The federal government appears to have been reading our research, or similar, on an emissions trading scheme.

According to The Australian Online

TREASURER Wayne Swan has asked a powerful House economics committee to judge whether the proposed emissions trading scheme is the best way to tackle climate change...

The Australian Online understands the move may be an attempt to gather evidence to discredit opposition to emissions trading by the Coalition.

There is also speculation it is designed to pre-empt any findings of a Senate committee inquiry.

Perhaps.

It could also be a rational response to research like ours showing that for a variety of reasons voters across the spectrum are unhappy with it.

It is probably coincidental that the decision occurred only days after we released our research. But then again, I have started emailing summaries of key research to federal parliamentarians, and some have even been responding on our comments threads, so who knows?

My local state member Gary Fenlon (ALP) has a message for me - "Keep Greenslopes in safe hands".

The message presumably hopes to leverage the uncertainty that tough times bring, is consistent with the fact that Labor is regarded by voters as the best party to handle most issues, and exploits voter concerns that the Liberal National Party is an unknown, new force put together from two adversarial parties that has no strongly defined policies.

Parties exercise tight control over candidates these days, so I am assuming that someone at ALP HQ is reading the same sort of research that we are, and shaping his message accordingly.

I'm not sure what research the Liberal National Party is reading. A billboard at the Normanby Fiveways features two local candidates and Lawrence Springborg.

"We can deliver the Queensland we all want" the billboard proclaims.

While our research shows dissatisfaction with Anna Bligh it doesn't show any higher satisfaction levels with the Liberal National Party. And while it shows voters unsure of what the LNP stands for, it is not likely that they will find an assertion that the party "can deliver" credible, devaluing your whole message.

In these times of uncertainty, a "Queensland we all want" is also likely to be deemed a mirage. One that's "not too bad" is more likely to be seen as achieveable.

When you pitch a message that people don't believe you evoke what is called "cognitive dissonance". Disbelief at one statement is transferred to all other statements, even if they are true.

(For a brilliant example of how cognitive dissonance can be used, check out the British Conservative Party's exploitation of Gordon Brown's claim that Britain has "saved the world" to undermine his credibility on everything.)

We are not yet in an election, so there is time for the pitches to change. If they don't the new Liberal National Party is definitely heading for a debut loss.

As climate change was the biggest issue last federal election I assumed that an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – what the government calls a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) – would be generally popular, but with pockets of resistance, mostly amongst Liberal and National voters..

That's not how it works at all.

Our responses were almost evenly balanced between supporters and opponents with 40% approving and 39% disapproving. More or less a dead heat. But it gets worse for the proponents.

When I analysed the qual from respondents I found that of those who strongly approved, 18% had reservations, while 28% of those who approved did as well. 31% of those who were unsure also expressed reservations as did 46% of those who neither approved nor disapproved. So, opposition is almost the same as support, but supporters are equivocal about the benefits.

A break-down by major parties shows that while I was correct about the Liberal and National opposition (to which I’ve had to add "Liberal National" because of Queensland), there is also significant opposition amongst Greens, Independents, and Undecideds.

The net approve is slightly better than for the total sample because of the categories that I had to exclude because they were too small for the result to be meaningful.

The qual showed that there were a number of grounds for opposition, but overall the pattern is consistent with what has occurred overseas when charges have been imposed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. While voters agree that something needs to be done about the issue, most of the policies that are implemented are seen as primarily an attempt by government to increase its tax take. Voters therefore reject the measure while accepting that something needs to be done.

The "hardest" opposition is probably from those who believe that CO2 is not a risk. While a minority they appear to be a substantial minority. Their number is much larger than recent polls, such as this one from Newspoll, suggest they should be.

Apart from that opposition rests on three major premises. One is that the policy will be ineffective. Another is that it will impose unacceptable costs on the economy.

The effectiveness argument has a number of variations. Many respondents, most particularly Greens, think that the targets have been set too low. So, while the scheme might achieve the targets, this is seen as insufficient. A typical comment was that the measure was "a good start".

The market-based nature of the measure contributes to the view that the scheme is ineffective. Many respondents cannot see how you can reduce emissions while allowing "big" emitters to pay to continue to emit. They also thought that it was more likely to be designed to make money for middlemen than to reduce emissions. There was support for a carbon tax, rather than a trading scheme.

Another common comment about the system was that it was so complicated that people did not understand it, which resulted in resistance.

The economic arguments centred on the increase in costs and the need to have a scheme that is global, rather than just domestic. Respondents were concerned that industries and jobs would move overseas under the ETS. Traditional concerns about Australia being a small isolated economy also played a part in this.

The Leximancer Map illustrates how these themes interact. The three themes closest to those who approve are Start ("at least this is a start"), Market and Change ("we need to change things"). So while change represents their urgency, the other two themes relate to reservations. Emissions is the theme right at the centre of the map, which is to be expected.

Those who disapprove are at opposite poles on the map. One group is associated with the theme Big. The word "big" is almost always associated with "polluters", "emissions", and "companies". This is the concern that large corporates will get away with something.

The group who most strongly opposes the ETS is associated with Global and Tax. Global is a theme that is also close to those who strongly approve. It stands for global warming, but there is also a strong component of concern for how Australia is affected in a global context explaining why it is relevant to both groups.

Tax has two separate uses. One is by those who believe that a carbon tax would be a better solution. The other is that an ETS is a tax, and the last thing that Australia needs at the moment. The former is a strong theme amongst Greens voters, the latter amongst Liberals and Nationals.

The final theme is Work, which means at one level that respondents don’t think the scheme will work, and at the other that it is too complicated for them to understand it. This theme is most closely associated with those who neither support nor oppose the scheme, or who are unsure.

We know what you have told us about your investment intentions - mortgages and credit cards to be paid-off first and fresh investments in shares and real estate last. Here is an alternate take from Macquarie Securities and Investment Trends.

Note that while it is phrased in terms of what "clients" will do it is actually a survey of client advisors.