Energising the Liberals

The Liberals need to address these issues.

Fifth, they could open up discussion of climate science and refrain from taking a position on it as a party. Instead they could present different sides of the debate.

The objective is to show that climate science is not as clear-cut as presented by those favouring radical action on emissions.

In the words of American scientist Judith Curry, 'The climate system is way more complex than just something that you can tune with a carbon-dioxide control knob.'

The Liberals' lack of clarity on its energy policies reflects a wish to 'run with the hare and hunt with the hounds', keeping on good terms with all sides in the energy debate.

But good policies do not work on this principle – rather, they work by acting on the basis of conviction, inevitably ruffling feathers along the way, but bringing voters along who agree or at least conclude: 'I am not sure I like all they say, but at least I know what they stand for.'

In 2017, the then-Treasurer, Scott Morrison, brought a lump of coal into Parliament, saying: 'Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.'

Four years later, as Prime Minister, Mr Morrison capitulated to pressure from climate change activists, announcing that Australia 'will deliver Net Zero emissions by 2050'.

The next year (2022), the Liberals lost government.

The party will falter again if it goes to the next election (due by mid-2025) with its energy policies based primarily on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not enough – the party needs to present a firm position on coal, natural gas and renewables as well. Without doing so, it risks losing an election that it otherwise can win.