The moral relativism of pro-coal conservatives

Very well argued based on truth and good sense, both of which abandoned the arch conservatives years ago.

Unlike the inconsistent greens, free-market conservatives oppose subsidies for any industry for any reason, including the preservation of jobs, yet are perfectly happy to see "sustainable" energy systems triumph over fossil fuels in the market place if consumers judge them to be superior products. They’re also open to carbon-free energy systems such as nuclear power – alternatives that so-called “greens” viscerally oppose. They tend to oppose U.S. interventions abroad, because, without more, it’s just the overblown state bumbling away on a macro level – again, unlike greens, who for example never object to e.g., U.S.-funded programs in third world countries which promote abortion and contraception. On the so-called “black and white” issue of climate change, they simply call the greens’ bluff: even prominent warmists such as Michael Mann have recently admitted there’s been a pause in warming despite historically massive injections of atmospheric CO2 over the last decade or two. The falsifiability of the “dangerous anthropogenic global warming” thesis is increasingly in question. N.B.: that’s not a compliment. The greens badge themselves on their for the environment. But eagles being chopped up by turbines never makes it to their front page. Fossil fuels under capitalism saving the whale from extinction doesn’t even rate a footnote.

I once read that Australia is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and I think we are now the QATAR of gas, our economy is somewhat diversified but it's unlikely coal and gas will be left in the ground here any time soon. That Mr Beshara uncovers the contradicitions in Conservative views is good reading but it is not a phenomenon confined to the Right. The Greens predecessors the Australian Democrats were instrumental in foisting the unfair, regressive, GST on the Australian people. And The Greens were a big part in stymying Rudd in his attempts to resolve our response to Climate Change because they were too all or nothing....all what they wanted or nothing that is.

The Slavery debate example is a good one. Just a few minutes googling of Hansard produced this corker from the banning of the slave trade debate of 1807: https://goo.gl/zdCf5f Contains every Climate Change cliche you can imagine. it's not that bad actually, doing anything won't make any difference, no other country is doing anything why should we be first etc. etc.

Thank you Tim for an excellent argument about moral relativism and the conservatives. If an example was needed that well illustrated your case it was supplied clearly by HH.

I don`t think it is moral relativism to say that our community should have affordable and reliable energy, while still reducing our carbon dioxide emissions. Australia is doing very well generally, although it has lurched into wind/solar too much and too quickly and at too great a price (the energy companies love it because they have made a financial killing). The current government and the new tweaking of policies under Frydenberg and his energy guarantee formula are both sensible and sophisticated. Australia needs to continue its transition from coal to gas (in the lamentable absence of nuclear), and the states should stop obstructing that (which is just another cynical sop to the inner city greenies, which ironically will actually increase emissions because coal will be needed for longer! ). Brown coal is being phased out, but coal can and should continue to be used where needed but using our cleanest coal from Hunter/Qld and the available technology to make it as clean as possible. The international picture is also getting more positive, even as thousands of poor people every week in the 3rd world get the miracle of electricity for the first time, which improves their lives immeasurably.

Thank you Tim for a very well argued article. The extreme conservative politicians in this country have certainly attempted to muddy the waters on the matter of climate change and the rapidly increasing levels of pollution that are endangering public health. One example is the attempt to give legitimacy to the concept of " clean coal" which is a total nonsense. Malcolm Turnbull has shown that his earlier statements on the environment mean nothing compared to his desire to stay on as PM. He is captive to those in the extreme right of the LNP Coalition and is pursuing their agenda. The Australian Greens are far from perfect politically (eg support for the NATO trashing of Libya), but it is the major political party that is attempting to address climate change and massive pollution. I think the Greens were correct in not supporting the Rudd Government's target emission levels as they would have done little to address the problem of climate change. Also, it is important to point out that the Greens did not come out of the Australian Democrats (ADs). The Greens were already a political party before Meg Lees destroyed the ADs by supporting John Howard's GST. If we really care about the viability of future generations, we need to support those political movements around the world that are actively working to combat climate change and massive environmental pollution.

An informative article Tim. A point that needs to be made about mining in Australia is that it is a transient industry. Throughout white settlement, towns have grown around mines of various types, the best known being gold. When the resource is exhausted and the mines close or become uneconomic for the owners, unless the town has found another reason to exist, then it is deserted and becomes a 'ghost town'. This is a fact of life which some people so used to having a job in the local mine, often over several generations, fail to appreciate. There is nothing to be gained by paying tax payers money to a dying industry nor should subsidies be used to keep a company, a mine or a town afloat. In these days of 'fly in , fly out' workers, it is a myth to think that Adani or other new mine will boast local employment - they will not! Indeed the consequences for any existing town would be quite adverse, as has been the case in the Pilbara towns of Western Australia. A lot of people had their fingers badly burnt by that development. It seems we never learn from history!