People were less happy to consider coal generation with 100% capture and storage as a 'low emission' energy source
 |
| Thirty-six per cent of voters in the Guardian Essential Poll said they didn't know whether a low emissions target or a carbon trading scheme was best. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images |
The latest survey of 1,785 voters, which follows Tuesday night's three-hour Coalition party room meeting in which significant concerns were ventilated about the Finkel review, also taps significant community concerns about the rising threat of terrorism in Australia.
Seventy-four per cent of the sample said the threat level in Australia had increased over the past few years, and 46% believe the Turnbull government should be spending more on counter-terrorism measures.
A new clean energy target is the centrepiece of the review of the national electricity market by Australia's chief scientist, Alan Finkel, handed to the prime minister and the state premiers on Friday.
While Coalition MPs spent Tuesday night arguing about the impact of the clean energy target on power prices in the biggest internal Coalition stoush about climate policy since 2009 – and the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, said afterwards it was too soon to say whether the Coalition would ultimately adopt the policy – Australian voters seem sanguine about the idea.
Forty-five per cent of the Guardian Essential sample preferred a low emissions target to carbon trading, while 20% endorsed an emissions intensity scheme. Thirty-six per cent said they didn't know which option was best.
The voters most likely to prefer a low emissions target were people aged 65+ (51%), Liberal/National voters (51%) and high-income earners. Greens voters preferred carbon trading to a target.
Government conservatives, egged on by the Canberra-based lobby group representing the resources industry, are pushing to have high-efficiency coal included the new scheme, but the new poll suggests voters aren't sure.
The Finkel review - Politics over science
Asked whether they thought coal generation with 100% capture and storage should be considered a "low emission" energy source under the proposed low emissions target, 27% of the sample agreed, 29% said no, and 44% of the sample weren't sure.
In an interview with Guardian Australia this week, Finkel said it would be "surprising" if governments went on to legislate a clean energy target that "incentivised" new coal-fired power stations.
He also pointed out that modelling commissioned as part of the review did not predict any construction of new coal-fired power. "Under the modelling, none came in," the chief scientist said.
But with internal pressure mounting from conservatives, the prime minister used question time to insist Finkel had proposed a clean energy target which "does not penalise coal, [and] does not prohibit the construction of a coal-fired power station or indeed a gas-fired power station".
Turnbull said: "What he seeks to do there is to provide incentives for lower emission technologies including, but not exclusively, renewables."
Frydenberg repeated that sentiment after the internal debate at special party room meeting. "Dr Finkel has made it very clear he is not putting in place any prohibitions on coal or any form of generation capacity".
"He is putting in place incentives for lower emission generation. It is not a price on carbon or a tax on coal. Indeed, it has similarities to what John Howard put forward back in 2007".
Voters most likely to think coal should be in the mix were Coalition supporters (36%), men (33%) and older people. People most likely to have the contrary view were Greens voters (55%), people under 24 (37%), and South Australians (35%), with that state having a high proportion of wind energy.
With the energy fight expected to drag on for many weeks as the government finalises its response to the Finkel review, this week's Guardian Essential poll has Labor still ahead of the Coalition in the national political contest on the two party preferred measure, 52% to 48%.
The gap between the major parties narrowed in the month following the May budget, but within the poll's margin of error, which is 3%. This week's two party preferred result was the same as last week.
The apparent narrowing of the gap between the major parties has come at a time when terrorism has been firmly back in the headlines, both domestically and internationally.
The survey asked voters whether they approved of the way Turnbull was handling the terror threat. Forty-seven per cent approved of the prime minister's handling of the issue, down 9% since October 2015, and 24% disapproved, up 7%.
The questions in 2015 were put to voters during the Turnbull honeymoon – shortly after he took the Liberal party leadership from Abbott.
Voters most likely to approve of Turnbull's handling of the issue were Liberal/National voters (68%) and people aged 65+ (61%). Men (51% approve) were also more likely to approve than women (45%).
Interestingly, the group most likely to disapprove of the prime minister's approach were voters signalling their intention to vote independent or other (38%), followed by Labor voters.
Forty-six per cent thought the government should be spending more on anti-terrorism measures, which is up 7% from when the question was previously asked in March 2015, and 9% thought the government should be spending less (down 3%).
Voters were asked about the balance between security and personal liberty. They were asked whether they thought there should be more restrictions on rights and freedom for some people so there could be more security for others – or whether they thought laws already went too far in restricting freedom.
Fifty-four per cent thought there should be more restrictions on rights and freedom in an attempt to combat terrorism. Twelve per cent thought current restrictions went too far, and 19% thought they struck the right balance.
People more inclined to support restrictions were older voters (79%), "other" party and independent voters (68%) and Liberal/National voters (66%).
The cohort most likely to think the right balance is being struck were Greens voters (36%) and young people (29%).
Concern from voters about the threat level was roughly the same as when questions were previously asked eight months ago.
Voters most likely to think the terror threat had increased were older – 88% of 55-64 year olds, and 87% of over 65s – as well as Liberal/National voters (81%).
Links
- 'Too early to say' if Coalition will back clean energy target, Frydenberg says
- Alan Finkel: 'it would be surprising' if ministers encouraged new coal stations
- Public opinion is shifting the ground under Trump, Abbott and the coal club
- Adani mine loses majority support of traditional owner representatives
