Three-dimensional chess on the CPRS

Via Possum, we find that Essential Research released a poll yesterday including questions about various issues, and one in particular has piked my interest.

Thinking about the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (called the carbon pollution reduction scheme) to address climate change by which the Government aims to reduce emissions by 5-15% by 2020 – do you think the Government should:

With this fascinating poll now out, I thought it would be a good time to plot out the lay of the land on the CPRS, which must be the biggest piece of legislation to go into the Senate in 2009. I’ll run through what I believe are the objectives during the CPRS debate for each of the players, as well as the state of the numbers in the Senate and what that means for the issue of climate change.

Then I’m gonna leave it open to you to give your thoughts on what are the consequences of this three-dimensional chess match. A stronger target? A weaker target? No CPRS? A delayed CPRS? A double dissolution election? Malcolm Turnbull being rolled by Peter Costello? Joe Hockey? Bronwyn Bishop?

First of all, the crosstabs:

40% of Labor voters think the Government should keep the target set, while 37% of Labor voters think the Government should strengthen the scheme by increasing the target. Coalition voters are more likely to support the introduction of the emissions trading scheme than think that the scheme should be abandoned or delayed (48% v 40%).

Coalition voters were more likely to think the Government should abandon the emissions trading scheme (22%). 72% of Green voters think the Government should strengthen the scheme by increasing the target.

Respondents aged 18 – 24 were more likely to think the Government should strengthen the emissions trading scheme by setting a higher reduction target (48%) while respondents aged 50 years and over were more likely to think the Government should abandon the scheme (19%).

There’s a lot of interesting details in this data. It appears that the argument of the Greens and the environment movement – that the CPRS is not enough – has cut through and has the support of about one-third of Australians. This group of people would be considered to be the ALP’s left flank, as well as the Greens’ base. You wouldn’t think many of those voters cast a preference for the Coalition in 2007. If you assume that, say, 90% of those who want a stronger target preference the ALP, you’re talking about just over 50% of the ALP’s voters (including Greens who preferenced the ALP) want them to strengthen their target. This group is much larger than the current Greens’ voter base, and suggests that the Greens could substantially increase their base if they can attack the ALP for being weak on climate change at the next election, and must be worrying for Lindsay Tanner and Tanya Plibersek.

Another third basically support the government’s position. You have to consider this to be bad news for the government’s sales technique, until you consider the Liberal/National position. If you assume that most of those pushing for the government to be stronger are ALP/Greens voters, a solid proportion of those supporting the government must be people who voted Liberal in 2007, and the Coalition’s alternating positions of delaying or abandoning the scheme comes in at a dismal 19%.

So what is needed for the government to pass the CPRS? It all adds up to 39. You need 39 votes in the Senate for a majority. As it stands, the Coalition holds 37, the ALP 32, the Greens 5, as well as Xenophon and Fielding. Assuming no Coalition senators breaking the party line, there are only two scenarios where the government can get the numbers:

• ALP + Coalition (=69)
• ALP + Greens + Xenophon + Fielding (=39)

So, if you were Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown, Nick Xenophon or Steven Fielding, what do you want out of the CPRS debate and legislation?

Kevin Rudd

• Pass the legislation (so that the government is seen as effective and able to implement its agenda).
• Paint the Coalition as dominated by climate skeptics and continue to burden them with Howard’s failure to act.
• Present the Government as acting strongly on climate change.
• Present the CPRS as not economically destructive in the current economic crisis.
• Present the Government as leading the agenda on climate change.

Malcolm Turnbull

• Calm the climate skeptics in the Liberals and Nationals.
• Maintain his hold on the leadership against all comers.
• Shake the image of the Coalition as climate skeptics.
• Embarass the government.

Bob Brown

• Manage to achieve a stronger target or block a CPRS until after the next election.
• Paint the ALP as weak on climate change and captured by the fossil fuel lobby, thus painting the Greens as the only people willing to do what is necessary on climate change.
• Shake the image of the Greens as unreasonable and unwilling to work with the government and replace it with an image of the Greens as a responsible party to hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Nick Xenophon

• Achieve what he can for South Australia

Steven Fielding

• Try to give impression of wanting action on climate change.
• Defeating things that will raise costs (eg. fuel costs, electricity costs, etc) on “families”.

Of course, these objectives are largely contradictory, and make it interesting when trying to determine what might be the path forward on this issue.

So now it’s over to you: what are the consequences of this three-dimensional chess match? A stronger target? A weaker target? No CPRS? A delayed CPRS? A double dissolution election? Malcolm Turnbull being rolled by Peter Costello? Joe Hockey? Bronwyn Bishop?

Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!