Climate Change Policy: Some Shady Business
In what is his last article for 2016 (see below), Andrew Bolt has made yet another important contribution to the culture wars in outlining why Turnbull “cannot lead the Liberals to victory”. This article is obviously based in part on being briefed by a minister on the Cabinet discussions on the terms of reference for the climate change policy review. The briefing revealed that in Cabinet Turnbull had supported the review covering a scheme which would operate to reduce emissions by some form of trading scheme, and which would involve the government setting a price on carbon, but which would not be specified in the terms of reference.
Bolt also reveals that, after Frydenberg told the media that the review would “look at” an emissions intensity scheme, Turnbull arranged for The Australian’s Paul Kelly to be told that Frydenberg had been mistaken in saying this publicly – and as a result Kelly played down the idea that Turnbull supported such an arrangement in his article published in Weekend Australian. This article, which is available here, contains assertions about the “far right” and claims that Frydenberg’s political standing “took a hit”. In reality his status has increased – although not under Turnbull. Note that Bolt rightly describes Kelly as “a Turnbull man”.
This “arrangement” may explain why three letters I have sent since 5 December for publication have been knocked back by The Australian and also by the AFR ie Turnbull may have also made an “arrangement” with the latter. The Australian’s editorials today say nothing on climate change (strange given the policy remains unclear) and the AFR’s are supportive of Turnbull’s decision to “shutdown of the EIS” … (as) quietening “the Coalition’s right and wedging Labor as the party of high power prices”. In short, there has been a media cover up.
As I have said in previous Commentaries, the fact that Trump is now openly critical of US policy under Obama will make it difficult for Turnbull to justify Australia continuing to stick to the existing 26-28 reduction in emissions, let alone justify his own handling of climate change policy.