2/3 Australian don’t want carbon price scrapped, or why debate on the carbon price is set to intensify

From today’s Age, confirmation Tony Abbott will have an uphill battle trying to repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme:

Tony Abbott’s insistence that the election will be a ”referendum on the carbon tax” has been undermined by polling showing that just a third of voters support the Coalition’s plan to abolish it.

Fewer voters want to see the carbon tax removed now than before it took effect on July 1 last year. Nearly half, or 48 per cent, wanted the tax scrapped a year ago.

But a poll of 1009 people, conducted by JWS Research for the Climate Institute, found just 37 per cent of them now supported the Coalition’s intention to wind the tax back in favour of its ”Direct Action” policy, which involves paying companies to reduce emissions.

Even fewer people – 34 per cent – would back an Abbott government calling a double dissolution election to fulfil its ”pledge in blood” to repeal the tax.

Fewer than half the Coalition voters would back Mr Abbott taking Australia back to the polls.

JWS pollster John Scales said the Opposition Leader had failed to convince people that carbon pricing should be scrapped because two-thirds of Australians believed climate change was real.

Climate change believers accounted for 66 per cent of voters, compared with 64 per cent a year ago.

As I have been saying for some time, a crisis for Abbott and the LNP is looming: 

- Tony Abbott and the LNP would win the 2013 Federal election
- Abbott would look to “axe-the-tax” (price on carbon) in name only, introducing a face-saving sleight-of-hand in but still maintain a price on carbon
- The climate sceptic movement would be bitterly disappointed, as the realisation began to dawn on them that Abbott played the populist hand against the carbon tax in order to undermine the Gillard government’s legitimacy
- For the climate sceptics (deniers) it would be an object lesson in realpolitik.

I suspect the LNP is going to find climate policy just as complicated, if not more so once in office.

One needs real policies then, nor four word slogans.  The debate over a price on carbon is far from over: if anything it is going to intensify.

As noted above, the public don’t understand nor want the Direct Action Plan proposed by the LNP.

Nor does it seem they willing to give control of the Senate to Abbott. However, the Coalition have locked themselves into silly “blood oath” giving themselves little to move.

The question is what happens when they can’t “ax-the-tax” what compromises an Abbott led government will be forced to make.

Hang on for the ride, as climate politics is going to get wilder.

About these ads
Tagged , , , ,

18 thoughts on “2/3 Australian don’t want carbon price scrapped, or why debate on the carbon price is set to intensify

  1. As the admin of this site is working, no uncertainty very soon it will be famous, due
    to its feature contents.

  2. K largo says:

    Your headline is misleading.
    It simply is not true that twothirds don’t want the carbon price scrapped. You have assumed that if 37% agree then the remainder disagree.

    In fact looking checking the published poll results, whereas in 2012 26% disagreed with the notion that the Coalition should repeal the carbon tax, the latest 2013 poll has that number almost unchanged at 27%.

    That is a little over a quarter, not two thirds. http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_CarbonLawsPolling_Factsheet_June2013.pdf

  3. Fed up says:

    Suspect that much of what Abbott is spruiking will not pass the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

    • Referencing naturalnews is hate speech against intelligent debate.

      The whole “CO2 is plant food” canard pushed by deniers is simplistic beyond belief. If you really want to wade in with this nonsense, be prepared to explain how controlled environments like greenhouses and glasshouses can be used as a proxy for what happens in large cropping systems or even better, natural ecosystems. Be prepared to discuss how commercial potting mix bares any resemblance to soil in terms of nitrifying organisms. Be prepared to talk about limiting factors to plant growth and the conversion of nutrients, CO2 and water into various tissues, hormones and secondary metabolites..and these are just the start. Then we can get into competition theory as it relates to generalist and specialist plant species. We can talk about plant disease tolerance levels, plant defence mechanisms, range shifts in plant insect pests. We can get into soil health and changes in rainfall. We can discuss land availability and suitability as growing ranges for commercial food crops shift. The other option is you can do what so many deniers who come here do and demonstrate just how ignorant and simplistic the denier mind is. So how about it?

    • Denby Angus says:

      Sadly it is possible to have too much of a good thing. And CO2 is the big one. The science of the relationship between certain greenhouse gases (such as CO2, NO2, water vapour and methane) has been well understood for well over a hundred years. The weight of supporting evidence is overwhelming. But perhaps you’re not listening.
      Consider the risk management argument.
      If the climate scientists are wrong and we waste a lot of money, well OK we wasted some money (but we cleaned the air). But if they’re right and we do nothing we are heading for the collapse of modern civilisation. Which option do you want to risk?

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Thanks for this, it is a great video – worth watching. Actually, before I started blogging etc. this was one of the videos that inspired me. The risk management perspective just made sense.

        • Denby Angus says:

          It is a cracker isn’t it?
          The creator, Greg Craven, spent 6 weeks making 44 videos (over 7 hours) after his first video “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” and then a book and then this video. All wonderful. I love his frenetic playful approach.

    • NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded by Mike “the Health Ranger” Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes in vaccine denialism, AIDS/HIV denial, quack cancer medicine and conspiracy theories about modern medicine. Even other quacks think it’s a quack site. The site has recently expanded its outlook to become an outlet for extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.
      If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

    • FrankD says:

      Well at least there’s someone who won’t whine about becing called a denier because of the supposed implied link to Holocaust Denial:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben

  4. Gregory T says:

    This might be the wrong thread, in which to bring this up, but is there one denier, who could describe to me, or the world for that matter, what the worst case scenario would be, if the ninety seven percen consensus regarding warming and it’s human component is right? So far all I’ve read or heard is that it is wrong. Never once hearing that if we (deniers) are wrong, we should have a contingency plan. Oh that’s right, it will be to late for any contingencies.

  5. roymustard says:

    I feel the same thing. The scare campaign against the tax (“Wrecking ball from day one!” “$100 Sunday roasts!”) hasn’t eventuated and the costs have been absorbed. The final group still frothing at the mouth over it never vote ALP anyway, and Abbott’s Direct Action policy is completely unworkable and will almost certainly be scrapped. Then there remains the tricky problem that a change of government won’t mean a change in the laws of physics.

  6. john byatt says:

    Geoff brown of the climate retards party, contradiction number 888

    ” it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. ”

    “it has been cooling for sixteen years”

  7. john byatt says:

    One The reality is that Australia would not have a carbon price now except for the Greens and the independents.

    Two. whether labor is led by Gillard or Rudd the outcome will still be a large majority for Abbott

    Three. accept the fact that it is only the greens who are truly committed to the action required

    Four. a massive green vote would really put Abbott on the back foot

    So, whoever you vote for put effin Greens first on your ballot paper

    Vote GREEN if you actually care.

    /rantoff

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: