Turnbull mulls why ScoMo is a climate psycho

Takes one to know one. Via BBC:

Australian PM Scott Morrison has been accused of lacking leadership during the bushfire crisis – by the man he replaced after a party room coup.

Malcolm Turnbull, who was deposed in 2018, told the BBC that Mr Morrison had misled the country by “downplaying” the influence of global warming.

Mr Morrison apologised last month for taking a US holiday amid the fires. He has insisted his policies are adequate.

But Mr Turnbull said he “cannot explain” his successor’s approach.

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Turnbull also said US President Donald Trump was the world’s “leading climate denier” and that America’s lack of leadership was “extremely damaging”.

Mr Turnbull said “everybody knew we were in a very dry time” before the fire season, and that it “was likely to be very bad”.

“Rather than doing what a leader should do… [Mr Morrison] downplayed it, and at times discounted the influence of climate change, which is just nonsense from a scientific point of view. So that’s misleading people,” said Mr Turnbull.

“Then of course [he] chose to go away on holiday in Hawaii at the peak of the crisis. So I can’t explain any of that.

“It’s just not consistent with the way in which a prime minister would or should act in a national crisis like this.”

Since September, bushfires have scarred Australia. At least 30 people have died, livelihoods have been lost along with thousands of homes, while the catastrophic impact on wildlife may never be known.

Mr Morrison has conceded he caused “great anxiety in Australia” by taking his family to the US as record-breaking heat exacerbated fires.

“I know there are some who’ve tried to make political points and score points in the midst of these disasters, and that’s disappointing,” he said before Christmas.

He asserted that climate change was “one of many factors” responsible for the blazes.

As the fires have raged, so has the debate about climate change and its part in Australia’s destructive summer.

Mr Turnbull took aim at former colleagues in the governing Liberal Party, accusing another ex-prime minister, Tony Abbott, of being “probably the most prominent climate denier in Australian politics, but there are plenty of others” who were engaged in a “war against science”.

“It is an extraordinarily irrational and self-destructive approach,” Mr Turnbull said.

Mr Turnbull’s prime ministership began in 2015 when he removed Mr Abbott, a long-time rival. He was in power for three years before being ousted in similar fashion.

It was a fevered period in Australian politics, and Mr Turnbull was castigated by a senior minister as being spiteful and indecisive. He also faced criticism externally for not doing more while in power.

Shortly before he was replaced, Mr Turnbull abandoned his commitment to set an emissions reduction target in legislation, in what critics viewed as a last-ditch concession to his party’s right wing.

Australia’s emissions target has long been criticised as inadequate for a wealthy nation. The 2030 target of a 26% reduction on 2005 levels is one of the weakest among G20 nations.

But the University of Oxford graduate, and former barrister and banker, told the BBC he had been the victim of a ruthless political insurgency.

“The right [wing] in the Liberal Party essentially operate like terrorists,” he said.

“Now I’m not suggesting that they use guns and bombs or anything like that, but their approach is one of intimidation.

“And they basically say to the rest of the party… if you don’t do what we want, we will blow the show up. Famously one of the coup leaders said to me, ‘you have to give in to the terrorists’.”

In his offices overlooking Sydney’s harbour are small-framed photographs of Mr Turnbull with world leaders: former US president Barack Obama, Indian PM Narendra Modi and Indonesian president Joko Widodo.

There is also a picture with Mr Trump. Not so much a happy snap – the pair famously clashed over a refugee swap deal and there’s hostility, too, over the environment.

“Trump is playing a very destructive role in terms of climate action. Trump makes no bones about it. He says global warming is rubbish,” Mr Turnbull said.

“Trump is trying to put a brake on global action to reduce emissions. The lack of American leadership is extremely damaging.”

He added: “How many more coral reefs have to be bleached? How many more million hectares of forest have to be burned?

“How many more lives and homes have to be lost before the climate change deniers acknowledge they are wrong?”

It’s easy to explain:

  • The Coalition is not influenced by the coal lobby, it is the coal lobby.
  • It’s political fortunes rest entirely on retaining QLD (coal) seats.
  • ScoMo is a pathologicval narcissisist unable to see or empathise with other’s point of view. This was very obvious during his bushfires leadership meltdown.

We will not see climate change action form the Coalition. End of story.

The real issue is why has Labor’s Albotross betrayed the cause. For QLD votes, sure. But given the building crisis and demands for action are an obvious political opportunity is that really a good enough reason?

Is he bought too now? Is he just another psycho? Or is he stupid?

Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. Don’t think we will see anything from Fed Labor either
    Waves at Joel FitzGIBBON and Martin Ferguson

    Going to be led by state govts (both sides, noting Vic Lib leader shift, and Marshall Govt, Matt Kean), consumers and maybe, just maybe, if Clare O’Neil and friends can roll Dim Chalmers and Anfonee CoalMoneyIsSoEassyyyyy

    Maybe top down pressure from capital divestment and trade deal thumbscrewing from the EU

  2. If people want change they (us) have to do it themselves.

    Start by switching residential and business electricity plans to 100% Green Energy.

    It will moves markets – both substantially and quickly.

    Move governments by moving markets; move markets by putting your money where your mouth is.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      I agree that the response to CC will be market driven.
      Australia will caught on the wrong side of it, still flogging Coal and Gas as the markets for FF’s disapear.

      After meeting with my local National Party Fed rep today I can only agree with H&H , the Coalition Government ARE the Coal looby

  3. Wonder if Smoco might be thinking. “Let me hang in there somehow until all the bushes burn. Once everything is burnt, there won’t be any future bushfires and I will be safe from all attacks. Probably if I increase migration even further, I can get developers to build more houses where the bushes stood and create more real estate and tradie jobs.”

  4. The Coalition is not influenced by the coal lobby, it is the coal lobby.

    ✔ That’s proven.

    It’s political fortunes rest entirely on retaining QLD (coal) seats.

    Yes, which is why Palmer was helped under the table to run a futile campaign promising lots of undeliverable goodies to gullible people, who then voted for him, and had their preferences funneled to the COALition. Did anybody wonder why Palmer was grinning like a Cheshire Cat after not winning anything in the election? He didn’t care! Mission accomplished!

    ScoMo is a pathological narcissist unable to see or empathise with other’s point of view. This was very obvious during his bushfires leadership meltdown.

    Narcissism is almost a prerequisite for conservative politics, and even some on the Left (cough*Rudd*cough)

    We will not see climate change action form the Coalition. End of story.

    I agree. A change of government is absolutely obligatory.

    The real issue is why has Labor’s Albotross betrayed the cause. For QLD votes, sure. But given the building crisis and demands for action are an obvious political opportunity is that really a good enough reason?

    Oddly enough, I kind of sympathize with Albo and Labor on this. They had their asses handed to them in the last election, and now see climate action as a liability. Plenty of Australians are in thrall to the huge Murdoch denial machine. Labor needs to get in first, then take action. I don’t think Albo is saying what he’s thinking, at all. And I think Labor will not be spelling out its agenda like that again, and running against a policy-free COALition who only need to criticize and run fear campaigns to get elected

      • In 2017-18, fossil fuel companies donated $1,277,933 to the ALP, Liberal and National parties. This was up 32% from $968,343 in 2016-17 ($1.03 million in 2015-16).

        Labor’s disastrous new policy to spend $1.5b of taxpayer dollars subsidising a fracking carbon bomb bigger than Adani’s Carmichael coal mine

        Origin Energy & Santos will both gain from Labor’s generosity

        https://www.marketforces.org.au/politicaldonations2019/

        • That’s a better link. I think you got your wires crossed in the first post.

          Yes, both sides of politics are compromised, but Labor does want to take action on climate, I believe. Even some of those companies donating money want action taken, to give them certainty.

  5. Scotty from marketing

    Isn’t turnbull companys 100% green they had to night of long knife him it was right thing to do livelihoods and all

  6. Old man albo isn’t going to cut it.he isn’t a leader at all. He has all the verve and charisma of a ventriloquist dummy without the hand up it’s bum. Every time I see on tv all I can visualise is a pensioner sitting down for a nice cup of tea and a Tim tam. And as for Turnbull. This from the tool who destroyed the NBN.

    • Scotty from marketing

      He’s dirty old dithering win0 who’s time is near end you spot on mate we need a strong figure head like dutton now to calm the sheep

  7. So, let’s get this clear, it is the enlightened, pro science position, that addressing the bushfire risk involves Australia unilaterally suiciding its economy for the sake of making climate perhaps 0.1 degree less hot and 0.1% less dry; or if it is lucky its good example will make the rest of the world follow suit, making climate perhaps 1 degree less warm and 1% less dry than it otherwise would have been in 30 years time.

    And anyone who suggests that the following is actually a much more rational policy approach is an evil right-wing “denier”:
    A large scale monitored committal to dry-fuel reduction with wintertime controlled burn-offs
    Maintenance of wide “breaks” in Eucalypt Gum forests especially around roads and human habitation
    Restoring tree-species diversity (Eucalypts incrementally take over because they rebound fastest after each fire) with large tracts of less flammable species, including appropriate exotic species
    Holistic “regreening” techniques utilizing Alan Savary’s principles of intelligent livestock rotation, water supply, and re-seeding with appropriate species of flora

    I’ve got no problem with ScoMo rejecting the “Climate Policy” approach as “the solution” to this issue. I do have a problem with all cuckservatives failing to show some leadership on true solutions, and letting the Climatistta, eco-Taleban types set the media-political agenda.

    The main “objection” to the proposals above being, of course, that the Gaia Earth Mother might be upset with those arrogant humans sacriligeously tampering with nature. And Australia is meant to be a secular, enlightenment-based nation?

      • can you give us more scientific evidence from daily mail and other Murdoch journals of science?

        BTW. blaming gum trees for a rise in extreme fires in a country where gum trees have ever reducing share … is like blaming elephants (few surviving) for famines in Ethiopia

        • Ad Hominem. It is a biologist named Jeremy Griffith who is getting reported by the Daily Mail, and also The Telegraph, possibly your “mainstream” sources find what he says, inconvenient. Quadrant is not a Murdoch publication and it is irrelevent to the factuality anyway who owns the publication. Stick to the actual argument, particularly the points I made based on human reason, about ways to mitigate this risk. What’s your basis for NOT wanting to do any of it? What’s anyone’s basis apart from deep agenda-driven dishonesty and unreason?

          People didn’t used to get roasted in their vehicles because there used to be wide breaks besides roads. I believe Ray Evans in Quadrant, 2009, and Germaine Greer and others who are prepared to wander off the “progressive” plantation, and my own lyin’eyes, ahead of the hysterical reason-bereft Green mob. George Reisman is quite right that almost everything on “environment” comes down to Green unreason versus “human reason” period..

          • Nonsense.

            So, let’s get this clear, it is the enlightened, pro science position, that addressing the bushfire risk involves Australia unilaterally suicding its economy for the sake of making climate perhaps 0.1 degree less hot and 0.1% less dry; or if it is lucky its good example will make the rest of the world follow suit, making climate perhaps 1 degree less warm and 1% less dry than it otherwise would have been in 30 years time.

            Wow, so much disinformation, so little time to correct it! Unfortunately, Brandolini’s Law does not allow me to fully address this. But I will point out just one thing: we can create an economy based on our true strengths, a very high insolation country (that means high sun exposure) with a highly educated population and stable society. We should be able to prosper, if we handle this smartly. Mike Cannon-Brooke’s plans are an example.

            Oh, and your temperature guesses are all way off, but I get the sense that if I started in on that, your eyes would glaze over. 😄

          • Oh I give up on total idiots like these people. Fix forest fire risk by ignoring any realities on the ground, it’s all about what human emit into the sky! Freakin’ incredible, talk about the decadent, loss-of reason phase of civilization! None of these people can even admit any merit in any obvious “on the ground” policy proposals. Actually they’re probably Watermelons hoping for the worst, I hope ScoMo gets a spine and fights the next election on the basis of reason versus this poison. I think better of “normal” Australians.

          • You misunderstood me. I did not attack the need for more mitigation efforts, like careful firebreaks and backburning. But that does not get at the heart of the problem, which is the drying, warming climate driven by increasing concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses. That’s the core of it all, and the whole world has to respond now, urgently.

    • Great post Phil.

      Coal (thermal and met) is still a big part of our export income. Until we have a thought through economic plan no one should be thinking of closing it down.

      The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stones and neither will the coal age.

      Before we jump to any conclusions I’d like to see a little more planning from everyone. Principally, a population policy. How do we pay for all this with no coal. What do ppl do for jobs. As we all know one answer is cut immigration to zero right now but we need the “Climatistta’s” (nice term btw) to realise that as well.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        I think you will find that continuing the coal industry will answer as the population policy.
        Consider the events of the past 3 years in Australia.
        Barrier Reef , dead
        Thousands of KM ofTropical Mangroves , fish nuseries, dead
        Towsville floods, 500,000 cattle dead
        Murray Darling river system and millions of fish, dead, due to record drought and mal water allocations.
        Darling Downs, underground water gone due to CSG mining, Underground Coal Gassification (UGL) and record drought
        Liverpool Planes under threat from record drought and CSG.
        Far North Coast floods 2017
        Worst bushfire season ever, nationally and on going,
        90 towns and settlements on verge of running out of water, will have to be abandond,Due to record drought
        National record heatwaves
        The destruction of the Tourism Industry, 4th largest National income earner.

        Yes if we keep doing business as usual we will create a country people will flee from
        http://www.deagel.com/country/Australia_c0013.aspx

    • So, let’s get this clear, it is the enlightened, pro science position, that addressing the bushfire risk involves Australia unilaterally suiciding its economy for the sake of making climate perhaps 0.1 degree less hot and 0.1% less dry; or if it is lucky its good example will make the rest of the world follow suit, making climate perhaps 1 degree less warm and 1% less dry than it otherwise would have been in 30 years time.

      And anyone who suggests that the following is actually a much more rational policy approach is an evil right-wing “denier”

      No, but that straw man’s children are going to feel that beating.

    • Scotty from marketing

      Dutton will make move this clown by May this is his chance for the Holly grail if he dose not act before May he loses his window of opportunity

  8. ex PM,a pathological narcissist criticising current PM, a psychopath

    and we think we have a functioning democracy not an oligarchy where leaders are elected by personal party games behind the door?
    USA two party system with public primary election system looks like real democracy compared to ours two party system with internal undemocratic pre-selection process

    • happy valleyMEMBER

      And ex PM narcissist gave us the current happy clappy PM narcissist as one of his legacies?

    • You might want to investigate what powers the president actually has in the US.
      Domestically the parliament has much more power than el presidente

      • in Australia PM (via party line votes) has combined power to change laws and to apply them (by definition he has majority in lower house) – so MP has almost absolute power (only currently limited by few “independent” people in the senate)

        US president can only do things according to laws passed by congress, but he (his party) doesn’t have to have majority in congress and often doesn’t have majority, not even in the lower house

    • Prime Minister != President.

      The PM has no power himself and consequently is of little importance as an individual.