This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/the-political-value-of-climate-denial-has-fallen-to-zero-what-will-abbott-do-now

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The political value of climate denial has fallen to zero. What will Abbott do now? The political value of climate denial has fallen to zero. What will Abbott do now?
(35 minutes later)
In his renowned 1998 study of power and rationality, the Danish social scientist Bent Flyvbjerg concluded: “Power determines what counts as knowledge ... while it ignores or suppresses that knowledge which does not serve it.”In his renowned 1998 study of power and rationality, the Danish social scientist Bent Flyvbjerg concluded: “Power determines what counts as knowledge ... while it ignores or suppresses that knowledge which does not serve it.”
Tony Abbott used climate denial to support his purpose of bringing down the Rudd-Gillard government and gaining power, but it now seems to be a hindrance to his government.Tony Abbott used climate denial to support his purpose of bringing down the Rudd-Gillard government and gaining power, but it now seems to be a hindrance to his government.
During the 2013 election, Abbott walked a fine line, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with climate deniers. Then, on his first day as prime minister, he sacked the Climate Commission, the authoritative body set up by the previous Labor government to educate the public about climate change. A few months later, his mentor, former prime minister John Howard, spoke in support of climate change scepticism, saying he “instinctively feel(s) that some of the claims are exaggerated”.During the 2013 election, Abbott walked a fine line, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with climate deniers. Then, on his first day as prime minister, he sacked the Climate Commission, the authoritative body set up by the previous Labor government to educate the public about climate change. A few months later, his mentor, former prime minister John Howard, spoke in support of climate change scepticism, saying he “instinctively feel(s) that some of the claims are exaggerated”.
Howard baldly admitted that he only agreed to act on climate change and to consider an emissions trading scheme in 2006-7 for political purposes. Later, a climate denier, Maurice Newman, was appointed as Abbott’s chief business adviser. Dick Warburton, another denier, conducted a review into the Renewable Energy Target. And research by the University of Technology, Sydney, found Abbott had help in the media: nearly all of the 36% of coverage in Australian newspapers in 2012 that did not accept the scientific consensus on global warming was published by the Murdoch press. Howard baldly admitted that he only agreed to act on climate change and to consider an emissions trading scheme in 2006-7 for political purposes. Later, a climate denier, Maurice Newman, was appointed as Abbott’s chief business adviser. Dick Warburton, another denier, conducted a review into the Renewable Energy Target. And research by the University of Technology, Sydney found Abbott had help in the media: nearly all of the 36% of coverage in Australian newspapers in 2012 that did not accept the scientific consensus on global warming was published by the Murdoch press.
The Abbott government then commenced its well-documented destruction of environment and climate change laws, policies and programs – the supposed salve for which was the so-called Direct Action policy. It was continuously criticised for being unworkable, expensive and worse, that it would encourage “rent-seeking” and create a “subsidy culture”.The Abbott government then commenced its well-documented destruction of environment and climate change laws, policies and programs – the supposed salve for which was the so-called Direct Action policy. It was continuously criticised for being unworkable, expensive and worse, that it would encourage “rent-seeking” and create a “subsidy culture”.
Then overseas support was sought for the Abbott government’s retrograde approach to the environment. The overreach became starkly obvious. In response to the failed attempt to de-list 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forests, the Portuguese delegation to the World Heritage committee described the justifications presented as “to say the least, feeble”, and slammed the potential move as “setting an unacceptable precedent”. Then overseas support was sought for the Abbott government’s retrograde approach to the environment. The overreach became starkly obvious. In response to the failed attempt to delist 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forests, the Portuguese delegation to the world heritage committee described the justifications presented as “to say the least, feeble” and slammed the potential move as “setting an unacceptable precedent”.
While Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper stood with Australia on opposing carbon pricing in June, Abbott’s attempt to create a broader “conservative alliance” that also included Britain, India and New Zealand fell embarrassingly flat. David Cameron and New Zealand’s prime minister, John Key, both expressed strong support for global action on climate change, including emissions trading. The story of an alliance disappeared almost as quickly as it had arisen.While Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper stood with Australia on opposing carbon pricing in June, Abbott’s attempt to create a broader “conservative alliance” that also included Britain, India and New Zealand fell embarrassingly flat. David Cameron and New Zealand’s prime minister, John Key, both expressed strong support for global action on climate change, including emissions trading. The story of an alliance disappeared almost as quickly as it had arisen.
What was astounding was how poorly Abbott misread the views of his fellow conservatives. He seemed oblivious of the fact that a few months earlier Britain had joined France, Germany and Italy in calling for a raised EU emission reduction target of 40% by 2030.What was astounding was how poorly Abbott misread the views of his fellow conservatives. He seemed oblivious of the fact that a few months earlier Britain had joined France, Germany and Italy in calling for a raised EU emission reduction target of 40% by 2030.
From then on, it only got worse. The New York Times reported on 2 January 2014 that John Kerry was determined to play a major role in brokering a global climate treaty in Paris in 2015, including by focusing the US relationship with China on the issue. You could have guaranteed that in closed door meetings between Kerry and Julie Bishop, the US secretary of state would have spoken on the issue. Similarly, Abbott and his ministers would have been well-briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs on China’s commitment to a national emissions trading scheme to commence by 2016. From then on, it only got worse. The New York Times reported on 2 January 2014 that John Kerry was determined to play a major role in brokering a global climate treaty in Paris in 2015, including by focusing the US relationship with China on the issue. You could have guaranteed that in closed-door meetings between Kerry and Julie Bishop, the US secretary of state would have spoken on the issue. Similarly, Abbott and his ministers would have been well-briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs on China’s commitment to a national emissions trading scheme to commence by 2016.
So when Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, the two most powerful men in the world, announced a joint commitment on climate change in Beijing in November, what could Abbott say? He hadn’t been at the UN climate summit in New York in September, arriving instead one day later for a Security Council meeting. He hadn’t planned to send any ministers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of the parties in Lima in December. He certainly hadn’t planned to commit any Australia dollars to the international Green Climate Fund, dismissing such programs as “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. He had steadfastly refused to have climate change on the agenda for the G20 in Brisbane. So when Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, the two most powerful men in the world, announced a joint commitment on climate change in Beijing in November, what could Abbott say? He hadn’t been at the UN climate summit in New York in September, arriving instead one day later for a security council meeting. He hadn’t planned to send any ministers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of the parties in Lima in December. He certainly hadn’t planned to commit any Australia dollars to the international Green Climate Fund, dismissing such programs as “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. He had steadfastly refused to have climate change on the agenda for the G20 in Brisbane.
Then the leader of the free world came to Brisbane and “shirt fronted” Abbott on climate change, giving a rousing speech noting “the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened”. Abbott was subsequently forced to allow discussion of climate change and fossil fuel subsidies in the G20 communiqué and then, remarkably, he talked up the value of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Australia’s green investment bank which he has promised to abolish) in a bilateral meeting with French president Francois Hollande. Then the leader of the free world came to Brisbane and “shirt-fronted” Abbott on climate change, giving a rousing speech noting “the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened”. Abbott was subsequently forced to allow discussion of climate change and fossil fuel subsidies in the G20 communique and then, remarkably, he talked up the value of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Australia’s green investment bank which he has promised to abolish) in a bilateral meeting with French president François Hollande.
Next, Julie Bishop put her foot down and told Cabinet she was going to Lima. Abbott responded by sending Andrew Robb, another climate change denier, as a chaperone, catalysing a round of media speculation about Bishop’s leadership ambitions and potential. $200m was found for the Green Climate Fund. Next, Julie Bishop put her foot down and told cabinet she was going to Lima. Abbott responded by sending Andrew Robb, another climate change denier, as a chaperone, catalysing a round of media speculation about Bishop’s leadership ambitions and potential. $200m was found for the Green Climate Fund.
Across the chamber, Bill Shorten has played this issue well. Abbott might have thought it was electoral suicide committing to reintroduce a price on carbon more than two years out from an election, after the “toxic tax” line seemingly worked so successfully against Julia Gillard. Time and events have changed the debate. People have not noticed the claimed extra money in their pockets from the carbon price repeal. They have noticed that emissions are again increasing. Advocates have also made much of the fact that over 24,000 people are employed in the renewable energy industry and around three million voters now have solar electricity generators on their roofs. Across the chamber, Bill Shorten has played this issue well. Abbott might have thought it was electoral suicide committing to reintroduce a price on carbon more than two years out from an election, after the “toxic tax” line seemingly worked so successfully against Julia Gillard. Time and events have changed the debate. People have not noticed the claimed extra money in their pockets from the carbon price repeal. They have noticed that emissions are again increasing. Advocates have also made much of the fact that more than 24,000 people are employed in the renewable energy industry and around three million voters now have solar electricity generators on their roofs.
There are two major climate change questions for Abbott in 2015. The first is how will he deal with resolving the impasse over the future of the RET. Billions of dollars of investment are at stake. While Origin CEO Grant King has been campaigning against both the carbon price and RET for several years – and is said to have the ear of the prime minister – a successful industry and citizen campaign to save solar is raising the profile of the issue with voters. Will Abbott continue to advocate for polluting big businesses or will he agree to a compromise with Labor?There are two major climate change questions for Abbott in 2015. The first is how will he deal with resolving the impasse over the future of the RET. Billions of dollars of investment are at stake. While Origin CEO Grant King has been campaigning against both the carbon price and RET for several years – and is said to have the ear of the prime minister – a successful industry and citizen campaign to save solar is raising the profile of the issue with voters. Will Abbott continue to advocate for polluting big businesses or will he agree to a compromise with Labor?
The second is the question of narrative. In response to the dramatic Sydney bushfires in October 2013 Abbott said “these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they are just a function of life in Australia”. He then accused UN climate chief Christine Figueres of “talking through her hat” when she said (in general terms) bushfires are “absolutely” linked to climate change. The second is the question of narrative. In response to the dramatic Sydney bushfires in October 2013, Abbott said “these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they are just a function of life in Australia”. He then accused UN climate chief Christine Figueres of “talking through her hat” when she said (in general terms) bushfires are “absolutely” linked to climate change.
To return to our Danish social scientist, Flyvbjerg notes that “In a democratic society, rational argument is one of the few forms of power the powerless still possess”. The voices of the powerless are now being amplified: climate change stories are now being told by the most powerful men and women in the world. As bushfires rage, floodwaters rise and cyclones blow over the next year, how will the prime minister modify his language and use of the facts? To return to our Danish social scientist, Flyvbjerg notes that “in a democratic society, rational argument is one of the few forms of power the powerless still possess”.
Gabrielle Kuiper was senior adviser on climate change, energy and environment to former prime minister Julia Gillard. She now works in energy policy and is a director of the Australian solar council. The voices of the powerless are now being amplified: climate change stories are now being told by the most powerful men and women in the world. As bushfires rage, floodwaters rise and cyclones blow over the next year, how will the prime minister modify his language and use of the facts?
Gabrielle Kuiper was senior adviser on climate change, energy and environment to former prime minister Julia Gillard. She now works in energy policy and is a director of the Australian Solar Council.