Brendan Nelson has withdrawn the coalition’s support for an emissions trading scheme in the absence of similar schemes in the USA, China and India — a “pre-Howard position on climate change” as one journalist beautifully put it. Despite the fact that developing countries are never going to consider emissions trading if developed countries are not prepared to lead the way, Andrew Bolt thinks it’s a great policy from Nelson and the coalition.

Another brave but politically savvy call by the Opposition Leader… And Nelson’s demeanour in announcing this was also right. No histrionics, but still with a sense of moral purpose.

Nelson’s demeanour was right? Let’s take a look at the good doctor’s demeanour and moral purpose in making his policy announcement.

QUESTION: Are you saying there should be no emissions trading scheme until the post Kyoto arrangements are hammered out and China and India are committed?

DR NELSON: We must be ready to implement an emissions trading scheme as a market-based solution to address climate change and Australia’s contribution to it…

He then continues to dither for two more paragraphs, before providing a more solid answer to the next question.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson [inaudible] clear, regardless of when the start date of am emissions trading scheme would be, if we got to it and China, India and the US were not signed on, you would say that we should not start the scheme?

DR NELSON: We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident that it is ready to commence and also that the rest of the world has a start date for dealing with climate change itself.

Okay. But there’s more detail needed.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson you appear to be adopting a sort of a pre-Howard position on climate change; that you’re not even committed to an emissions trading scheme in 2011-12 in the absence of further agreement at Copenhagen. Is that correct and have you given any thought at all to the detail? For example, would you support a slow start to a scheme if it did get up and running with fixed low prices for permits in the early years? Or alternatively the phasing in of different industries?

DR NELSON: Well, again the Coalition’s position has been for the best part of a decade that the whole world has to act…

Then two more paragraphs containing no details about how Doc Nelson thinks Australia should act.

QUESTION: So you’re no longer committed to a 2012 start date for an emissions trading scheme?

DR NELSON: Well again, we have always said that there has to be a genuinely global response…

So, “no” then?

QUESTION: Yes but Dr Nelson, that’s a [inaudible] change of policy… You’re saying that you’ve changed the policy?

DR NELSON: Well, what I’m saying to you is that there has to be a genuinely global response to climate change. That has always been our position. It always will be. Australia acting alone will be an exercise in environmental futility that will be destructive to our economic future. That has always been our position and it continues to be so. We would, we would expect…

QUESTION: But the answer is yes.

DR NELSON: No it’s not.

You poor, poor man, Brendy. I feel sorry for you.

QUESTION: And in the absence of a global agreement at that meeting, your commitment to an emissions trading in 2012 is subject to that, is that what you’re saying?

DR NELSON: Again…

QUESTION: It’s just a little unclear.

DR NELSON: Again, we will annunciate (sic) our policy, under my leadership, once we have carefully examined the Garnaut Report, the green paper, the other sources of expert advice that we are taking, and we’ll have a well-considered approach to it.

Australia can’t wait for you to annunciate (sic) your policy, Dr Dither.

But there was one more humiliation waiting for the opposition “leader”.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson, you say, you say you’re worried about the Greens in the Senate, but aren’t you throwing the emissions trading scheme’s future into their hands if you aren’t prepared to negotiate with the Labor Government and provide your numbers in the Senate to an emissions trading scheme.

DR NELSON: Well you’re putting words in my mouth and that’s not true.

If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs…

As usual, when the going gets tough Brendan Nelson resorts to schoolyard retorts and changes of topics. And this is the respectable demeanour and moral purpose that so impressed Andrew Bolt. “Hmm. Have we (correction: I) misjudged the man? Is he growing into leadership material, after all?” asks Bolta.

Not likely.