Climate change's ugly sister

Australia is unique. Nowhere else in the world has climate change featured as a major issue in national elections in the way it has here.

In 2007 it was a major plank in Labor's push for election, driven by the fear of electors on the east coast that they might run out of water. It allowed Labor to frame John Howard as yesterday's man who was out of touch with the problems of the day.

In the 2010 election it made only the odd cameo appearance, such as when Julia Gillard categorically ruled-out a carbon tax. But here climate change was no longer the golden celebrity, as she was forced to promise not to be a financial nuisance to anyone.

The key issue in 2010 was between the future and the past, and the technological marvel of the NBN was the new "it girl".

Climate's time as an unalloyed benefit for Labor had passed, just as the peak of climate change concern had also passed with the dams filling up and our collective attention span moving on to other issues.

Next election, it will be back, but this time its role will be likely to be as a supporting actor in an election fought on cost of living, and on balance it will be bad for Labor. Surprisingly it may also be bad for the Greens.

Our most recent On Line Opinion qualitative poll of 1936 "opinion leading" Australian voters shows around a four point slump for Labor since the last election. This is only half what the latest Newspoll shows, but our samples tend to be less volatile, particularly this far out from an election.

Unlike Newspoll, our poll also suggests that after peaking at the end of last year the Greens vote is in a slight decline.

When we ask voters what the most important issues are, climate change related matters are the most important, but split between "climate change" and the "carbon tax".

Ominously for the government the carbon tax is most closely associated with an intention to vote for the Coalition and it attracts more mentions than climate change.

So, while climate change is still important, the emphasis has now moved to cost, and this favours the Coalition. It is also occurring in an atmosphere where people have concerns about the quality of government, so they are suspicious that any extra money the government takes will be wasted.

Voters are also concerned about the state of infrastructure. It seems that after years of governments containing cost increases by skimping on maintenance and expansion, as well as milking public utilities for "dividends", the cost of reinvestment is painful.

Added to that the economy is not being kind to most. Just as we appeared to be emerging from the GFC, the floods in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have had a major effect on the consumer economy everywhere. In an inter-connected economy the knock-on effect of closing a business in Cairns, Cardwell or Rockhampton can be felt as far away as Melbourne.

Voters were happy to do something about climate change as long as the price for their carbon "sins" wasn't much more than a couple of Hail Mary's – say something like turning their lights off for an hour once a year – but if penance is to involve hair shirts, or worse, you can shove it.

Which partly explains why the Greens vote seems to have peaked. Greens voters have always been a mixture of rusted-on supporters who really do believe the Greens can deliver heaven on earth, and protest voters, parking their ballot safely to send a message to the two major parties.

Now that the Greens are a significant force in actually running the government, and the major force in driving up climate-related cost of living, they are losing their safe haven status and a percentage of that vote appears to be somewhat reluctantly leaking across to the Liberals.

The leakage is reluctant because politics appears to have become more personal and less inspiring than it has been for a while. Labor voters are most likely to cite Tony Abbott as the reason for their voting preference and also to be defensive of the government's efforts: "They are trying to tackle the big issues... trying to reach a balance between wants and needs" with the use of the word "trying" being the giveaway.

Labor as a badge is also very damaged.

Interestingly, while "JuLiar" is a term making it big on the talkback circuit, it's not a hit with our respondents. When asked to rate Gillard's performance only 3 respondents use the term (that's 0.16%) although 11% use terms such as "liar", "lie", "untrustworthy", and "dishonest".

Abbott appears to have the edge on the issue of trust, but it seems to not be as strong as it was when he first became leader (when he was up against Rudd), and it is mostly a virtue only in the eye of strong coalition supporters.

The best thing that Labor has going for it is that an election is not due for more than two years, and the independents have no incentive to force an early one.

In 2013 the carbon tax will be a fait accompli, and like the GST it may hurt in its apprehension more than its implementation.

Our poll contains evidence this might be the case. When the mining tax was first proposed we found 50% in favour and 40% against. We asked about the tax again this time, and now the figures are 61% and 27% respectively – a huge move. Support seems to have shifted because industry has acquiesced in the tax, and because it follows the popular narrative of soaking the rich.

Our respondents are currently against a carbon tax 49% to 45%. But what if business decides it is inevitable and caves in, the compensation package really does no one any harm, and cost of living pressures have been absorbed and normalised?

There's only a slight chance that all of this would happen in time for 2013, but if they did these polling figures could easily shift, and Tony Abbott might need to find another tune to sing.

At 30% primary vote in the latest Newspoll Labor is probably at its nadir. It will probably improve, but under Gillard, probably not be enough to win next time.