Where Can Turnbull Go Now?
My Commentary of last Thursday reported that the (scientist) President of the US SEPP group had described Abbott’s address on Daring to Doubt as “one of the best talks given by a politician in decades”. I also reported that the US EPA head had announced the repeal of the Clean Power Plan initiated by Obama but rejected by the US Supreme Court. Here in Australia, leading journalist Terry McCrann had described Abbott’s address as “seminal”.
More Responses on Abbott
This morning I received a message on Tony Abbott’s London address from the President of The Science and Environmental Policy Project, Ken Haapala, in the US. It was brief but important because Ken is a scientist and an expert on climate change whose weekly messages report on the latest developments in analysing climate changes, including those theses which he judges to be “off the planet”. This message to me was a response to the full text of Abbott’s address which I sent him as an attachment to my Commentary on Tuesday 10 Oct and which I suggested to him is important “both politically and “scientifically”.
Abbott’s London Address & Turnbull Back-Track
My Commentary yesterday accurately predicted that the scheduled AFR Energy Summit and Abbott’s address in London would spark active discussion on energy policy, which necessarily involves environmental policy too. The address at the AFR Summit by Environment Minister Frydenberg indicates that the Turnbull government seems to have made a start at determining what its policy will be, although even after the many statements that “it’s coming” it seems it will not be finalised until the end of the year.
Abbott Challenges Turnbull on Climate & Energy Policy
The lead front page item in today’s Australian reports Abbott as indicating publicly that he will not support a clean energy target and that he advocates subsidies cease to be paid on wind and solar projects. The Australian also publishes an article by Abbott explaining his position. Both articles are attached. Abbott’s own article seems well written and, for the increasing number of sceptics on climate policy, it contains a sensible approach to energy policy which, inter alia, would ensure a reduction in electricity prices.
Why No Clean Energy Target?
Why was Environment Minister Frydenberg unable to tell his equivalent ministers from the States what Clean Energy Target (CET) the Commonwealth government proposes? According to his comments made just before his meeting with State ministers on 14 July:
“There will be discussion about the clean energy target, but ... we received the report just five weeks ago,” Mr Frydenberg said. “We need to get this right. Dr Finkel made it very clear that the clean energy target, if it would be implemented would be from 2020, so there is no rush. What is important is to get the policy right” (see Frydenberg on CET).
Some Puzzles About Energy & Climate Policies AND Turnbull
Today’s Australian reports that, at tomorrow’s meeting with his state counterparts, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will “press his state and territory counterparts to agree to 49 of the 50 recommendations contained in the blueprint for reform handed down by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel last month, arguing that they will inject ‘stability and security’ into the market”. He will also “demand that Victoria and the Northern Territory lift their bans on onshore gas development. However “the meeting will not consider the proposed Clean Energy Target (CET), which is a priority for some states and many in industry, because of Coalition divisions over the policy” (see Finkel Not on Agenda for Meeting with States).
Coalition Ahead in Victoria, Where is Turnbull’s Energy Policy
Today’s Herald Sun reports that, on a Galaxy poll of 815 people, the Victorian Coalition headed by Matthew Guy has suddenly jumped ahead of Labor with a “primary” vote of 41/33 compared with 36.5/38 in November 2014. On this basis, they would be 53/47 on a TPP basis compared with 49/51 in February. Daniel Andrews is still the preferred Premier but more say they are dissatisfied (47) than are satisfied (38).