Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-ch...

Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. By 2011, his conversion to the mainstream was complete and he acknowledged both the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for action. On the economics however, Abbott has been moving backwards. He started out being viewed as an intellectual and an economic rationalist. When John Howard went into the 2007 election with a carbon trading scheme as policy, Abbott made sound, rational arguments in favour of putting a price on carbon, and went one step further an argued that a tax made more sense than a trading scheme. He even took the time to explain the conundrum that politicians find themselves in, preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity, but faced with a very difficult political task of selling it to members of the public to whom the economics seems counter-intuitive. Shortly after, he took a curious turn in that he continued to promote a carbon tax as a better mechanism to reduce emissions, but for absurd and non-sensical reasons (though the sound bites may appeal to disinterested or ignorant people, so long as they don't take a second look). He then proceeded to take the coalition down the path of direct action. This is a policy that is rejected by economists as expensive and wasteful, by scientists as unlikely to actually work, and by the farmers who are supposed to do all the heavy lifting. Finally, Tony Abbott has flagged a review of coalition policy (and another likely backflip) as early as 2015. It is little wonder that most of the debate about Abbott rarely gets past the first step of figuring out where he stands and what he really thinks.

Read more, including all the relevant quotes:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-ch...

You blew it with even he.... preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity.

That is not the case.

It would be helpful if you edited your thread to bring it in to context.

It is the case progs. The blog has the quotes from Abbott to prove it.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 2:17pm:

When he starts with "we will not be doing it" says it all dont you think.

"If this is what you want to do, we dont like it but......."

"if you are going to do ..., why not just"

The point of relevance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QXblcJAr4#t=07m29s

No where does he say "this is what we will do" or "this is what we want to do"

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 2:50pm:

I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. That is the reality of the situation. Thats why he gets my vote. I dont care what position with wording he plays, as long as it isnt going on the path to perpetual dictatorship in the form of lifestyle control.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:05pm:
Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol.

I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target.

They make it very difficult to chop and change through all their documetation. You want to have a go, fine with me.

If we can get through this mess, then I am happy to go past this point.

OK progs, maybe you are right and Abbott is lying about believing the science. Is that how he goes about getting a democratic mandate?

If Gillard had won the election outright, we would not have a carbon tax. Of course I see it coming. I never expected you to get your head around the concept of mandates in coalition government.

Longy do you also believe Abbott is lying about the science?