Turnbull channels Abbott as he attacks Labor's renewables target, ETS | RenewEconomy

Turnbull channels Abbott as he attacks Labor’s renewables target, ETS

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Turnbull describes Labor’s 50% renewables target as reckless, Hunt continues nonsense attack on emissions reduction costs, while Coalition’s climate deniers and renewable-haters continue to run amok. Has anything changed?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Plus ça change. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s tantalising sales pitch ahead of the leadership spill earlier this week, there was no real expectation for quick policy change.

But there was hope that at least the rhetoric might change once Turnbull dislodged Tony Abbott as head of the Liberal Party and as prime minister of Australia. It hasn’t happened. It is pretty much business as usual. Nothing has changed.

turnbull huntOn Wednesday, Turnbull attacked Labor’s 50 per cent renewable energy target as reckless, environment minister Greg Hunt trotted out his usual nonsense about the cost of Labor’s as yet unstated emissions reductions target, while Queensland Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald resumed his long-running campaign to describe climate change science as a hoax and a fraud.

If that wasn’t enough, the federal Nationals rejected a motion put forward by progressive members from their Western Australia division to declare support for renewable energy. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the independent Senator John Madigan, head of a Coalition-supported wind inquiry, continued to wage war on the industry.

Turnbull’s comments were particularly alarming, given his presumed support for renewable energy. He has yet to pronounce himself on the future of the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, three institutions that Abbott tried unsuccessfully to destroy, but Turnbull was already dismissive of Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030.

‘The questions from the leader of the opposition get worse and worse,” Turnbull said during question time. “He is highlighting one of the most reckless proposals the Labor party has made. Fancy proposing, without any idea of the cost of the abatement, the cost of proposing that 50 per cent of energy had to come from renewables!”

Turnbull then proceeded to list possible alternatives, including “clean coal”, gas-fired generation, carbon storage and planting trees. Even the coal industry doesn’t believe its own marketing about clean coal.

Such rhetoric is not unexpected in a partisan political system. But more had been hoped of Turnbull, particularly after Abbott’s brutal anti-renewables rhetoric had chased away international investors. But Turnbull’s comments are being accompanied by real policy commitments, as once again he repeated his support of Abbott’s “excellent” Direct Action policy, and dismissed the need for the carbon price he long championed.

Hunt has continued from where he left off in the Abbott regime, putting a $633 billion price on Labor’s emissions reduction targets for 2030, which it hasn’t yet decided on, but which Hunt is presuming will be for a 50 per cent cut.

“And there will be a choice at the next election between a policy that is working without increasing the cost of electricity for Australians and Mr Shorten’s policy, which is a $633 billion dollar hit to the economy – on their own modelling of their own policy when they were in government,” Hunt told journalists.

The CCA’s Clive Hamilton has demolished this claim in this piece “Damned lies, Minister Hunt and climate models. Even the analysis commissioned by the Abbott government, from RBA board member Warwick McKibbin, points to the ever so slight difference in costs between the Coalition’s 26-28 per cent target, and a 45 per cent reduction target. And that included assumptions that renewable energy will cost way more than it costs now.

Labor was damming. Environment spokesman Mark Butler noted that renewables enjoyed strong support among the public, and pointed to a Bloomberg New Energy Outlook report that showed that renewable energy will be at 39 per cent by 2030 with no policy change, driven by the uptake of household solar. And he noted that Turnbull had previously used the word “bullsh*t” to describe the policy he now says is “excellent”.

In the Senate, things were not going any better. Unrepentant climate science denier Macdonald continued his long-running tirade against scientists, saying that Australian kids have been brainwashed about climate change, which he described as “just farcical and fanciful.”

Macdonald said: “The children of Australia have been brainwashed into thinking that if we turn off a light in Australia somehow that is going to stop climate change.” He said Australia was once covered in ice. So there.

Meanwhile, there were extraordinary scenes at the Nationals federal conference in Canberra, where an effort to get the party to declare its support for renewable energy was shot down by critics led by long-serving Queensland Senator Ron Boswell and sitting Hinkley MP Keith Pitt.

Boswell told the head of the WA delegation, who had argued that renewable energy was an economic alternative for farmers in WA, and Australia could be left behind if it did not embrace the technology: “Don’t ever try and be a Green”.

The motion was also opposed by Queensland National Party Womens’ president Theresa Craig, who described herself as a “scientist” and then proceeded to quote the Heartland Institute, the notorious US think tank that is the leading voice against climate change, and funded by fossil fuel companies.

Craig said research by the Heartland Institute had also said that every job created by the renewable energy sector meant two to three jobs were lost. This is nonsense and comes from discredited research from an obscure researcher at a Spanish university.

Pitt joined in by saying “every single job in renewables is subsidised to $200,000,” and quoting more nonsense that if renewable energy certificates reached $93, then the whole renewable energy scheme would cost $42 billion.

No, not much has changed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Keith 5 years ago

    Turnbull’s performance in question time made clear one of two things :
    i) he has become a climate change denier or
    ii) the neo-cons are still in charge

    Either way it is a disaster.

    Perhaps he hasn’t thought about this, but it sounds like he won’t be going to Paris, leaving that to Julie Bishop and Greg Hunt. If so, that won’t go well for Australia. We need a PM at the table willing to be part of some brave decision making to try to avert catastrophe.

    • suthnsun 5 years ago

      I was hoping MT would go to Paris and give himself an opportunity to manouevre the party based on current understandings.. he clearly needs to move this mob slowly .. I am starting to worry..

      • Miles Harding 5 years ago

        He could go to receive the golden dinosaur that Australia is ideally positioned to win, beating off second-rate rivals, such as Canadia. 🙂

        • juxx0r 5 years ago

          They really should update the trophy to a petrified turd.

  2. Chris Fraser 5 years ago

    All right, let’s better understand who are the very specific renewable energy candidates in our electorates …

  3. Ray Miller 5 years ago

    Is this Abbot mark II? I think the L in Liberal stands for “Loosers”. Australia needs good leaders, they appear to be missing in action.

    How bad does it have to get before Australians dump them all.

  4. Geoff 5 years ago

    The problem are the deals that have been done between the conservatives of the liberal party. Turnbull can’t do anything unless these guys go, and if these guy’s don’t go, then it’ll have to be the liberal party that goes at the next election. As John Hewson put it very well on Q&A the other night – they have only changed jockey’s, not the actual horse.

    • phred01 5 years ago

      15% gst is now on the table

    • Reality Bites 5 years ago

      Maybe the problem is that most of the commentators in here have solar tinted glasses on and cannot see the truth. Sure MT cannot make any sudden moves, however a 50% target is economically reckless for Australia. If MT was in the chair when the Paris target was set, maybe it would be higher say 30%. The truth is that if you check the constitution the environment is actually a state responsibility, but ceded to the Feds given the international agreements. The States are already going there own way and will continue to do so. I suggest patience is required and that you will see MT come out with sensible longer range policies rather than a kneejerk about face that renewable proponents were hoping for. Oh and better get used to it because, in the absence of the Abbott haters, Labor will now be seen as the same reckless, incompetent, union backed party that was rejected last election.

      • Geoff 5 years ago

        the reason why labor got booted last election was because of Rudd and he’s own self interests…

        • Reality Bites 5 years ago

          What about pink batts, BER, carbon tax, border protection, failure to cut spending and spiralling debt, (will anybody forget Swan’s continual reassurances that there would be a $2.2 billion surplus, right up to the time that he had to announce an $18billion deficit!). The list of reasons is very long and KRudd was only part of the Labor problem, however nothing has changed for Labor, they are essentially in denial of losing the election and Shorten, Conroy Plibersek and Wong were all associated with Rudd/Gillard and the failures.

          • Geoff 5 years ago

            pruppphhh…… that doesn’t even compare to Hockey’s increase of the debt ceiling to borrow more, what, to get us out of debt? look where that has put us! cuts cuts cuts – that’s all the liberals are good for. how about gradual cuts in subsidies to the coal sector, seeing that coal is in terminal decline, while the manufacturing and technology sector is getting on with developing and deploying clean energy solutions to get us out of this mess.

          • Reality Bites 5 years ago

            I guess instead Hockey should have asked Swannie for a lend of the Labor money tree! If you are locked in to expenditure, yes, generally, the only way to get out is to make cuts or raise taxes. As for the fossil fool subsidies they are a mirage, perpetuated by anti-coal campaigners including people in the IMF. Thermal coal producers pay far more in taxes and royalties than they get any Tax Credit for. Giles and Sophie should be honest and do the stats on how much the thermal coal sector actually pays and the contribution to GDP.

  5. Miles Harding 5 years ago

    It’s would appear that MT sold his soul some time back. Wasn’t it him that was recently spruiking his hand in crafting the LNP’s direct (in)action policy?

  6. Barri Mundee 5 years ago

    Some of us had hopes that MT might be a game changer for renewables but early portends do not look promising. It looks as if MT has sold his principles out for the highest office in OZ. If so all we have is someone less rabid in opposing everything than Abbott. If this turns out to be the case I hope MT is punished by a very short-lived poll bounce and leads the LNP to a thumping election loss.

  7. phred01 5 years ago

    old policies in new clothes

  8. Rob Campbell 5 years ago

    “it’s Just a jump to the left” “then a step to the right” Let’s hope the jump is far bigger than the step!

    • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

      CCCP was a utopia I agree.

      • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

        Go away troll!

        • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

          But its true.
          The CCCP was a utopia don’t you know?

          • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

            Go away stupid troll!!

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            No Christmas card for you
            (I’ll be burnt at the democratic stake by Christmas no doubt)

  9. JohnRD 5 years ago

    Bill Shorten must b starting to breathe a bit easier. This doesn’t mean that Shorten doesn’t need to start talking more about what he will do and spend time coming up with a better climate action plan than just going back to Rudd’s tired old ETS or Gillard’s carbon tax.

  10. joono 5 years ago

    The Member for Goldman Sachs was never going to be on the side of the environment or people. Much like the Calibrian Mafia, once you work for Goldman Sachs you always work for Goldman Sachs.

    • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

      I would think Goldman Sachs could make a killing off of Carbon Credits and Carbon Derivatives sales fees and dodgy accounting.

      .04% trace gas Trading Scheme? Sounds like a wet dream for a crooked accountant. QUESTION: How many tons of CO2 did that grassland consume yearly before the ETS was introduced? ANSWER: At least half as it does now on my Credit book$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      This is more profitable to an accounting wizard (a profession I would understand) than a central bank fiat accounting unit … probably just as ‘fractional reserve’ in nature also, look at the fraud in the EU Market … banks love this government mandated fee based trade opportunity. But of course, banks wouldn’t be behind the funding and support of climate ‘science’ would they? What does a new market accounting unit have to do with finance? The whole thing has sprung up naturally by concerned citizens and university academics riding unicorns over rainbows and towers of green jobs already built in theory.

      Don’t worry bed-wetters, Malcolm will introduce an ETS as sure as the sun rises in the morning and heats the earth, you have won the war against democracy! Congrats! We now have three left wing parties to choose from – the conservative wing just died or at least went into cardiac arrest – so don’t expect that Malcolm will do anything different up until PARIS 2015 than act ‘right wing’ and then flip-flop at the confab as if he’s ‘caving in’ to international pressure.

      This deal was done a long time ago for Malcolm, and the last 5 PM changes have all been based around this one issue which has nothing to do with finance of course, just benevolent people saving mother earth from father carbon.

      • mick 5 years ago

        good,crap and hope they have private heath given what they did to the health budget

      • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

        Sheer shite mate!

        • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

          Yes, ETS is sheer shite mate!
          Eurocrats love it though … good for their off-shore accounts.

          ‘DENIAL’ 101: 0.04% trace gas does not have the same thermal retention factor as 1/5th of the entire atmosphere.

          I’m very sorry that I don’t follow your same religion. Please don’t burn me at the stake whilst the Pope claps (it might release my carbon back into the atmosphere).

          • Pedro 5 years ago

            ‘DENIAL’ 101: 0.04% trace gas does not have the same thermal retention factor as 1/5th of the entire atmosphere.

            Think you are getting your scientific facts mixed up there. CO2 happens to be excellent at absorbing and re-emitting the infrared spectrum. Most other atmospheric gasses are largely transparent to IR radiation. So your comparison to relative proportions of different atmospheric gasses and their heat retention behaviour is logically flawed.

          • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

            I would not bother debating with reason with that one.

          • Pedro 5 years ago

            Get your point, but twisting of the truth and dressing it in misunderstood quasi science needs to be vigorously challenged every time it sprouts up. There are other people that read such posts and believe such rubbish as they do not have a sufficiently high level of scientific understanding to judge correctly.

          • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

            I would think that any credibility is a minimal risk on this site but am happy to have this troll’s “arguments” challenged.

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            Earth without all atmosphere:
            Characteristic-emission temperature = 255 K

            Earth with all atmosphere:
            Characteristic-emission temperature = 288 K

            Total thermal retention of all of the entire atmosphere contributes a 33 K warming.

            CO2 = 400ppm (1/2500th or 0.04%)

            IPCC ‘bed-wetter’ estimate for 6deg rise for doubling of CO2 means that 6/33rd of the current 33 degree heat retention is caused by CO2 … that means ~1/6th of all of it caused by a .04% trace gas!

            IPCC ‘revised’ target for 2deg rise of doubling of CO2 means that 2/33rd of the current 33 degree heat retention is caused by that .04% trace gas … still way too high.

            I was indoctrinated at school (I’m 33yrs old) into believing this climate ‘science’, and then was about to dump my career in statistical analysis in order to become a climate scientist, or at least work with climate data. I wanted to do this so I could have a more rewarding career, and I thought this was a worthwhile occupation. Until I looked at basic maths like this that is, and then had a rather rude and shocking awakening, especially when I applied my knowledge of business analysis to the potential profits to be made in Carbon Derivatives and Credits industries … all of which the current ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial firms in the west have dedicated departments.

            Basically, I don’t need to look at the IPCC models (which have proven quite incorrect anyway), because I have already done the simple calculation above and slapped myself around the face and realized the whole thing is a fraud.

            And what about in the Jurassic-Cretaceous 450-Mya when CO2 concentrations were more than 15 times the current level? Were 2 degrees added for every 400ppm? Why then the flourishing of life in the Jurassic-Cretaceous? It is just astounding to me that people believe that science can be done by consensus. Pathological science is indeed quite alive and well.

            And being a statistician I can study the Michael Mann hockey stick for what it is … a bottom up built data filter designed to create hockey sticks … no wonder the IPCC dumped it and won’t mention at all Michael Mann’s name. Galileo would be rolling in his grave.

            I will NEVER repent of my ‘denial’.

          • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

            Go away troll!!

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            I’m sorry for injecting a little maths into your day. Emoticons can now replace the hockey stick on IPCC reports.

            I Can’t wait until ‘Climate Denier’ evolves into ‘Climate Heretic’, that will be a pleasant evolution to the ‘debate’ in our lovely democracy.

            Science replaced by pejorative slinging is un-gentlemanly, but then again, Bolsheviks were never very social people.

          • Pedro 5 years ago

            I think your analysis is far too simplistic to be credible. You simply can not compare the levels of one gas to another gas of differing chemical and physical/spectral properties in a volumetric/mass ratio way. It is like comparing water to alcohol. I could drink a litre of both in a short period. One fluid has severe consequences.

            I checked out your assertion of CO2 concentration levels being far higher 450 mya which was confirmed at the site I visited below. A little more reading reveals that the sun was 2% dimmer in that period along with other possible factors.


            97% of peer reviewed climate scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause of climate change and global warming. Not one credible climate or other suitably qualified scientist so far has put forward a believable and credible explanation as to why the Earth is 0.89 degrees warmer than at pre industrial times.

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            I wasn’t comparing the effect of one against the other, I was making a statement against the totality of the system. If the current 33 deg is caused by the entire atmosphere, and CO2 is already at .04%, then if the IPCC says a FURTHER .04% will cause 6 to 2 degrees warming due to the special qualities of this particular molecular gas, then the CURRENT .04% must also be attributing this much also. Is there some invisible quality of additional CO2 to that which is already in the atmosphere? Does the Sun and the physical universe have a special cap-and-trade mechanism for thermal energy trapped by CO2 as soon as it passes a certain magical threshold? Of course not, because it’s like-for-like … this is basic logic and maths.

            Yes it is simplistic, and it proves without a doubt the lunacy of the ‘bed wetting’ scenario created by charlatans such as Michael Mann who even the IPCC has dropped into the memory hole because he tried to convince the world that the Mediaeval Warm Period didn’t even happen.

            >>>97% of peer reviewed climate scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause of climate change and global warming.

            No, no, it was already proven that the scientists who were counted in that number didn’t even make a suggestion in their work that they believed in IPCC bed wetting scenarios. Most climate scientists were asked whether they thought CO2 was ‘the major greenhouse gas’ which it obviously is, but most will not say that it is the major driver of ‘global warming’, though just like a dodgy referendum question, the IPCC runs its own polls (and designs them for a given result just as Mann did with the hockey stick filter). If in reality CO2 is 75% of all greenhouse effect (minus the feedbacks such as water vapor), but that the greenhouse effect is almost negligible above a certain atmospheric concentration, then a person could answer yes to such a question whilst being highly skeptical of a bed wetting scenario.

            SCIENCE IS NOT A CONSENSUS! You people are ruining science by enthroning pathological science on a tenured throne. At a future time when humanity comes to its senses, we will all look back on this issue as the next example of a flat earth infestation of common sense by special interest groups and their financial and political prerogatives. Known as fraud.

            >>>A little more reading reveals that the sun was 2% dimmer in that period along with other possible factors.
            OK, let’s use your figure on a dimmer sun, and add 2 degrees per .04% at 15 times the CO2 concentration, and we get an increase of 14 x 2 deg (lets use the 1/3 bed wetter scenario for fun), for a massive 28 DEGREE INCREASE … and then remove 2% to account for your dimmer Sun, now 28 Degree increase becomes about 27.5 Degrees. So why on Earth would that even be a counterpoint to the question of the ridiculousness of a .04% trace gas attributing 6/33rds to 2/33rds of ALL atmospheric thermal retention? A 6 degree scenario would make the increase 14x6deg=84 degrees hotter! My God man.

            ‘Skeptical Science’ is a great example of a website which will be taught in future universities as EXHIBIT A on what pathological ‘science’ is, and exactly how logical fallacies that rely on the old ‘the experts know best, it’s too much for the 99% to understand, don’t worry, we have it all under control’.

            Rebutting a simple calculation with such a ridiculous retort about dimmer solar energy of 2% would make Einsteins head spin. Please wake up. Goldman Sachs just staged a coup, but I guess the new religion just won, and the financial priests of the New Order (including the Pope at Vatican Inc), can deliver y’all communion in the form of Armageddon scenarios for years to come. Carbon Indulgences can change the thermostat of the Earth, all pay the piper, the Pope says the ‘debate’ is over.

          • Pedro 5 years ago

            Do you honestly think that your back of the envelope math with flawed assumptions can compete with scientific academics who have spent years if not decades testing their climate models with super computers? I am happy to admit that I am not an expert in this field, but have enough mathematical and scientific understanding to spot fraudulent claims and bogus assumptions a mile away.

            It is also typical of some one who does not agree with the overwhelming consensus on any particular scientific fact be it smoking causing lung cancer or a heliocentric solar system to resort name calling (bed wetters) otherwise known as attacking the messenger.

            Good luck with your world view. I wont be replying to anymore of your posts

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            ‘bed-wetter’ is equivalent to ‘denier’ in the ad hominem department.

            >>>Do you honestly think that your back of the envelope math…

            Even Nobel Laureates trust this ‘back of the envelope math’ more than the IPCC proxies, which aren’t super computers by the way, they don’t actually need the likes of the Tianjin super computer to run adjusted NOAA data through a bunch of filters designed to draw hockey sticks. Science is not a consensus and never was. Conditional tenures and grant money pollute scientific method, and if you think that any super computer on earth has the ability to simulate even remote accuracy of the climate of this planet, then you don’t understand much about data, processing, and the creation of complex models (I do).

            I notice how you people will never comment on why the IPCC has completely dropped Michael Mann off the cart and won’t mention his name anymore. I’ll tell you why, because as a statistician I didn’t need to be a climate scientist to identify a ‘proxy reconstruction’ that would draw hockey sticks even if it was fed random red noise as data. You don’t have to be Isaac Newton to assume that there is a force that keeps you stuck to the ground.

            Here’s a good question though. Cui Bono? Phone up Goldman Sachs and ask them if Carbon Trading is good for the filthy rich. Al Gore will be able to afford his carbon permits, and the after the rich buy their share of the available ones for less that .1% of their total income, the market will push up the price of the remaining credits. The $2 a day farmer in Islamabad or Nairobi however will have to forefeit $1 (50%) of that to buy an indulgence on a carbon market where Goldman will take their cut for creating it probably out of thin air (pardon the pun).

          • Barri Mundee 5 years ago

            Yeah yeah, not worth further comment with all those tired old denier arguments. We’ve moved beyond that FF shill.

          • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

            What, that a .04% trace gas has the same effect as 1/5th all atmospheric layers on heat retention? I thought that was just true using the IPCC’s own figures and the same solar thermal models that determine heating per square meter on a solid object a certain distance from the Sun.

            Look, I understand that I am denying your religious dogma and that the simple mathematical formulas involved don’t fit your ideology, thus you revert to complicated ‘the professionals know better’ … but I am quite willing to burn at the stake as the Pope claps if need be. Thank you for being so tolerant to my ‘denial’ and once I’m gone your Climate Armageddon can be avoided by putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the Earths Thermal Accounting Ledger.

            What are you so upset over though? YOUR MAN is now in Kirribilli! You guys won, you should be proud of this fact, because your team just won and you don’t even known it.

            Turnbull will be falling all over himself come PARIS 2015 to cede all economic sovereignty of this country to Carbon Bourses and a UN Bureaucracy. You won. Everyone loves a winner, to hell with the maths and science, it’s all about the winning right? Good job and you get to burn some ‘deniers’ soon.

        • EyesWideOpen 5 years ago

          Just a little heads up about Goldman Sachs:
          ### http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/environmental-stewardship-and-sustainability/environmental-markets/trading-and-capital-markets.html ###
          QUOTE: “We act as a market maker in emissions and other environmental commodities, and look for ways to play a constructive role in promoting the development of these markets. By making markets in these products, we enable greater liquidity and market access, which in turn helps our clients to more effectively manage their risks. In Europe, we have been market makers in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme since its inception in 2005.”

          MARKET MAKERS since the EU market inception … whilst they’re not looting pension and sovereign wealth funds and calling their own clients ‘muppets’ that is.

          Malcolm Turnbull is an ‘ex’ MARKET MAKER … and not a constitutional lawyer, or a family lawyers, or a defense attorney, or a litigator, but a CORPORATE LAWYER and ‘ex’ MERCHANT BANKER. No widows and orphans or pro-bono work done here, just a corporate whore.

          So my whole point is, what are you guys upset about? You won. A $200million net worth Carbon Market Maker, the richest politician in Australia, just ousted an elected PM, and has said in the past that he could ‘not live with himself’ if he didn’t put a ‘price on carbon’. What do you all think the last 4 heads that have rolled in Canberra was about? Asylum seekers? Ha! You won. Congrats. Every good Socialist system needs a Banker and a Corporate Lawyer to ensure that Stockholm Syndrome is induced in the remaining sector of the free thinking populace, and that national debts keep increasing to cover the living standard increases of the .01% who feed off of the accrued perpetual interest tributes! Champagne corks were popping over at the BIS when Abbott’s head rolled that’s for sure.

          Malcolm is on the yellow brick road to PARIS 2015! Click your heels together Dorothy, cos sovereignty is going bye byes. Bring on the Banana Republic and the TBTF Financial Technocracy … all must pay their Carbon tribute (aka, Indulgences)

  11. Ken Dyer 5 years ago

    Had your fill of turnbulldust yet? At least Abbott’s three word slogans were understandable sometimes. Now its nothing but hubris – nothing will change until this mob are tossed out, no matter who the “leader” is.

    • Chokyi Nyingpo 5 years ago

      Yes, agreed but who or what party will you offer up as an alternative to “this mob”?

  12. John Saint-Smith 5 years ago

    I can’t say I’m surprised. Turnbull was only ever ‘playing’ at being a progressive when it suited. He’s a lawyer first and an unrepentant capitalist second. They’re the people who defend the rights of murderers for profit, and despite the fact that they know their client is guilty as charged, they do everything they can to twist the facts to get the lightest possible sentence and the biggest pay-off. I’m sure Malcolm will enjoy himself wrong-footing the opposition, and helping (coincidentally) to keep his position as PM and leader of the climate change deniers party and to hell with principles or the planet.

  13. Ross Carroll 5 years ago

    I would counsel patience. Realistically, Turnbull is like the boy Pi. Sure he’s survived a sinking ship and almost certain death, but now he’s in a life boat with a tiger and he’s going to have to be very cunning to survive. I’m certain Turnbull will make changes that will allow renewables to thrive here but he’ll do it in a measured way and keep control of his `narrative’.

    I have a feeling Paris is going to be a very important meeting and I’ll bet Turnbull turns up to the summit as well. Turnbull has to prove to his party and the public that there are business opportunities and jobs in the Renewable sector. If he can do that loudly and convincingly then anything the Nationals and dullards such as Ian McDonald say will sound hollow and desperate to most Australians.

    It would be great to see more stories along the lines of economic success’s from the Renewable Energy industry from around the world here on renew economy dot com.
    I know you do have many already but we need to step it up sooner rather than later if we’re to help turn the Australian public around in a major way.

    • Rob G 5 years ago

      He doesn’t have much time to play a long endgame. If he has good intentions he might start by sacking Hunt.

    • Brad Sherman 5 years ago

      Well said.

  14. lin 5 years ago

    Turnbull can start supporting science and following expert analysis, or he will have a very short honeymoon period as PM. If he starts talking like Abbott, he will start losing popularity like Abbott did.

  15. Rob G 5 years ago

    I think Labor need to make it very clear in the lead up to the next election that they are united on climate change action and that the LNP are all over the place. I would say if Turnbull is still faithful to the cause that it isn’t enough to trust him as his party are so behind on this. And when looking to take the gloss off Turnbull we may find an unlikely friend in the right wing skeptic (and Abbott supporter) who will erode the party from within.

  16. John Roderts 5 years ago

    Turnbull lost the leadership of the Liberal Party in 2009 when he spoke up for climate change action and the conservative wing of his party ditched him for Tony Abbott. And that turned out great for Australia didn’t it? So Like abbott it’s all about his JOB and everything else can go jump. Where are our pollies morals or ethnics, dumb founded.

  17. Brad Sherman 5 years ago

    I’m pretty sure that the leader doesn’t get to dictate policy to the party. MT apparently signed a deal to not change the current climate policy as a quid pro quo for Nationals support. I personally believe that MT, unlike TA, places a lot of weight on evidence rather than on ideology and that he will use evidence plus his considerable rhetorical skills to try to change things. But, MT needs to be given a chance to persuade his party to adopt superior renewable energy policies. 3 days is not a chance – I find the constant unreasonable harping in the media that there hasn’t been an instantaneous about face really irritating.

    Either MT changes the trajectory of his party during the next year or the current polls showing how loathed the current govt is (as opposed to its leader) will simply carry forward and it will be some other party’s turn to govern.

    • Macabre 5 years ago

      i agree with the need for MT to be given more time, but at some point we need clarity on how hard he will fight for his beliefs – or whether the mantel of power is sufficient for him to tow the existing party line. This needs to be made crystal clear to the electorate prior to the election. I hope Labor is up to the task.

  18. mick 5 years ago

    I watched that effort yesterday (rain day) and thought f— w—– ,had a beer cooled down and recalled the body language of his peers,concluded nothing but its possible that investors may think_ well he aint going to be any better but possibly,maybe he wont make it any worse

  19. Finn Peacock 5 years ago

    Funny thing is Malcolm knows full well Clean Coal is a crock:

  20. Ian 5 years ago

    Seriously! The skin may have changed but the liberal program stays the same, all buggy and with numerous dropped links. Their code is outdated and beset with fossil fuel viruses. Maybe it’s time to switch to the labor’s Os, but I bet their beta version on climate change and renewable energy is just as glitchy.

  21. Rob 5 years ago

    Some suggest Turnbull needs to be cut some slack to try and herd his party of dinosaurs on this issue. Trouble is, pretty much any time from now we can wake up and find ourselves in an election campaign. The better Turnbull looks in the polls, the greater the temptation for him to call an early election. Sure, we can hope Turnbull is lying when he says he agrees with LNP policies on CC but, even so, barring UN sanctions on Australia, I can’t see him turning the Coalition around on this in the next 12 months.

    We know Australia and the planet cannot afford to lose another four years to this nonsense. Rather than patience, we need to relentlessly step up the pressure on the LNP and give them as much grief as possible. If Turnbull is a closet believer in CC action, an unambiguous message from the voters will only help his cause within the party and if not, they’ll be swept away. Climate must be the top issue at the next election and we cannot emerge from it without electing a government, Green, Labor or LNP, whom we trust to take effective action on climate change. It’s time to raise hell, starting now.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.