FORMER Prime Minister John Howard thinks climate change is alarmist and favours a nuclear response. Tony Abbott’s Government argues from the hip pocket and promises a nine per cent reduction in electricity bills (ha ha!) and a half-baked attempt to deal with the issue.

In the (tiny) ACT, the Gallagher Government sets targets to “act locally” that reflect an understanding of the problem, our responsibilities to our own jurisdiction, to the developing world and to the generations to come.

The timing of the Howard speech is ideal for Tony Abbott and Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. These sort of major media interventions in current policy debates by former leaders rarely happen by coincidence.

The norm is that a staffer sees a need to up the ante. The idea is to have a respected statesman put a view that is even more extreme than the incumbent and to understand just how far the government can push back on climate change without wearing too much flak.

When John Howard delivered a speech on global warming in London comparing those calling for action on climate change to “religious zealots” it could not have been more convenient for a government trying to deliver on the promise to reduce electricity bills. A speech in London, to a group of British climate sceptics that applied the description of “alarmist” to the 97 per cent of climate scientists who describe climate change as “real” was immediately news in Australia. Coincidence?

There are short-term economic drivers for ignoring climate change. The huge expansion in Australia’s coal mining industry, the coal seam gas industry and exploitation of other fossil fuels will generate an increasing “leakage” of carbon emissions – none more so than the “fugitive emissions” of methane from the coal-seam-gas fracking industry.

The community can hardly expect the Clive Palmer’s party and the alliance he is building with the micro parties to stand up to the mining industry. Instead, from the time new Senators take up their seats at the start of July, an even more narrow view can be expected.

Short-term economics will prevail over the long-term wellbeing of our children, grandchildren and future generations. We will not need the aliens of Krypton to destroy our planet as in “Man of Steel” – we look much more like following the path of the Easter Islanders.

The real challenge in the climate-change debate is that it requires future thinking. The nature of conservatism opposes change. The big challenge for Tony Abbotts’ conservatives is that dealing with global warming really requires a fundamental change in the way that our community operates. Moving energy creation from mining to renewables means a major structural change in the economic drivers. It is possible – but the old relationships, the incumbent businesses, the way things are done now would have to change to make a real difference.

When John Howard came to power he railed against “political correctness” arguing that people should be able to express their views without being pilloried. The same standards were not applied to Adam Bandt and the Greens when they used the recent devastating bushfires in NSW as an example of the impact of climate change. The idea that the consensus view on climate change predictions are “alarmist” could be called into question by the fierce fires that lashed that State so early in the season.

The outrage that was expressed by the Abbott Government ministers was simply a tool to protect their inadequate “direct action” approach to the problem. In their own language, it was using the tool of “political correctness”.

As Canberra braces for the upcoming fire season, as the strongest ever typhoon sweeps into the Philippines, as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology releases charts clearly showing an upward trend in average temperatures, it is appropriate for community members to use these examples to push for action.

Michael Moore was an independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly (1989 to 2001) and was minister for health