Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Tony Abbott
Tony Abbott's elevation to Liberal leader was largely based on his opposition to carbon pricing. Photograph: AAP
Tony Abbott's elevation to Liberal leader was largely based on his opposition to carbon pricing. Photograph: AAP

Why Tony Abbott wants to abolish the carbon price

This article is more than 10 years old
Why is abolishing the carbon price Tony Abbott's 'top legislative priority'?

Why does Tony Abbott want to abolish the carbon price? What are some consequences if he did?

Two days after the Australian election, prime minister-elect Tony Abbott declared that his "top legislative priority" would be the removal of a carbon tax.

In an interview to the Daily Telegraph Mr Abbott said: "The carbon tax has been a handbrake on the NSW economy and I will assure Premier O'Farrell today that my top legislative priority is scrapping the carbon tax because that will be an adrenalin shot for local business and relief for families too."

Despite his eagerness to abolish the carbon price, his cabinet won't be sworn in by the Governor General until Wednesday, a full eleven days after the election. (This is despite him campaigning that there was a budget and border emergency.) His new ministry, announced on Monday, also abolishes the role of Minister for Climate Change, opting for just Environment Minister.

This sends a clear signal that climate change is not a priority to the incoming government.

Why does Tony Abbott want to abolish the carbon price?

There are no doubt several competing reasons for Tony Abbott's desires to abolish the carbon price. Obviously there is a political imperative for him to pursue this course, given that his elevation to the Liberal leadership was primarily based around opposition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009.

However, in my view it's clear that Mr Abbott wants to abolish the carbon tax primarily for two reasons.

Firstly, he is either not convinced of the urgency of the threat of climate change to Australia's economy or society, or doesn't believe in climate change at all. For example, one of Tony Abbott's business advisors, former ABC chairman Maurice Newman, in an article in The Australian equated concern over climate change to a "global warming religion" and climate scientists as a "global warming priesthood".

Mr Abbott himself famously said in an interview that climate change is "crap", and his ministry and senior member of his political party are avowed climate change science deniers. This position was made clear in 2009 by Malcolm Turnbull after being dumped as leader:

"the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion 'climate change is crap' or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world."


Secondly, powerful vested interests in Australia, including the fossil fuel lobby, mining industry and carbon intensive corporations are heavy donors to Mr Abbott's Liberal Party.

Major donors to the Liberal Party prior to the 2013 election, according to the Australian Electoral Commission include mining company Santos ($227,880), Clive Palmer's Minerology ($459,900), nickel miners Minara Resources ($358,000) and Mincor Resources ($120,000), Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group ($50,000), and oil giant Chevron ($28,500).

It has been reported that Gina Rinehart, a major supporter of Barnaby Joyce (who is a member of the Queensland Liberal National Party and was elected as deputy leader of the National Party), has surrounded herself with notorious climate skeptics. In a profile of Rinehart in The Monthly, author Nick Bryant wrote:

"Like her father's views, Rinehart's have been reinforced through her friendships with like-minded academics and scientists, although whereas Hancock had an intellectual crush on nuclear experts like Edward Teller, Rinehart has sought out climate change sceptics like Professor Ian Plimer and Christopher Monckton. Monckton was invited to deliver the Lang Hancock Memorial Lecture in 2011. Plimer has been appointed to the boards of three of her companies, and is also a member of her pressure group, Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV)."


Barnaby Joyce, who will be a senior minister in the Abbott government claims to be a close friend of Ms Rinehart ("Gina is a great friend of mine and I'm a good mate of Gina's" said Barnaby), and according to the ABC she donated $50,000 to his campaign this year.

What would it mean to abolish the carbon price

In the twelve months since the carbon price was introduced in Australia, our nation has enjoyed nearly unparalleled economic prosperity: low inflation of 2.4 percent, strong growth in the stock market of 23 percent, record low unemployment of 5.8 percent, low interest rates of 2.5 percent (cash rate), strong terms of trade and most importantly a decrease in carbon emissions.

Carbon emissions from the highly polluting energy sector National Electricity Network fell by 7.4 percent in 2012-13. Renewable energy grew by around 30 percent in the same period. A great deal of the reductions in various sectors of the economy in carbon emissions are due to the price signals from the carbon price.

More importantly, from 2015 the Clean Energy Future Act would introduce a cap on carbon emissions, a policy tool of greater significance than the price alone.

If the carbon price were abolished, the cap on emissions would also be removed. Australia is already one of the world's largest polluters and per capita there is almost no greater carbon emitter than Australia. The removal of the carbon price would give a signal to fossil fuel companies to continue expansions of dangerous coal projects and unconventional gas projects.

Numerous other environmental policies under Tony Abbott would contribute to a likely expansion of carbon emissions, including the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the devolving of environmental regulation to state governments, and the overturning of the world heritage listing for Tasmanian forests.

Australia would also be sending a very dangerous signal to the rest of the world, that as a major polluter Tony Abbott does not plan to contribute to a global solution to climate change. Australia is about to take the chair of the G20, a very influential role. The G20 potentially has an important role to play in providing leadership in reducing global carbon emissions. As a climate denier, it would be difficult for Tony Abbott or his foreign minister Julie Bishop to credibly contribute to multilateral climate discussions.

The "direct action" sham

Mr Abbott's "direct action" plan was a cynical ploy to appear to take action on climate change before the election. In fact it would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It is a sham policy, as I wrote here.

Elements of "direct action" include planting trees and creating a "green army" of volunteers to pick up rubbish. The other major aspect of the policy would be paying major polluters to reduce their emissions through a grants process.

No credible organisation, economist or scientific body supports direct action, and before the election the Liberal Party environment spokesperson Greg Hunt was unable to explain how it would reduce carbon emissions by 5 percent as it promises to do. Senior Liberal Party minister and former party leader Malcolm Turnbull explained in 2009 that the "direct action" policy was "a farce" and "a con" designed "to do nothing".

Warming records are being broken

September is already on track to become one of the hottest on record. In Australia, this September ended the warmest twelve months since record began. In the UK, it was the hottest in seven years, while records were made in Toronto, Canada.

Australia is facing serious changes to our climate and our weather systems as a result of global warming. Mr Abbott's decision to abolish carbon pricing, if he is successful, would be an act of gross moral negligence to the future prosperity of this country and future generations.

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed