Palmer does climate change

And how!

As noted on another thread Clive Palmer has announced the PUP policies on climate change with Al Gore on board.


In case you were wondering, Gore wasn’t specially imported, he was in Australia Gore is for the Climate Reality Project, hosted by the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The central point is that PUP will support the Government’s legislation to repeal the carbon ‘tax’ on condition of an amendment that companies be required by law to pass on the savings to consumers.

Two additional votes from the other four swinging senators will be required.

Secondly, PUP will vote against the Government’s bid to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Renewable Energy Target and the Climate Change Authority.

Palmer pointed out that while in opposition the Abbott had promised that Australia would retain its renewable energy target. He will make them keep the promise. There were fears that the RET could be shut down as soon as January.

No mention was made of ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which already has a budget of $3 billion “to fund renewable energy projects, support research and development activities, and support activities to capture and share knowledge.” Presumably it stays.

Third, PUP will give the thumbs down to ‘Direct Action’. Direct Action is:

“a waste of money, at a time when families, pensioners, young Australians, stay at home mums and single parents and indigenous communities are facing unfair measures in the budget, to increase excise and indexation is not the answer”. (From the SMH)

Instead, Mr Palmer says his party will move another amendment to set up an emissions trading scheme similar to the one proposed by former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

But this version will “only become effective once Australia’s main trading partners also take action to establish such a scheme”, Mr Palmer said.

“Climate change is a global problem and it must have a global solution,” he said.

“Air moves around the world.”

The price will initially be set at zero.

My interpretation is that the PUP ETS is not linked to repealing the carbon ‘tax’, but to the proposed Direct Action.

This policy mimics what Abbott has been spruiking, so the might just go for it.

Greg Hunt must be happy. He won’t have anything to do and won’t have to fight his recalcitrant colleagues every step of the way.

The Guardian notes:

As recently as April Palmer indicated he did not accept the findings of the latest intergovernmental panel on climate change report and thought countries should be concentrating on reducing “the 97% of carbon dioxide emissions that come from nature”.

Perhaps Palmer has been reading some recent opinion surveys, where Australians are increasingly looking for action on climate change. According to Giles Parkinson, Palmer said:

“The world is constantly changing, and our ability to adapt to change and keep open open mind is what really matters.”

Any way he’s now going to “deliver hope to mankind”.

The Guardian also notes:

Palmer wholly owns a nickel refinery in Queensland that is liable to pay the carbon tax. He has now paid its outstanding carbon tax bill in full, and abstained from the vote on the carbon tax repeal in the lower house because of his conflict of interest.


Under existing law, the fixed carbon price is set to rise to $25.40 next week. A floating price would mirror the international price which is about $8.

Elsewhere there’s Michelle Grattan at The Conversation, and Laura Tingle at the AFR.

Tingle sees palmer as a populist who has outplayed Abbott and wedged Labor and The Greens. After Clive the ETS lives on as a viable policy notion with anyone but Abbott at the helm.

There’s an interesting piece at The Drum by Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods Palmer: top dog or annoying PUP? Voters see Palmer as above all arrogant, aggressive, erratic, out of touch with ordinary people and superficial. This is how the four leaders stack up overall, according to Essential Media Communications:

Political leaders_cropped-600

8 thoughts on “Palmer does climate change”

  1. At least we will keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Renewable Energy Target and the Climate Change Authority.
    And Abbott looks out of date and a bit of a fool for his Climate policy.
    So its not all bad.
    I am truly beginning to wonder if Clive’s raison d’etre for entering politics is revenge on Abbott.
    Whatever, with some reservations, its glorious to watch.

  2. Paul you could be right on Palmer’s motivation – he is out to mess with Abbott’s head in a big way. Policy doesn’t have much to do with it.

  3. Seems Don Henry, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, initiated contact with Palmer and brokered the contact with Gore. Then:

    Palmer had been willing to consider keeping the existing emissions trading scheme but his senators, who met over the weekend, insisted it had to be repealed in the first instance because that is what they had clearly promised the electorate.

    Gore then wavered about the idea of standing at a podium beside the leader of a party that was promising to repeal the world-class carbon pricing scheme.

    At the last minute he was convinced to go ahead because PUP was promising to reintroduce the scheme in a different form in the near future and had also agreed to retain the renewable energy target, which it had previously intended to try to abolish, and which the government has been preparing to dramatically wind back.

    And so it came about that Gore and Palmer, an unlikely duo, stood at a podium to announce the certain repeal of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme and the very uncertain possibility that an emissions trading scheme would be reintroduced sometime in the future.

  4. Abbott has reminded me that things like the RET, carbon tax and the ETS only work as an investment driver if there is a perception that there is strong bipartisan support that will last long enough for the investment to paid for. In the last 18 months there have been no RET driven commitments for renewable energy and, since the election, the value of RET credits have halved. It doesn’t matter what happens in the Senate, the bipartisan support required to get renewable investment going again isn’t there and isn’t going to magically reappear if Labor wins the next election.
    On the other hand, the contract based ACT solar auction schemeis still successfully driving investment in utility scale renewables.
    Contract based schemes don’t depend on bipartisan support because it is the contract, not long term bipartisan support, that gives an investor the confidence to invest.
    Supporters of climate action need to understand that the bottom line is driving down emissions, not defending specific programs such as the RET or carbon price or…..

  5. Coupla days in and Palmer shat on his voters in an ego trip.
    More to come, stay tuned folks.

  6. jumpy @6:
    Really? I thought he was staying rigorously to his platform – savings from the repeal of the carbon tax must be passed on to the punters.
    The onerous burden that saw Whyalla wiped off the map will be gone next week. Save your attack of the vapours for when he really shafts us.

  7. jumpy, thanks for digging up this post and putting your comment here. However, I don’t think you understand Palmer. Does anyone? See my new post.

Comments are closed.