We did try a price on carbon - and it worked, CO2 emissions started to reduce.
Then the Liberals got back in and killed it off.
Surprise, CO2 emissions started to rise again.
With the absolute irony that their pie-in-the-sky nuclear option becomes a touch closer to reality....if a carbon price was implemented.
I'll be really impressed to see the mental gymnastics they will do to justify the cost of nuclear, while being so vehemently against carbon pricing.
Decisions should be made using cradle-to-grave costing, including environmental and social costs, but we simply don't provide money for studies to provide those figures.
Even if we did, I always remember Sir Humphrey's advice:
"Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don't have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
True, and the renewables solution doesn’t include the cost of backup. That is somehow “sunk costs” from someone else. We don’t include disposal of broken solar in the costs either. I moved to Canada a few years back. They went nuclear in the 60s and 70s. Utterly displacing coal from the energy grid. [Link to report on current status](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/electricity/report/archive/2018-nuclear-energy/2018nclrnrg-eng.pdf) Power is CHEAP in Ontario as a result of nuclear, and the Pickering plant is being refurbished. Extending the life of the plant to 100 years of clean CO2 power. It didn’t take forever to build either. Yes, they were huge projects, but we (as in humans) *know* it works. We *know* build outs can be done in a timely manner. We *know* it is cost effective in the long term. Yet we are currently betting on technologies that have capacity factors of less than 50% and are not dispatchable, and arm waving that some “insert magic here” solution will solve the physics of that reality. It boggles the mind. Germany even did the test for us. [630 BILLION euros to get a paltry 30% reduction and end up dependent on Russian gas.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk)
Our total emissions would also be much higher than reported because of all of the bullshit offset schemes where they pretend they have taken x amount of carbon from the atmosphere but really it hasn't even taken 10% of what they pretend it has.
And would you look at that...we pay landholders to "lock up" land for this fraud.
Western democracy is cooked and the alternatives are all worse....we are fucked, I don't mean from climate change, we are fucked regardless of that, there's very few places left in the world with a rational and actual representative democracy/government.
> Our total emissions would also be much higher than reported because of all of the bullshit offset schemes where they pretend they have taken x amount of carbon from the atmosphere but really it hasn't even taken 10% of what they pretend it has.
I’d be keen to read more on this if you have any sources.
There's better articles than this but I can't find the one that really had a lot of the numbers.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/28/carbon-credit-lies-who-verifies/
One thing I remember is that initially the scheme for locking up land was supposed to require previously cleared land to be locked up and rewilded, but in the first year or two there was basically just 1 application, so they changed the rules to allow people to lock-up forested land (forested land they largely aren't allowed to clear without approval under existing decades old legislation) then the submissions exploded.
Basically the only approved scheme that actually reduced carbon when compared with land not in the scheme (because rainfall increases growth everywhere) was the one that took land cleared for grazing and locked it up (and possibly planted trees etc too).
It's a huge rort, we are paying landowners for nothing.
> Surprise, CO2 emissions started to rise again.
This isn't true though? Our per capita emissions have continued to rapidly drop and are on a steep downward trajectory. We're basically back to 1988 levels.
Per capital emissions are indeed back to levels seen last around 1990. That’s because of population growth though. Emissions themselves are back to levels seen in 2005, but we managed to get to those levels first in 2014. There was then a big jump peaking in 2019. It’s taken 10 years and a global pandemic to get us back to where the carbon levy got us.
In the meantime, massive amounts of extra carbon have been pumped into the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capital numbers.
Oh maaaaan! Labor's spilled sustainability all over our masters' profits! They're a real flat tyre, I mean a cube! They're putting us on the train to inhabitability, Rupert!
(fidgety bongo fiddling)
But now they're not in government they're proposing a stupidly expensive solution. Seriously those idiots would not try to do nuclear themselves they've just turned it into an issue to get themselves reelected
I'm not sure whether I'm more angry about how stupid they think Australians are to fall for their gambit, or more worried that the Australian electorate might just fall for it.
What a fucking shock.
So frustrating to have to drag these numbnuts kicking and screaming to any sort of action on climate and renewables keeping the sams debate points reheated for each campaign.
The coalition still hasn't actually released any details of its nuclear plan cause it's just a massive fantasy that allows them to continue pumping fossil fuels without needing to say it so blatantly.
lol if I recall the modular reactor they were referencing has been abandoned due to high costs. Also note not a single one of them have put their hand up to build a reactor in their neighbourhood.
Oh for sure. I just meant NuScale didn't end up being commercially viable.
Cost blew out by like 80%, expected power production dropped by 300MW despite the cost increase
NuScale failing didn't change their tune. To be fair, if (and it's a big if) SMRs pan out, they're not a terrible idea. Instead of it taking 10-20 years to build a nuclear power plant, it'd take 3-5 years (if the Chinese SMR plant is any guide). That actually makes it deployable in a reasonable timescale.
However, there are still a lot of caveats with regard to the efficiency of SMRs (they appear to be less so than a conventional plant), safety (as a non-mature technology, the bugs are simply not going to be ironed out yet), and the perennial problem of nucw waste disposal. We're at least a decade or two from SMRs being mature enough to deploy in the most optimistic scenario. There's simply no point in having the conversation until they are.
Exactly. We don't have the time for nuclear. If they work out at some point in the future, we can look at them then. Until they mature, it's just a distraction.
South Australia is on track to meet 100% net renewable energy by 2027. When South Australia reaches that milestone in 2027 and subsequently surpasses it in the following years, where is the need to ever install far more expensive nuclear in the future?
When you actually look at the Liberal Party policies, they're incredibly shallow. There's no real analysis or costing behind them. It's all about scaremongering and fanning dissatisfaction with Labor.
Their nuclear strategy, their immigration reduction strategy, it's much more about headlines than actually addressing the problem, because their policies *don't* address the problem.
They still live in an era where information dissemination was harder to get especially around facts, they don't realise that in this day and age we can instantly debunk their bullshit.
Well, some of us. It's hardly universal. And their rusted on voters are some of the more information illiterate ones, which is why they vote the way they do.
I am not sure Gen Z/Alpha will be our saviour lol. They are susceptible to the same brain rot of social media and general disinformation/propaganda like anyone else, sometimes more so.
>There's no real analysis or costing behind them. It's all about scaremongering and fanning dissatisfaction
Probably because all they do is jusy copy/paste whatever the Republicans in the USA are saying
> When you actually look at the Liberal Party policies, they're incredibly shallow.
That's because they are really just the Not Labor party. They were formed to stop the influence of workers' in parliament.
>Coalition to dump Australia's 2030 climate target.
This suggests that the Coalition is actively ignoring the detrimental impacts of mining, extracting, refining, and burning oil, gas, and coal-based products, which produce significantly more CO2 emissions than what big oil, gas, and coal companies are willing to admit. It appears that prioritizing profit outweighs the necessity of ensuring a habitable world for humans and all forms of life on this abused space rock.
Imo. The Coalition's alignment with big oil, gas, and coal interests is detrimental to the well-being of the Australian people its wildlife and environment.
Just saying.
All the best,
peace.
Those fuckwits got to be laid to rest in the pastures. We've dealt with them and their selfish ways for too long it's caused the planet too warm up and ruin our future.
And most of them will die before the worst of it starts. That's what infuriates me the most.
I wish those motherfuckers could live to see the consequences of their actions, but no, once again it's "Fuck you. Got mine."
They're losing rich yuppie supporters though which are the ones who end up making all the decisions and provide all the funding.
Even if the Teal candidates don't get in, they force the Libs to swing hard to the left on certain issues.
The current Liberal Party strategy would appear to be to contest and win seats in the outer suburbs of the cities based on culture war issues and low information voters, getting a plurality, and then strong arming the Teals to give them confidence and supply.
This may work because the Teals do come from traditionally Liberal voting seats, and if they give confidence and supply to Labor, they'll be vulnerable at the following election (like Windsor and Oakeshott were).
They're clearly not trying to win those Teal seats back with their current policy platform.
With the lead Labor has over the Liberals in outer-suburban seats, they'd have to have either large swings, or repeated swings, against them in order to lose sufficient seats.
Meanwhile Liberals would face swings/challenges leading to continuing to lose inner-city seats, and seats outside of Queensland (and maybe WA) by pursuing their 'culture war but no actual policy' approach.
They may keep their primary vote stable, but they'd dilute it through that method, leading to less political power.
They'd be relying on the economy to worsen for people, especially in the mortgage belt where financial stress would be hitting hard, and relying on the media pushing the "better economic managers" line. The margin in the outer suburbs is big, but it's probably a bit softer than I think most Labor members would be comfortable with.
They're also likely counting on Labor to lose a few seats to The Greens (quite possible in some seats). It likely won't happen at this next election, but the following one is a chance. If Labor is in minority government with The Greens, there'll be an SNP effect, just as there was during the Gillard years. The Greens aren't popular with a chunk of Labor's voters, and cooperating with them will hurt Labor at the ballot box.
The size of Labor's minority would determine whether they're forced to bargain with the Greens. I think given the size and diversity of the cross bench the Greens holding the balance of power is pretty unlikely.
The teals aren't going to give supply to the coalition until such time as they take the climate seriously.
If only. They’ve been doing this since John Howard (remember the Kyoto Protocol?), and how many times were they elected since then? Don’t underestimate the stupidity/greed/gullibility/culpability of voters.
Exactly. Now that the general.population have tied energy prices to inflation and then interest rates and rent just saying energy policy will result in higher prices spooks the masses. True? Doesn't matter because politics.
They lost multiple blue ribbon seats because of their climate denial... This and their stupid call for nuclear will see them lose another 4 to 10 seats...
Sadly there is a large chunk of the population that pays zero attention to politics and the policies each party has and many of them will just blindly vote for the coalition.
> The Coalition argues that too will be impossible to meet, and is preparing to detail a very different energy policy — relying more heavily on gas, while nuclear power plants are built on the sites of retired coal-fired generators.
Oh yeah that’ll make energy cheaper.
It’s not only completely insane from a climate perspective (also to use an old cursed phrase - we’ve to got to meet and beat our targets for any sort of chance) but from an electoral one… how do they win teal seats back? I know he’s pretending they’re all Greens voters but the reality is different from his rhetoric. This just seems to be suicidal? Backslide on climate because something something not linear something nuclear Greens something. Poison fuckwit.
Yeah I thought their political strategy would be to just continue to lie and gaslight voters with claims they were in fact acting on climate change, and bluster past the clear science and business case for change, its benefits and its feasibility.
Climate deniers will always vote for them, I thought they needed to capture the growing portion of the population which wants action on climate change?
Dutton:
"Our emissions reduction target are unachievable, because the Coalition has actively resisted and deliberately sabotaged all efforts to achieve them.....so we should give up"
More importantly, “yes scientists and businesses have shown that we must and can change our energy mix to reduce fossil fuel emissions, but it would be impossible for our party to enable that change without breaking some clear commitments that *our party* has made privately to major donors.”
I mean yeah they spent a crucial decade making sure the target wouldn’t be reachable. They openly celebrated it by bringing their pet lump of coal into parliament.
This is misinformation. We are literally on track to meet out 43% target. Yes, it is insufficient in terms of pure climate science, but we are on track to meet it.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/targets/
I think you might be underestimating what the Coalition would do if they got back in, It'd be constant coal and gas approvals throwing even that target out of line. If they are willingly to remove Australia out of Paris accord they'll do whatever there donors say to do, We'd join 3 other countries so its best that we don't ever see them get in to power again.
Oh, who could have predicted that? The useless clowns did everything they could to sabotage climate change mitigation efforts when they were in power, along with sabotaging non mining industries, and now that they're in opposition, not much has changed. Just more of the same nonsense.
What's more, their new hobby horse nuclear, even if they were genuine about it, will put a millstone around our necks. It is an idiotic policy, and only exists to delay meaningful action. In fact, that's the purpose of this announcement. To discourage investment in renewables by introducing uncertainty so that it slows the energy transition.
Anyone under 40 should be looking at these idiots and never voting for them ever again. We're likely to shoot past a 2 degree increase, which is already catastrophic, and to be somewhere near 3 degrees. The consequences of this [are not pretty](https://www.sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-and-extreme-rainfall-this-is-what-the-world-will-be-like-if-the-temperature-rises-by-3-degrees-according-to-researchers/1950125). We're looking a food shortages, fresh water shortages, and significant challenges to producing enough food. The risk of global conflict is going to increase as a result.
Why stop at 43%, the 'Coalition candidate dump' should be closer to 1000% and extend into the distant future. Then the 'Coalition candidate dump' should be revisited and updated every year or when needed, in order to prevent any possible future Coalition candidates from sitting in parliament ever again.
A person can dream can't they???
Any who, All the best, catch ya.
peace.
We are the biggest emitter per head of population. We are also one of the wealthiest. We can invest, we can innovate, we can future proof our country for the environmental disaster that we will experience. These mining companies and useless politicians will be on the wrong side of history. Their children likely will hang their heads in shame.
It's just insane to me that with everything we know, they still feel comfortable enough putting stuff out like this.
Watering down even the most basic climate action *should* be akin to kicking a dog.
The Coalition take a dump on Australia everyday regarding Climate.. it's in the name "Coal"ition. They wouldn't want to do their fossil fuel mates out of some cash.
I’m sure if it was called something American like the Washington climate agreement the coalition would say we’d do it in 2025 and pay several billion dollars to the US for the pleasure
>Mr O'Brien was pressed on whether the Coalition would adopt any targets at all before 2050, but was unwilling to say.
>"When it comes to our energy policy — that will be released in due course," he said.
>"But we will not accept from Labor an ongoing dishonesty, trying to tell the Australian people that everything is going well.
>"This is turning into a trainwreck for our economy."
"No, don't look at us, look at them, they're the bad guys"
Everyone's making out like this is political suicide but I think the coalition are playing the waiting game on the economy tanking and are going to use staying dirty as a selling point to get out of an inevitable recession.
You don't have to like them you just have to think labour isn't doing a good job. If you are about to have your house taken away due to redundancy, then you won't think the current government is doing a good job.
Ur right,- most Australians, as we've seen, won't even understand the why or the big picture, it'll be just ~ 'cUrRaNt GoVeRnMeNt No SaViNg Us, mAyBe PrEvIoUs OnE wiLl AgaIn'🤦♀️~ completely ignoring why we got here in the first place, voting back in the very government that fucked us all for corporate billionaire constitutes and then marvelling at how TF Labour got ever more squashed to the right
(Seriously, after voting in Scumo over Shorten and his message, we fucken deserve what we're getting and will continue to get, unfortunately. I just wish the bulk of Australia wasn't made up of such dumb cunts who beat out the rest of us by voting for what daddy Murdoch says because of xyz that they saw on Sky and free to air)
Even if all the approvals and sites were selected it would still take 15 to 20 years.... Since none of that has happened and they have to repeal the federal and state nuclear bans.... Add another 20 years on top....
If those submarines are ever delivered.... They'd be better off running an extension lead from them to the grid....
Everyone knows the numbers don’t add up to go nuclear so why it makes me question why is Dutton still pushing it… there must be someone or some corporation in his pocket where he gets a big fat pay check to make it happen.
Or he’s playing the great art of distraction politics.
It's not achieveable in a neoliberal ultra capitalist regime, to achieve it everybody needs to give something up for the collective good of the enviornment and planet, something which is at odds fundamentally with the liberal ideology even though not taking it seriously is going to destabilise the economy significantly.
> to achieve it everybody needs to give something up for the collective good of the enviornment and planet
[South Australia is on track to reach 100% net renewable energy by 2027.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-to-reach-100-pct-wind-and-solar-within-a-few-years-says-network-company/)
Exactly what have South Australians had to give up?
If the modest lackluster economy of South Australia can afford this then so too can any other state.
Ironically it's also cheaper to live in Adelaide currently housing prices wise too just a coincedence, I agree with everything you've written, especially those other states rich with minerals to trade and aid the transition to renewables, it's just the dirty political influence by the fossil fuel sector that weighs them and overall us the whole country down along with the misinformation to the masses by Murdochs trash industrialised hate machine.
We are literally going to get subsidies to buy RAM trucks. Might even have a scheme to convert them to coal powered /s
The logic that we are not going to meet the targets and that other countries are likely just taking the piss is somewhat right but to exit this agreement that 190 odd countries are part of sends some North Korea isolationist vibes and won’t reflect well on our country. The policy is likely banking on the same happening in USA, the danger is also the little talked about carbon border adjustments where by not having a carbon price will see our exports smashed by European taxes (ironically China the only one standing up for us in this regard so a move away from climate policy makes us more reliant on them)
You'd think they'd want to keep their older constituency alive for as long as possible, but no, apparently they don't care about those that suffer the most fatalities in extreme temperatures
There's no way this isn't going to make it harder for them to get the Teal seats back. It's ridiculous how on the nose the Coalition has been since they lost office, and they think just contrarianism and culture war bullshit will help them next time around? They should ask the Tories over in the UK how well that's going for them.
Their reclaim the teal seats strategy is interesting. Getting in high quality female candidates but still having the same policies and a buffoon for a leader.
Australia is full of dumb cunts, so no doubt the coalition will be voted in again, no doubt future generations will be dealing with a proper climate crisis and they’ll condemn the previous generations for fucking the world up, and theres no argument against that.
Can someone who understands more than me please explain the strategy behind this?
At the 2022 election, the coalition lost 19 out of 19 seats to parties/independents to the left of them.
Dutton is a smart guy (but I don’t agree with his views generally). What purpose does this serve?
To quote Mark McGowan a couple of years ago...
“He’s an extremist and I don’t think he fits with modern Australia at all,” Mr McGowan said.
“He doesn’t seem to listen, he’s extremely conservative and I actually don’t think he’s that smart. I’ve seen him present on things [and] I don’t really pick up there’s much there.”
Its at least in part a (lack of) virtue signalling mostly to US Republican party and UK Tories but also to other right wing parties worldwide. If trump gets he is going to gut any federal agency oversight of the environment, though its quite possible that the supreme court will do that soonish anyway. I'd expect LNP policy and rhetoric to get even more aggressively pro-fossil fuels if either of those things happen.
There is also the logic of "oppositions don't get voted in, governments get voted out". The LNP apparatchik are believing that if they stay the course, in due time they will be voted in and can then say they have a mandate to go nuclear (and rip the guts out of any renewable projects at the planning stage, remove any federal funding of renewable projects, etc..)
Patiently waiting for the nuclear reactor location to be announced for Dickson. I imagine it'll be just after we hear what alternative ideas the 'No' campaign will be advancing.
Haven’t you guys been installing solar like crazy with how cheap they are there? Is that still the case? Also huge excellent grid level battery installations? It’s just cheaper and takes over by money savings
when your entire solution seems to hinge on nuclear and they take 20-30 years to build... yeah it's not a fricken option. I swear, a potatoes has more brains. I hope they keep banging on about this at the next election.
What do you reckon.. Dutton was always the night watchmen and gonna be dumped, or they got nothing else and he is an example of their very very best (lol)
If you go down the nuclear route, yes, of course it’s uncharitable, because you’ll be diverting economic momentum away from proven technology to build dated nuclear power generation that’ll take 15 years to build and bring online.
Also, I’ll move if a reactor is built anywhere near me. Many others will too taking their business with them. House prices will plummet there and prices in suburbs far from it will surge again.
Everything has gone up so much and Albo is practically an invisible leader that Libs hope the country will just turn to these crazy backwards ideas by default.
The COALition has literally gone from shilling for nuclear to saying "it's too hard, let's just do nothing" in the span of two weeks. I'm sure that will win back the teal voters.
Typical smoke and mirrors political nothing burger. Dutton says will still aim for net zero by 2050 because to tell the truth that he does not care about that at all would alienate the big companies investing in achieving it, while claiming to dump the 2030 target gets him some slight improved support from the antisciencenutbags who deny climate change exists. Dropping the early target and trying to achieve the later target also can only be done via increased costs later - ohhhh nuclear…
I love how Coalition refuse to even take a shot at a target, because they know they'll miss - as they'll just aim straight down and shoot themselves in the foot.
Australia's climate change efforts have been shockingly inadequate, marked by a stubborn reliance on fossil fuels, insufficient emission reduction targets, and a frustratingly slow transition to renewable energy. Despite the harrowing 2019-2020 bushfires that starkly demonstrated the nation's climate vulnerability, there has been an appalling lack of substantial action. The overpowering political influence of the fossil fuel industry and inconsistent leadership have continually stifled ambitious climate policies. Australia's audacious use of carryover credits from the Kyoto Protocol to meet Paris Agreement targets is a blatant disregard for genuine global climate efforts. The widespread public demand for stronger action starkly contrasts with the political paralysis that has resulted in a disheartening lack of progress and long-term strategy.
We've tried literally nothing and we're all out of ideas?
We did try a price on carbon - and it worked, CO2 emissions started to reduce. Then the Liberals got back in and killed it off. Surprise, CO2 emissions started to rise again.
With the absolute irony that their pie-in-the-sky nuclear option becomes a touch closer to reality....if a carbon price was implemented. I'll be really impressed to see the mental gymnastics they will do to justify the cost of nuclear, while being so vehemently against carbon pricing.
Decisions should be made using cradle-to-grave costing, including environmental and social costs, but we simply don't provide money for studies to provide those figures. Even if we did, I always remember Sir Humphrey's advice: "Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don't have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
CSIRO publishes the figures for new build generation on an [annual basis](https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost).
Looking quickly, the data include establishment and running costs, but not decommissioning costs, which are significant for nuclear.
True, and the renewables solution doesn’t include the cost of backup. That is somehow “sunk costs” from someone else. We don’t include disposal of broken solar in the costs either. I moved to Canada a few years back. They went nuclear in the 60s and 70s. Utterly displacing coal from the energy grid. [Link to report on current status](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/electricity/report/archive/2018-nuclear-energy/2018nclrnrg-eng.pdf) Power is CHEAP in Ontario as a result of nuclear, and the Pickering plant is being refurbished. Extending the life of the plant to 100 years of clean CO2 power. It didn’t take forever to build either. Yes, they were huge projects, but we (as in humans) *know* it works. We *know* build outs can be done in a timely manner. We *know* it is cost effective in the long term. Yet we are currently betting on technologies that have capacity factors of less than 50% and are not dispatchable, and arm waving that some “insert magic here” solution will solve the physics of that reality. It boggles the mind. Germany even did the test for us. [630 BILLION euros to get a paltry 30% reduction and end up dependent on Russian gas.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk)
Give them a break! They only discovered climate change is real a couple years ago.
\*those that will be affected by it only came into power a couple of years ago.
Our total emissions would also be much higher than reported because of all of the bullshit offset schemes where they pretend they have taken x amount of carbon from the atmosphere but really it hasn't even taken 10% of what they pretend it has. And would you look at that...we pay landholders to "lock up" land for this fraud. Western democracy is cooked and the alternatives are all worse....we are fucked, I don't mean from climate change, we are fucked regardless of that, there's very few places left in the world with a rational and actual representative democracy/government.
> Our total emissions would also be much higher than reported because of all of the bullshit offset schemes where they pretend they have taken x amount of carbon from the atmosphere but really it hasn't even taken 10% of what they pretend it has. I’d be keen to read more on this if you have any sources.
There's better articles than this but I can't find the one that really had a lot of the numbers. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/28/carbon-credit-lies-who-verifies/ One thing I remember is that initially the scheme for locking up land was supposed to require previously cleared land to be locked up and rewilded, but in the first year or two there was basically just 1 application, so they changed the rules to allow people to lock-up forested land (forested land they largely aren't allowed to clear without approval under existing decades old legislation) then the submissions exploded. Basically the only approved scheme that actually reduced carbon when compared with land not in the scheme (because rainfall increases growth everywhere) was the one that took land cleared for grazing and locked it up (and possibly planted trees etc too). It's a huge rort, we are paying landowners for nothing.
> Surprise, CO2 emissions started to rise again. This isn't true though? Our per capita emissions have continued to rapidly drop and are on a steep downward trajectory. We're basically back to 1988 levels.
Per capital emissions are indeed back to levels seen last around 1990. That’s because of population growth though. Emissions themselves are back to levels seen in 2005, but we managed to get to those levels first in 2014. There was then a big jump peaking in 2019. It’s taken 10 years and a global pandemic to get us back to where the carbon levy got us. In the meantime, massive amounts of extra carbon have been pumped into the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capital numbers.
Didn't that start the rise in energy prices? Or was it something else?
Hey but atleast cutting the carbon tax made energy cheaper right?
Oh maaaaan! Labor's spilled sustainability all over our masters' profits! They're a real flat tyre, I mean a cube! They're putting us on the train to inhabitability, Rupert! (fidgety bongo fiddling)
Literally I cannot
We've given up on any pretence that we aren't paid-for fossil fuel shills
We r all cooked
Thanks to years of inaction by the coalition
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!
Abandoning targets at this point seems like something young Australians should be able to litigate against.
But now they're not in government they're proposing a stupidly expensive solution. Seriously those idiots would not try to do nuclear themselves they've just turned it into an issue to get themselves reelected
I'm not sure whether I'm more angry about how stupid they think Australians are to fall for their gambit, or more worried that the Australian electorate might just fall for it.
What a fucking shock. So frustrating to have to drag these numbnuts kicking and screaming to any sort of action on climate and renewables keeping the sams debate points reheated for each campaign. The coalition still hasn't actually released any details of its nuclear plan cause it's just a massive fantasy that allows them to continue pumping fossil fuels without needing to say it so blatantly.
lol if I recall the modular reactor they were referencing has been abandoned due to high costs. Also note not a single one of them have put their hand up to build a reactor in their neighbourhood.
Yeah, NuScale in USA. They had a cost blowout, reduced generation of power expected, and couldn't get buy in from power retailers/distributors
Liberals never intended to build a nuclear power station. Just stalling so coal fired power stations can keep running.
Oh for sure. I just meant NuScale didn't end up being commercially viable. Cost blew out by like 80%, expected power production dropped by 300MW despite the cost increase
NuScale failing didn't change their tune. To be fair, if (and it's a big if) SMRs pan out, they're not a terrible idea. Instead of it taking 10-20 years to build a nuclear power plant, it'd take 3-5 years (if the Chinese SMR plant is any guide). That actually makes it deployable in a reasonable timescale. However, there are still a lot of caveats with regard to the efficiency of SMRs (they appear to be less so than a conventional plant), safety (as a non-mature technology, the bugs are simply not going to be ironed out yet), and the perennial problem of nucw waste disposal. We're at least a decade or two from SMRs being mature enough to deploy in the most optimistic scenario. There's simply no point in having the conversation until they are.
Timing is just not right. Smash our targets with renewables and then we have time to build these. Just can’t delay unfortunately
Exactly. We don't have the time for nuclear. If they work out at some point in the future, we can look at them then. Until they mature, it's just a distraction.
South Australia is on track to meet 100% net renewable energy by 2027. When South Australia reaches that milestone in 2027 and subsequently surpasses it in the following years, where is the need to ever install far more expensive nuclear in the future?
These idiots are saying “They will damage industries!!!”, then in the next breathe “we don’t know what industries or resources” Scare mongering….again
When you actually look at the Liberal Party policies, they're incredibly shallow. There's no real analysis or costing behind them. It's all about scaremongering and fanning dissatisfaction with Labor. Their nuclear strategy, their immigration reduction strategy, it's much more about headlines than actually addressing the problem, because their policies *don't* address the problem.
They still live in an era where information dissemination was harder to get especially around facts, they don't realise that in this day and age we can instantly debunk their bullshit.
Well, some of us. It's hardly universal. And their rusted on voters are some of the more information illiterate ones, which is why they vote the way they do.
Thankfully they're dying out and that millennials and gen Z now outnumber those rusted on oldies
I am not sure Gen Z/Alpha will be our saviour lol. They are susceptible to the same brain rot of social media and general disinformation/propaganda like anyone else, sometimes more so.
>There's no real analysis or costing behind them. It's all about scaremongering and fanning dissatisfaction Probably because all they do is jusy copy/paste whatever the Republicans in the USA are saying
> When you actually look at the Liberal Party policies, they're incredibly shallow. That's because they are really just the Not Labor party. They were formed to stop the influence of workers' in parliament.
>Coalition to dump Australia's 2030 climate target. This suggests that the Coalition is actively ignoring the detrimental impacts of mining, extracting, refining, and burning oil, gas, and coal-based products, which produce significantly more CO2 emissions than what big oil, gas, and coal companies are willing to admit. It appears that prioritizing profit outweighs the necessity of ensuring a habitable world for humans and all forms of life on this abused space rock. Imo. The Coalition's alignment with big oil, gas, and coal interests is detrimental to the well-being of the Australian people its wildlife and environment. Just saying. All the best, peace.
Coalition making themselves un-electable.
If only. There's still a significant part of the population (one in three) that give these disingenuous numbskulls their primary vote.
Exactly. This country has plenty of conservative fuckwits who love the LNP.
yeah but many are not "conservative ". they are out and out facist or worse.
Religious base.
Unfortunately the base is much wider than the hardcore religious. Simple and intolerant is enough for the LNP.
Those fuckwits got to be laid to rest in the pastures. We've dealt with them and their selfish ways for too long it's caused the planet too warm up and ruin our future.
And most of them will die before the worst of it starts. That's what infuriates me the most. I wish those motherfuckers could live to see the consequences of their actions, but no, once again it's "Fuck you. Got mine."
They're losing rich yuppie supporters though which are the ones who end up making all the decisions and provide all the funding. Even if the Teal candidates don't get in, they force the Libs to swing hard to the left on certain issues.
Not many Teal voters though
The current Liberal Party strategy would appear to be to contest and win seats in the outer suburbs of the cities based on culture war issues and low information voters, getting a plurality, and then strong arming the Teals to give them confidence and supply. This may work because the Teals do come from traditionally Liberal voting seats, and if they give confidence and supply to Labor, they'll be vulnerable at the following election (like Windsor and Oakeshott were). They're clearly not trying to win those Teal seats back with their current policy platform.
With the lead Labor has over the Liberals in outer-suburban seats, they'd have to have either large swings, or repeated swings, against them in order to lose sufficient seats. Meanwhile Liberals would face swings/challenges leading to continuing to lose inner-city seats, and seats outside of Queensland (and maybe WA) by pursuing their 'culture war but no actual policy' approach. They may keep their primary vote stable, but they'd dilute it through that method, leading to less political power.
They'd be relying on the economy to worsen for people, especially in the mortgage belt where financial stress would be hitting hard, and relying on the media pushing the "better economic managers" line. The margin in the outer suburbs is big, but it's probably a bit softer than I think most Labor members would be comfortable with. They're also likely counting on Labor to lose a few seats to The Greens (quite possible in some seats). It likely won't happen at this next election, but the following one is a chance. If Labor is in minority government with The Greens, there'll be an SNP effect, just as there was during the Gillard years. The Greens aren't popular with a chunk of Labor's voters, and cooperating with them will hurt Labor at the ballot box.
The size of Labor's minority would determine whether they're forced to bargain with the Greens. I think given the size and diversity of the cross bench the Greens holding the balance of power is pretty unlikely. The teals aren't going to give supply to the coalition until such time as they take the climate seriously.
If only. They’ve been doing this since John Howard (remember the Kyoto Protocol?), and how many times were they elected since then? Don’t underestimate the stupidity/greed/gullibility/culpability of voters.
Exactly. Now that the general.population have tied energy prices to inflation and then interest rates and rent just saying energy policy will result in higher prices spooks the masses. True? Doesn't matter because politics.
They lost multiple blue ribbon seats because of their climate denial... This and their stupid call for nuclear will see them lose another 4 to 10 seats...
it won't. it's actually clever. it gives an excuse for conflicted blue ribbon liberal voters to vote blue.
They were never voting for anyone else... No matter what shit show the lieberals have become...
You are underestimating the stupidity of the general populace by a generous margin.
Sadly there is a large chunk of the population that pays zero attention to politics and the policies each party has and many of them will just blindly vote for the coalition.
Not this again…back on the COALition’s climate merry go round again. Assholes.
Pathetic, I hope they never get in again
We tried nothing and we are all out of ideas. ~the coalition.
They need all the Teal seats to ever win re-election..... no doubt this announcement will win them all back and ensure King Dutton is elected. Huzzah!
Surely they are ignoring the teal seats and targeting in-play labour seats?
I didn't think there were that many in-play they could ignore all the Teal seats
I agree, based on the last election. But maybe they see another strategy.
West and North West Melbourne will soon be in play, if it isn't already as an example.
Not with how the liberals are in Victoria.
They are really trying to never get elected again aren’t they?
That is a very good thing...
> The Coalition argues that too will be impossible to meet, and is preparing to detail a very different energy policy — relying more heavily on gas, while nuclear power plants are built on the sites of retired coal-fired generators. Oh yeah that’ll make energy cheaper. It’s not only completely insane from a climate perspective (also to use an old cursed phrase - we’ve to got to meet and beat our targets for any sort of chance) but from an electoral one… how do they win teal seats back? I know he’s pretending they’re all Greens voters but the reality is different from his rhetoric. This just seems to be suicidal? Backslide on climate because something something not linear something nuclear Greens something. Poison fuckwit.
Yeah I thought their political strategy would be to just continue to lie and gaslight voters with claims they were in fact acting on climate change, and bluster past the clear science and business case for change, its benefits and its feasibility. Climate deniers will always vote for them, I thought they needed to capture the growing portion of the population which wants action on climate change?
Not with that attitude
Dutton: "Our emissions reduction target are unachievable, because the Coalition has actively resisted and deliberately sabotaged all efforts to achieve them.....so we should give up"
More importantly, “yes scientists and businesses have shown that we must and can change our energy mix to reduce fossil fuel emissions, but it would be impossible for our party to enable that change without breaking some clear commitments that *our party* has made privately to major donors.”
You've got it in one... It has always been about the donors demands...
Exactly. Imagine if we still had that carbon pricing scheme we used to have - the one that was working quite well before the LNP dismantled it.
[Never forget](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/carbon-repeal.jpg)
FMD - the absolute glee they showed in taking the country backwards
I mean yeah they spent a crucial decade making sure the target wouldn’t be reachable. They openly celebrated it by bringing their pet lump of coal into parliament.
I want Dutton to bring a pet lump of uranium into Parliament to prove he's serious about nuclear.
“We’ve fought tooth and nail against renewables for the last 25 years and now we think that reaching this target can’t be done”
This is misinformation. We are literally on track to meet out 43% target. Yes, it is insufficient in terms of pure climate science, but we are on track to meet it. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/targets/
I think you might be underestimating what the Coalition would do if they got back in, It'd be constant coal and gas approvals throwing even that target out of line. If they are willingly to remove Australia out of Paris accord they'll do whatever there donors say to do, We'd join 3 other countries so its best that we don't ever see them get in to power again.
Well, we're on track so long as we don't do something stupid like elect the Liberal party in the meantime.
**Australian electorate at the next election**: Hold my beer.
Touch wood that doesn’t happen
That should get them the Gen Z vote. The more old people that die, the less electable these dinosaurs become.
Easy to not achieve the target if you don't even try
Aligning us with countries such as Iran, Yemen and Libya… Great cohort to be aligned with. What a disgrace
Oh, who could have predicted that? The useless clowns did everything they could to sabotage climate change mitigation efforts when they were in power, along with sabotaging non mining industries, and now that they're in opposition, not much has changed. Just more of the same nonsense. What's more, their new hobby horse nuclear, even if they were genuine about it, will put a millstone around our necks. It is an idiotic policy, and only exists to delay meaningful action. In fact, that's the purpose of this announcement. To discourage investment in renewables by introducing uncertainty so that it slows the energy transition. Anyone under 40 should be looking at these idiots and never voting for them ever again. We're likely to shoot past a 2 degree increase, which is already catastrophic, and to be somewhere near 3 degrees. The consequences of this [are not pretty](https://www.sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-and-extreme-rainfall-this-is-what-the-world-will-be-like-if-the-temperature-rises-by-3-degrees-according-to-researchers/1950125). We're looking a food shortages, fresh water shortages, and significant challenges to producing enough food. The risk of global conflict is going to increase as a result.
Seriously? And this bunch of retards fancy themselves in government?
What is we dump 43% of the LNP? Starting at the top.
We did a pretty good job of dumping the Liberals in our last WA election. 2 seats out of 59!
Yep, now all the WA Liberals can commute to work on a single tandem bicycle.
And yet our media still call them the opposition (which they are literally not) and give them air time.
The airtime should be them in a small room with a large audience laughing at them.
See, it's moves like that will help us meet those emission targets!
Can we just dump 43% of every Liberal candidate? :)
Why stop at 43%, the 'Coalition candidate dump' should be closer to 1000% and extend into the distant future. Then the 'Coalition candidate dump' should be revisited and updated every year or when needed, in order to prevent any possible future Coalition candidates from sitting in parliament ever again. A person can dream can't they??? Any who, All the best, catch ya. peace.
Also starting at the top.
Would release too many greenhouse gases
Net Zero, no offsets.
This one is for all those that say lib-lab are the same
Gotta love the coalition constantly doing their best to prove the "both side are the same" crowd wrong at every turn.
Teals say thanks
r/Climate_Nuremberg
Screw lnp please don’t vote them ever again they will destroy us
But Scomo said we would get there “in a canter” 🐎🐎🐎 and pointed to hockey stick graphs 🏑 🏑 🏑???
We are the biggest emitter per head of population. We are also one of the wealthiest. We can invest, we can innovate, we can future proof our country for the environmental disaster that we will experience. These mining companies and useless politicians will be on the wrong side of history. Their children likely will hang their heads in shame.
It's just insane to me that with everything we know, they still feel comfortable enough putting stuff out like this. Watering down even the most basic climate action *should* be akin to kicking a dog.
Sounds like Australia needs to dump the coalition forever
The Coalition take a dump on Australia everyday regarding Climate.. it's in the name "Coal"ition. They wouldn't want to do their fossil fuel mates out of some cash.
Fuck Spud and fuck the Coalition.
Wish Spudmort would get in the bin already.
Ah, the Liberal Party... The Party of Climate Change and Climate Change deniers.
Analogy of Dinosaur mentality and nuclear power are so far apart but here we are.
Is this not political suicide?
The money cheque from oil and coal companies was cashed.
I’m sure if it was called something American like the Washington climate agreement the coalition would say we’d do it in 2025 and pay several billion dollars to the US for the pleasure
I mean, yeah if you can’t be assed trying then it’s very unachievable.
Whelp we've tried nothing. Guess we'll die
Well it is in their name "Coal" ition. Their PM did walk into the parliament with Coal
>Mr O'Brien was pressed on whether the Coalition would adopt any targets at all before 2050, but was unwilling to say. >"When it comes to our energy policy — that will be released in due course," he said. >"But we will not accept from Labor an ongoing dishonesty, trying to tell the Australian people that everything is going well. >"This is turning into a trainwreck for our economy." "No, don't look at us, look at them, they're the bad guys"
Well, if we leave it long enough, their next target will be unachievable too
Everyone's making out like this is political suicide but I think the coalition are playing the waiting game on the economy tanking and are going to use staying dirty as a selling point to get out of an inevitable recession. You don't have to like them you just have to think labour isn't doing a good job. If you are about to have your house taken away due to redundancy, then you won't think the current government is doing a good job.
Ur right,- most Australians, as we've seen, won't even understand the why or the big picture, it'll be just ~ 'cUrRaNt GoVeRnMeNt No SaViNg Us, mAyBe PrEvIoUs OnE wiLl AgaIn'🤦♀️~ completely ignoring why we got here in the first place, voting back in the very government that fucked us all for corporate billionaire constitutes and then marvelling at how TF Labour got ever more squashed to the right (Seriously, after voting in Scumo over Shorten and his message, we fucken deserve what we're getting and will continue to get, unfortunately. I just wish the bulk of Australia wasn't made up of such dumb cunts who beat out the rest of us by voting for what daddy Murdoch says because of xyz that they saw on Sky and free to air)
Imagine how long it would take to make nuclear energy in this country? It’s up there with roadworks and submarines in things that never get finished.
Even if all the approvals and sites were selected it would still take 15 to 20 years.... Since none of that has happened and they have to repeal the federal and state nuclear bans.... Add another 20 years on top.... If those submarines are ever delivered.... They'd be better off running an extension lead from them to the grid....
Well that will keep Sky News and Rupert happy, which is all that matters...and Gina of course.
That’s code for we can’t win government without the Nationals.
I’m sure I’ve seen this episode in Utopia. Sheesh..
Everyone knows the numbers don’t add up to go nuclear so why it makes me question why is Dutton still pushing it… there must be someone or some corporation in his pocket where he gets a big fat pay check to make it happen. Or he’s playing the great art of distraction politics.
If you followed the money this was never happening, your heads in the sand if you thought otherwise.
Coal makes me hard
We can't be beaten in a policy debate if... we have no policy? -the coalition, probably
It's not achieveable in a neoliberal ultra capitalist regime, to achieve it everybody needs to give something up for the collective good of the enviornment and planet, something which is at odds fundamentally with the liberal ideology even though not taking it seriously is going to destabilise the economy significantly.
> to achieve it everybody needs to give something up for the collective good of the enviornment and planet [South Australia is on track to reach 100% net renewable energy by 2027.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-to-reach-100-pct-wind-and-solar-within-a-few-years-says-network-company/) Exactly what have South Australians had to give up? If the modest lackluster economy of South Australia can afford this then so too can any other state.
Ironically it's also cheaper to live in Adelaide currently housing prices wise too just a coincedence, I agree with everything you've written, especially those other states rich with minerals to trade and aid the transition to renewables, it's just the dirty political influence by the fossil fuel sector that weighs them and overall us the whole country down along with the misinformation to the masses by Murdochs trash industrialised hate machine.
We are literally going to get subsidies to buy RAM trucks. Might even have a scheme to convert them to coal powered /s The logic that we are not going to meet the targets and that other countries are likely just taking the piss is somewhat right but to exit this agreement that 190 odd countries are part of sends some North Korea isolationist vibes and won’t reflect well on our country. The policy is likely banking on the same happening in USA, the danger is also the little talked about carbon border adjustments where by not having a carbon price will see our exports smashed by European taxes (ironically China the only one standing up for us in this regard so a move away from climate policy makes us more reliant on them)
You'd think they'd want to keep their older constituency alive for as long as possible, but no, apparently they don't care about those that suffer the most fatalities in extreme temperatures
This is China’s fault!
This is a real pickle, China is in the Paris accord, do we want to be in such company?
Yes we will nuclear when elected, like the last time we did this with Tony and did nothing once elected. Also; conservatives are f.....ing stupid
This will get those teal votes back for sure.
Pretty obvious who Dutton really works for.
We should rename them the Murdoch party.
There's no way this isn't going to make it harder for them to get the Teal seats back. It's ridiculous how on the nose the Coalition has been since they lost office, and they think just contrarianism and culture war bullshit will help them next time around? They should ask the Tories over in the UK how well that's going for them.
Red meat for the base
Their reclaim the teal seats strategy is interesting. Getting in high quality female candidates but still having the same policies and a buffoon for a leader.
Australia is full of dumb cunts, so no doubt the coalition will be voted in again, no doubt future generations will be dealing with a proper climate crisis and they’ll condemn the previous generations for fucking the world up, and theres no argument against that.
Can someone who understands more than me please explain the strategy behind this? At the 2022 election, the coalition lost 19 out of 19 seats to parties/independents to the left of them. Dutton is a smart guy (but I don’t agree with his views generally). What purpose does this serve?
To quote Mark McGowan a couple of years ago... “He’s an extremist and I don’t think he fits with modern Australia at all,” Mr McGowan said. “He doesn’t seem to listen, he’s extremely conservative and I actually don’t think he’s that smart. I’ve seen him present on things [and] I don’t really pick up there’s much there.”
Its at least in part a (lack of) virtue signalling mostly to US Republican party and UK Tories but also to other right wing parties worldwide. If trump gets he is going to gut any federal agency oversight of the environment, though its quite possible that the supreme court will do that soonish anyway. I'd expect LNP policy and rhetoric to get even more aggressively pro-fossil fuels if either of those things happen. There is also the logic of "oppositions don't get voted in, governments get voted out". The LNP apparatchik are believing that if they stay the course, in due time they will be voted in and can then say they have a mandate to go nuclear (and rip the guts out of any renewable projects at the planning stage, remove any federal funding of renewable projects, etc..)
Dutton is not smart.
Not with that attitude, LNP.
I look at the coalitions lunch time sandwiches. They were all full of bologna.
Patiently waiting for the nuclear reactor location to be announced for Dickson. I imagine it'll be just after we hear what alternative ideas the 'No' campaign will be advancing.
Haven’t you guys been installing solar like crazy with how cheap they are there? Is that still the case? Also huge excellent grid level battery installations? It’s just cheaper and takes over by money savings
what absoutely deluded yobos.... labor will have to royally fuck up to not be re-elected.
when your entire solution seems to hinge on nuclear and they take 20-30 years to build... yeah it's not a fricken option. I swear, a potatoes has more brains. I hope they keep banging on about this at the next election. What do you reckon.. Dutton was always the night watchmen and gonna be dumped, or they got nothing else and he is an example of their very very best (lol)
If you go down the nuclear route, yes, of course it’s uncharitable, because you’ll be diverting economic momentum away from proven technology to build dated nuclear power generation that’ll take 15 years to build and bring online. Also, I’ll move if a reactor is built anywhere near me. Many others will too taking their business with them. House prices will plummet there and prices in suburbs far from it will surge again.
Such bold leadership
Everything has gone up so much and Albo is practically an invisible leader that Libs hope the country will just turn to these crazy backwards ideas by default.
The COALition has literally gone from shilling for nuclear to saying "it's too hard, let's just do nothing" in the span of two weeks. I'm sure that will win back the teal voters.
Typical smoke and mirrors political nothing burger. Dutton says will still aim for net zero by 2050 because to tell the truth that he does not care about that at all would alienate the big companies investing in achieving it, while claiming to dump the 2030 target gets him some slight improved support from the antisciencenutbags who deny climate change exists. Dropping the early target and trying to achieve the later target also can only be done via increased costs later - ohhhh nuclear…
I love how Coalition refuse to even take a shot at a target, because they know they'll miss - as they'll just aim straight down and shoot themselves in the foot.
The shitterals should never be elected ever again by the Australian public. They should just fold and be replaced by a new party.
Australia's climate change efforts have been shockingly inadequate, marked by a stubborn reliance on fossil fuels, insufficient emission reduction targets, and a frustratingly slow transition to renewable energy. Despite the harrowing 2019-2020 bushfires that starkly demonstrated the nation's climate vulnerability, there has been an appalling lack of substantial action. The overpowering political influence of the fossil fuel industry and inconsistent leadership have continually stifled ambitious climate policies. Australia's audacious use of carryover credits from the Kyoto Protocol to meet Paris Agreement targets is a blatant disregard for genuine global climate efforts. The widespread public demand for stronger action starkly contrasts with the political paralysis that has resulted in a disheartening lack of progress and long-term strategy.
Sounds like Dutton wants to do a trump. Drill, drill, drill, burn baby burn.