Reasons not to take them seriously

The Coalition on climate change policy, that is.

I refer to a couple of stories in the media this morning. In the first, Lenore Taylor takes to task a specific example of Abbott scaremongering about the cost of a carbon price, noting that a large increase in a butcher's electricity bill is not quite what it seems, for the customer:

For Greenwood, that [$4000 per year in increased electricity] is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, he would have to raise his prices by about 0.187 per cent.

For Greenwood's customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.

The indicative Treasury modelling released last week under freedom of information shows the average cost of a household weekly shop would rise by somewhere between 80 cents and $1.70, depending on whether the carbon price was set at the upper or lower end of expectations and whether it was allowed to flow through to the cost of petrol.

And Peter van Onselen in the Australian notes the Coalition figures who are taking hypocritical pleasure in the government's carbon price PR problem:

Climate change spokesman Greg Hunt, manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives Christopher Pyne, deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate George Brandis, shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison and countless other Coalition MPs are getting their media fix gloating about Labor's climate change woes in the here and now.

But they would do well to remember that in late 2009 each of them were arguing till they were blue in the face - with colleagues and through the media - that Turnbull should be backed in his efforts to pass the ETS. "You must price carbon if you want action on climate change" some bellowed. "If we don't pass the ETS we will be comprehensively routed at the polls," others exclaimed.

van Onselen reckons that Hunt has a broader leadership potential, and is being hobbled by having to do the hard sell on a Coalition policy that it he clearly can't genuinely believe is the best option.

Hobbled he may be, but personally, I fail to see his broader public appeal. I don't find his media performances at all convincing, and (although this is admittedly a shallow assessment!) I have trouble getting over his strangely old fashioned hair and strained grimace that passes for a smile. (One has to admit, Howard was not always a natural smiley face either. Politicians can be convincing despite odd looks, but Hunt is far from achieving that yet, in my reckoning.)