ONLY a few months ago Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, was painting a dark picture about looming storm surges, rising sea-levels, a fall of over 90% in irrigated farming and a drop of nearly 2.5% in GNP over this century unless Australia took action against climate change. “Action now,” he declared. “Not action delayed.” But this week Mr Rudd climbed down from what seemed a defining pledge of his leadership. Instead of using this year to get parliament to adopt an emissions-trading scheme that would put a price on carbon pollution, action will now be delayed until 2013 at least. Some wonder if it will ever happen at all.

Few leaders have staked more than Mr Rudd on tackling climate change. The issue helped him lead the Labor Party to power in late 2007, after the former conservative coalition government had largely ignored it. Relying on coal for most of its electricity, Australia is one of the world’s highest carbon-emitters per person. Mr Rudd hoped that forcing it to change how it uses energy would give the country clout in forging a global consensus.

All that unravelled late last year. His government’s planned cap-and-trade scheme set targets to cut carbon emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020, or 25% as part of concerted global action. Having initially supported the scheme, the main opposition Liberal Party used its controlling numbers in parliament’s upper house in early December to block it for a second time. The failure of the Copenhagen climate summit that month took more shine off the vision.

With an election due this year, Mr Rudd always held a constitutional trump card: the power to dissolve both houses of parliament together, and resubmit the bill to the new parliament. Instead, looking somewhat sheepish, he announced in Sydney on April 27th that the government would now do nothing until the period covered by the Kyoto protocol ends in late 2012. He offered two excuses: the need for more time to judge any global actions on climate change before Australia goes ahead itself; and the opposition’s “backflip” in parliament.

The backflip may be just as much Mr Rudd’s. In a speech in November to the Lowy Institute, a think-tank, he dismissed as parochial and “absolute political cowardice” the notion that Australia should not act until others do. Citing government figures, he warned that a delay would end up costing Australia 15% more to adapt to climate change later.

A Lowy poll this week found that 72% of those questioned thought Australia should take action to reduce carbon emissions before a global deal is reached. But the share who were not prepared to pay higher electricity bills had risen by about half in two years. Another poll by the Climate Institute, a lobby group, found support for Mr Rudd in dealing with climate change had dropped by ten points from February last year, to 36% this month. John Connor, the institute’s head, reckons both polls reflect Australians’ frustration at the failure to get a scheme started, rather than any wavering in faith in the scientific evidence for climate change.

Mr Rudd’s own wavering suggests reluctance to let an issue that has turned messy spoil his re-election chances. He has recently promised to spend A$5.4 billion ($4.9 billion) to buy the support of Australia’s states for his planned takeover of the country’s health system by the federal government. This seems a surer vote-winner than an emissions-trading scheme that opposition scare tactics portray as a “great big new tax on everything”. But “political cowardice” may cost votes, too.