall if we go to this emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard recommends? You’ve no doubt looked at that.

Daley: Well, it of course depends on what other countries in the world…

Bolt: No, no, just ours, John. I’m just looking at us. Us alone.

Daley: This is a classic collective action problem. If every country in the world looks at how much will their reductions make a difference, the answer for any individual country, even for the United States, even for China, is not that much.

Bolt: No, no, I’ve got you. I’m very familiar with that argument, that if we don’t move, no one else will, and nothing’s done and it all goes to hell in a handbasket. What I’m trying to do is just get to the bottom-line facts: if we spend these umpteen billions on cutting emissions further, to the five per cent by 2020, how much will Australia’s action alone cut the world’s temperature by? That must be measured somewhere. That must be part of your report.

Daley: Well, I think it’s not been measured anywhere because it’s not seen as being the right way to think about this.

Bolt: Well it would be. People want to know the gain for the pain. Have a guess then.

Daley: The reality is that no country in the world is cutting their emissions alone…So to what extent are we doing our fair share?…

Bolt: Look, we’ve got that argument…. I’ll ask just one last time… If you don’t know just say so, but if you do know, I know it’s got all those caveats, but just tell us how much the world’s temperature will fall if we do what you recommend and what Julia Gillard plans.

Daley: As I said, we haven’t run the numbers on how much it will make a difference if Australia acts completely alone.

Bolt: You should have.

Daley: The reason we haven’t done that is because Australia is not acting alone. Therefore it’s not a very helpful thing to analyse.

“Not helpful” means you’d realise the pain is not worth the gain. Whever we do - whatevery anyone does - hardly seems worth it, really.

And by “not helpful”, the people pushing the schemes say they’d rather not tell you the truth. You might ask too many awkward questions.

That is why no one yet pushing an ETS or a carbon tax will answer our question. And why we drew exactly the same blank a fortnight ago with Jill Duggan, from the European Commission’s emissions trading scheme.

join discussion