JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Australian Doublespeak: a policy “vacuum” still means $billions in renewables subsidies

From the headlines you might think Australia is going to stop giving free money to Renewables shareholders from 2020:

Australia abandons plan to cut carbon emissions

Scientists say this move amounts to walking away from the Paris Climate agreement.

–  Adam Morton, Nature, Sept 2018, vol 561, page 293

Australian energy policy vacuum beyond 2020 officially confirmed

An energy policy vacuum in Australia beyond 2020 is now looking inevitable, with the baseload-focused reliability guarantee the sole remaining piece of the shelved National Energy Guarantee the Coalition government is hanging onto.

–PV Magazine Australia

My reading is that this is wild exaggerated spin (and that Nature used to be a science journal). Remember that Kevin Rudd signed away $7 billion dollars in a flick just before he left Parliament. He extended the RET subsidies to keep drawing from your electricity bills til 2030:

Electricity customers face an extra burden of between $3.8 billion and $7.5bn in “windfall” subsidies for renewable power generators in the next decade ­because of the stroke of a pen in the last months of Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership. Against advice from consultants, energy companies and the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Rudd government in 2010 extended the phasing out of the renewable subsidies for existing operators from 2020 to 2030. The 10-year extension beyond the contracted 2020 phase-out under the Howard government is estimated to cost households and businesses up to an extra $7.5bn.  — Dennis Shanahan, The Australian

Only last week, the Environment Minister was talking up Direct Action auctions for carbon reduction.

Knowing that, then read between the lines of Angus Taylors speech last week:

Addressing the parliament on Tuesday, Energy Minister Angus Taylor confirmed the Morrison government will not be replacing the Renewable Energy Target (RET) “with anything“ when it expires in 2020.

“The truth of the matter is the renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything,“ said Taylor answering an MP’s Adam Bandt’s question.

What he did not say was that there were no subsidies after 2020 or that Australia would axe the RET, or walk away from the Paris agreement. Clearly, in Greenspeak $7,500,000,000 is the same thing as “a policy vacuum.”

My reading is that  there will not be even more freeloading gravy-train riders destroying the grid than there already is.

Methinks Angus Taylor is trying to whip up false hope to satisfy the sensible deplorables but the collectivist folk are spinning his spin back to fire up their own team. The truth lies seven billion dollars to the left of center.

The Australian Government shows no intention of giving up on the Paris Agreement.

The trade minister, Simon Birmingham, has claimed Australia will honour its Paris climate agreement commitments but failed to name a mechanism for emissions reduction in government policy.

A more accurate question is Will we or wont we meet that target? A better question — Why Bother?

As for Nature, the same magazine that would never interview a skeptic who was a physicist because they are not a “climate expert” is happy to quote a climate scientist’s opinion on economic policy. John Church is a specialist in sea level research, but he’s the goto man for Nature on the National Energy Guarantee and a political analyst on the passage of laws on that through parliament.

When is an expert not an expert — when they stand between a scientist and a bucket of money.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (59 votes cast)
Australian Doublespeak: a policy "vacuum" still means $billions in renewables subsidies, 9.9 out of 10 based on 59 ratings

47 comments to Australian Doublespeak: a policy “vacuum” still means $billions in renewables subsidies

  • #
    Peter C

    Knowing that, then read between the lines of Angus Taylors speech last week:
    Addressing the parliament on Tuesday, Energy Minister Angus Taylor confirmed the Morrison government will not be replacing the Renewable Energy Target (RET) “with anything“ when it expires in 2020.
    “The truth of the matter is the renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything,“ said Taylor answering an MP’s Adam Bandt’s question.
    What he did not say was that there were no subsidies after 2020 or that Australia would axe the RET, or walk away from the Paris agreement.

    I honestly do not know what he means. I would like to think that the RET will be rescinded entirely and that all subsidies for Renewable Energy will cease, but I think (as Jo does) that that is a false hope

    220

    • #
      wal1957

      Yep.
      Subsidies will be in force until 2030.
      I don’t know how this helps with reducing electricity costs.

      ACP here I come!
      I am totally over the Libs and their double speak over RE, subsidies, Paris etc.

      230

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Well, think of it this way, the gravy train is a runaway…..we need to hit the emergency stop….

        In terms of vacuum…..to quote the line from “Alien”…..

        “In space ( OK..its not a true vacuum , but the get the idea ) no one can hear you scream…..”

        40

    • #
    • #
      ivan

      Peter, to understand what is said just follow the money. Start with a list of directors and officers of rge companies receiving the subsidies then compare that list with parliamentarians, their families and party brokers (those supporting the parties in the background)and their families. I think you will then have a better understanding.

      150

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Have you not noticed that the price of petrol/diesel fuel is now going the same way as electricity,
      Thru the bloody roof. This stinks of the Paris Accord. Revenue from taxes on electricity will pause for a while to settle public opinion but fuel taxes will replace lost revenue. Then electricity prices will resume due to “unforeseen circumstances”. Morrison will never drop the Paris Accord! Why?
      Our refineries are closed & we are importing refined fuel. Why?
      The country has less than 4 weeks supply of fuel stocks. Why?
      We continue to purchase fuel from Singapore at prices higher than world prices. Why?
      The government has no comments on the situation. Why?
      Would crude oil from USA being refined here in Australia be cheaper than refined fuel from Singapore? Refining fuel here will also provide employment!
      The stink of this PM is no different to that of Turnbull!

      160

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        This is a general comment and not aimed at anyone:

        To destroy a country’s middle class in order to further the communist agenda of destroying the middle class, you need to destroy their income and ability to survive, and to get them to rely on govt for everything.

        This is the corrosive agenda of communism.

        Also – the Conservatives in this country haven’t worked out something very critical :

        Non-Communists cant co-exist with Communists.

        This is why they build concentration camps and gulags and “re-education camps”.

        Right now we are in a fight to the political death, and if they actually take power, it will likely become a fight to the literal death, based on history.

        We have Socialist gun control now. Does anyone seriously think a man of very low IQ with zero tactical training at Port Arthur could carry out a professional shot/kill ratio of a military marksman? The people running this communist take over of Australia think in terms of 50-100 years, stuff is planned decades in advance. Barry Unsworth, when leaving a police minsters conference 10 years before Port Arthur happened ( its in Federal Parliament House Hansard, if you want to look it up ) said “we would need a massacre in Tasmania before we got uniform gun laws” ( or words to that effect ) – if he gave stock tips instead, you’d be rich…..perhaps Mr Unsworth could see into the future…what a gift………..?

        My uncle, who is jewish, escaped from Communism in a ( now ) ex-soviet-bloc country in the 1950s. He can tell you some horrific stories about what its like to live under communism. Young people who now live in the “sharing economy” think Communism is “cool” – they have no idea. What did we all know at age 20 about life ? Very little, if youre being honest.
        Reckon a 20 -something can recognize communism with such a left-wing dominated media?

        I challenge anyone over 40 who knows what communism is to do your duty to your kids and teach them about what communism is.

        If you don’t teach them, them and *their* kids will become Australian Red Army canon fodder….

        70

        • #
          clive hoskin

          The fact that”Little Johnny Howard”conned us into giving up our fire-arms(for our own safety),should be a lesson to everyone here.It turns out our so called”Conservative”was in fact a”Globalist”following his orders from the UN(as per agenda 21,now agenda 2030)
          A couple of instances to help you make up your own minds…
          The gun buy back that was a con….https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=285&v=FUNNmfOtmv8
          The truth about Port Arthur(Tasmania Australia) https://gumshoenews.com/201

          50

          • #
            glen Michel

            Australia has relinquished its endeavor and its raison d’etre. A country that went urban after WW2 and lost a lot of its native egalitarianism,as well as its individualism. Lots of us feel emasculated – and I don’t mean overtly the meaning of the word,and in trepidation about the future.The country is laid bare.

            20

        • #
          sophocles

          OriginalSteve said:

          What did we all know at age 20 about life ? Very little, if youre being honest.

          At age 20, we thought we knew everything.
          At age 50, our self assessment hasn’t changed at all.
          At age 60, some of us start to entertain a few doubts.

          50

        • #
          GD

          I like the cut of your jib, Steve.

          This is a massive problem today. You were spot on with, ‘what did you know when you were twenty’.

          Exactly. When I was 18 I was a Liberal voter but had no real grasp of the issues. At school, in the 60s and early 70s, there was no political indoctrination. Well, if there was, I wasn’t listening.

          However today, with the global warming propaganda, and the ‘friendly socialist’ indoctrination, I fear that youngsters will leave school, not unaware as I was, but determined to follow through with the brainwashing they’ve unwittingly received.

          40

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Yes, and recently there has been disturbing anti-Trump nonsense being voiced by my own daughter who is at a conservative christian school.

            I then proceeded to pull her up rather sharply with some rather pointed questions that forced her to actually respond beyond a sound-bite.

            Turns out its a “trump abuses women” thing ( which hasnt been proven ) being trotted out.

            Problem is, unless we actively pound nonsense into the ground by exposing it as nonsense, our kids are being brainwashed and its so subtle and drop-fed, its almost impossible to detect…..

            Here is some homework for everyone , if you love your kids, ask them about whats in the media, and ask them where they get their information from – often is complete BS from the MSM.

            We are in the fight for our kids loves right now – get involved, or lose them….

            80

  • #
    Geoff

    The ONLY way out of this mess is to leave the Paris Agreement.

    Guv will ALWAYS looks after guv. They are completely dependent on the taxpayer. They earn nothing, allow bankers to print money by lowering interest rates, clip the business ticket and allow rampant vote buying using borrowed money.

    Why anyone would think this could mean lower taxes in a place like Australia is just dreaming.

    There are people who live in inner city concrete jungles who tell us they are saving the environment by voting for lunatic, dog whistlers who don’t own a dog and insult our intelligence with talk of fake pollution while drinking coffer made from imported beans while arguing over crushed avocado sangers with their cell phone “friends”.

    The ONLY thing “real” about all of this is the avocado is Australian made. The rest grew out of their navel fluff.

    241

  • #
    pat

    not sure precisely what legislation this refers to.
    does the following have anything to do with this?

    Australian Govt: Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
    Amendments to the legislation
    On this page:
    2010 amendments to the legislation to deliver the enhanced Renewable Energy Target
    2009 amendments to the legislation from the expansion of the Renewable Energy Target
    2006 amendments to the legislation from the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target review…

    Amendments to the Act
    Amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 included:
    Increase in and extension of the renewable energy target. The target increases from 9,500 GWh to 45,000 GWh by 2020.
    The target is extended from 2020 to 2030…
    https://web.archive.org/web/20110830000936/http://www.orer.gov.au:80/legislation/reviews.html#2009

    80

  • #
    ROM

    I have a question, one that has intrigued me for a long time and one I hope can be answered by a couple of the red thumbers and / or alarmist trolls and etc who make the odd cameo appearaance here on Jo’s blog.

    As most here would know, the climate change theory means an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels which of itself will lead to only a very minor increase of a fraction of a degree in earth’s temperature even with a doubled atmospheric concentration of CO2

    The real increase in global temperatures according to the climate change hypothesis comes from the extra heat retention of the extra atmospheric water vapour that is due to the increased evaporation which itself is due to the very small increase in temperatures due to the increased CO2 levels.

    Increased CO2 levels alone won’t lead to only very minor increases of a fraction of a degree.
    The real increase in climate temperatures requires a very substantial increase in the atmosphere’s moisture load to retain and re-radiate the extra heat from the solar input before there is any significant warming of the planet.
    .
    But of course, something never mentioned is that when the atmosphere gets close to saturated with water at a temperature, it rains and precipitates all that water back down to the surface whilst the latent heat released from the condensing of the water vapour into actual droplets of water high in the troposphere radiates a large part of that latent heat release back into space.

    There are lots of locations throughout the tropics that very closely imitate the processes and heat inputs and heat transfers and precipitation events that are the almost exact analogue, the exact equivalent events to that which the climate alarmists are saying will be quite devastating to the earth’s climate and therefore the Earth as whole.

    But my question really is;
    If after the expenditure of another few trillion dollars added onto the trillion and quarter dollars equivalent already spent on “preventing climate change” , such as on renewable [ ? ] energy , what type and what changes will we see in the global and regional and local climate if and when the “stopping climate change” succeeeds?

    Will the climate then be unchanging and fixed for all eternity for that is what is being subtly suggested by quoting the term “stopping climate change” .

    Will we ever see droughts, floods, wind, storms, rain, hail, snow, cyclones, blizzards, heat, cold, all of those characteristics of the climate again just as they are today. ” .

    Or will the climate having been mastered and controlled by “stopping climate change” just become one long boring dreary, never changing, hour by hour passing of day and night?,

    If we still have all those droughts, floods, rain, wind , calms , storms, cyclones and etc, after “stopping climate change” how then will we know that “stopping climate change” has actually succeeded in any way as all those events plus many, many others already make up our global climate experience each and every day and have done so for as long as the Earth has existed.

    In short, what will be the difference between today’s global, regional and local climates and the climate of the future after Climate change has been stopped?

    What will be the effects on water supplies, food supplies, cities, human health, animals, insects, fish and etc and the living organisms of the environment which might no longer have the climate conditions which it and they have adapted to over some hundreds of thousands or millions of years ?

    This is a fundamental question which every climate alarmist and every climate scientist and every climate geo-engineering expert and every politician who is creating legislation supporting climate change proposals and who believes climate change must be stopped using the most draconian methods if necessary, should be able to answer as to what follows with regard to the fundamental characteristics of the new climate after “climate change” is stopped!

    Of course if “stopping climate change” does work, then what are the chances of a Venus or Mars or Jupiter or even a Moon type climate, a Black Swan climate event rapidly developing as a couple of still not known but controlling characteristics of the so far very stable global climate are disrupted and destroyed through mankind attempting to “stop climate change”?

    It is a question that has intrigued myself as I really do want to know what the “stopping climate change advocates” imagine the climate will be like if they succeed and what they want the climate to resemble before they begin to attempt to” stop climate change”

    So its over to you alarmists, trolls and red thumbers and assorted climate experts and etc!

    Here’s your chance to expound your beliefs in what benefits will result from “stopping climate change” and how the benefits and changes to the climate will affect every life form on this planet that relies on climate and weather to run its breeding and life cycles and to provide its food and sustenance as it has done so for some hundreds of millions of years in the past.`.

    301

    • #

      The good news about global warming is that you can run cattle on the Sahara. The bad news is that coast dwellers like Timmy and Kev may have to move. However we copped our peak warming some eight thousand years back so I wouldn’t look for another dose till around 125,000 AD. Mind waiting?

      The bad news about cooling is you get lots of drought…and still get storms and heatwaves. The good news is that you get back Doggerland…till the ice cap eats it.

      110

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      Advocates for stopping climate change are, of course, thoughtless scientifically. The currency of the left is fear and emotion; the motivation anger.
      There may be one or two folks who believe that the world is getting warmer, and want to make it colder. They imaging, and fear, all kinds of consequences that ‘warming’ may engender.
      Somehow, their educational background missed the very real consequences of a colder earth, including, but not limited to an ice age.

      If there were no money to be pried from the body politic…no sinecures in cushy jobs at prestigious universities; no adulation by hordes of progressives in search of a cause; no subsidies for crony, unproductive capitalism; no grants for facetious “research”; and no blogs where the insecure cult members could feel collectively good by trashing skeptics; research on CO2 would be the scientific footnote it deserves to be, with a few PHd types toiling to understand how the world works. We’d learn in school that we breathe Oxygen and emit CO2, like other mammals, and that plants do the opposite, and the biosphere thus stays in balance. In a slightly more advanced class, we might learn that CO2 concentrations are related to plant growth; that it is a useful horticultural supplement, and
      that the CO2 cycle in nature is quite complex beyond the ‘breathing’ of plants and people.

      As an old fart who went to school before the current hysteria, that was pretty much it.

      Progressives want to take over the world and run your life for you. This is because you are totally incapable of rational thought, or knowing what is good for you. They are so much smarter than you are that there is no need for debate, you must simply submit. Resources are simply a fact of nature. This is what allows one to say “In a rich country like this it as a travesty that……” and proceed to prescribe for the rest of us.

      But a funny thing happens in a democracy. If a progressive runs for office with an honest platform: “I’m smarter than you are and there fore you should select me to manage all aspects of your life” they seldom get elected.

      Of course in some countries, the appeal is more direct: 1) Put me in office or my street mob will tear you apart; and 2) do what I want or go to the re-education camp.

      But in a democracy, a more subtle game is required. Since common sense and honest efforts to manage common problems are the problem, those who indulge in such pursuits are the enemy. They become “they”. “They” must be perpetrating some evil, that “we” will save you from.

      Climate change is but one of those evils, but, being 100 years off, virtually immeasurable, verifiable by frequent, normal weather events, and producing highly visible “doing something” totems like windmills, it is a superior one.

      Having worn out the utility of differential skin pigment or the sacrament of terminating the unborn, climate alarmism becomes a perfect candidate for canonization; the more so because it subsumes the others as it hurts the poor, eliminates species, and threatens truth, justice, and the American (or Australian) way.

      Plus proponents get a lot of nice trips to places like Paris to live five-star vacations at taxpayer expense and gain psychic credit for virtue signalling at the same time.

      Stopping “stopping climate change” will stop the gravy train. Progressives can image all to well what the political climate will be if we stop stopping climate change; life as we know it will end.

      And so ROM, your “error” is trying to inject science into the argument. Progressivism
      is a never-endng search for pythagorian social levers: give them a place to squat and they can move the world.

      But, you knew that.

      160

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Richard

        Possibly “anger” is the fuel that pushes the social justice warriors and the reason is the need to belong.

        KK

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          A steady red dot, sitting on their centre of mass, often makes them stop and reconsider any potential foolishness before it gets started.

          I often find Leftists have a form of nasty madness that is difficult to describe. I have met some very nice left wingers, but the Leftie extremists should be classified as terrorists IMHO and sent to sing sing for long stretches, such is the danger they pose to life and liberty….

          30

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      There are boundary conditions ROM.

      Average Earth surface temperature may be roughly 13°C and deep space surrounding Earth is say minus 271.56°C.

      To anyone with even a slight understanding of thermodynamics the real problem is definitely Not the one posed by the IPCCCCC.

      The real problem is to work out how to stop the daily dose of energy from the Sun from escaping our planet overnight.

      Our biggest worry is to avoid Earth’s return to glacial conditions that have been the reality for 80% of the last half million years.

      KK

      60

    • #
      ian hilliar

      Can we not just put a cap on Mt Katla???

      10

  • #
    ROM

    That red thumb was quick !

    But I guess getting that red thumb to twitch is about the absolute in the intellectual limitations of that particular red thumber otherwise they might have tried to answer my question!

    181

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation.

    my eyes started glazing over as soon as I read ***Giles’s first response to Sloan.
    plenty of hatred for her in the comments,too.
    others might like to critique the whole thing:

    25 Sept: RenewEconomy: Judith Sloan’s nonsense attack on Victoria’s renewable energy scheme
    by Giles Parkinson
    There are a couple of stand-out claims from Sloan that are so hopelessly wrong they would not have been published if there had been even 30 seconds spent on fact checking…

    “Wind farms produce at most 30 per cent of their capacity, mainly in spring and autumn.”

    ***Wrong. For “at most” the figure for wind farms will be more like 50 per cent of their capacity than 30 per cent, and most new wind farms are producing at well over 40 per cent. They actually produce 50 per cent more than what Sloan tells her readers. Very few wind farms in Australia produce at less than 30 per cent. The average for Australia is 36 per cent…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/judith-sloans-nonsense-attack-on-victorias-renewable-energy-scheme-54184/

    24 Sept: SMH: Helen Pitt: Opera House goes carbon neutral five years ahead of schedule
    This move puts it up there with New York’s Empire State building and Paris’s Eiffel Tower as global architectural icons which are actively working to become world symbols of energy efficiency, its Environmental Sustainability Manager Emma Bombonato said…
    To celebrate the fact it has achieved certification against the Australian Government’s National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS), its famous white sails will turn green on Monday night at 6pm. Melbourne’s Pixel building was Australia’s first carbon neutral building in 2011…

    By becoming more energy efficient and streamlining day-to-day operations, it reduced its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and offset its remaining emissions for the year 2017-2018 with help from its major partner EnergyAustralia. To reduce its carbon footprint, Australia’s most recognisable building invested in renewables, tree planting and biodiversity projects to offset its greenhouse emissions…

    The next step in the Opera House’s Environmental Sustainability Plan (2017-2019) is to reduce its energy use by 20 per cent, achieve 85 per cent recycling of operational waste; achieve a 5-star Green Star Performance Rating (it is currently 4-star); and maintain its certified carbon neutral status year-on-year in time for its 50th anniversary in 2023.
    “By slashing energy use and ramping up recycling the Opera House has truly set the stage for others to follow,” NSW Minister for Energy and Utilities and Minister for the Arts Don Harwin said.
    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/opera-house-goes-carbon-neutral-five-years-ahead-of-schedule-20180921-p505av.html

    21

    • #
      ROM

      To add to and to provide a real numbers comparison to the claims made by renewable energy pimps in Pats post above.
      .

      Hepburn Wind Farm co-operative is located at Hepburn some 100 kms NW of Melbourne.They operate two turbines of a total of 4.1 Mega watts plated output.

      From page 9 of the Hepburn 2017 Annual Report

      In 2016 the Hepburn Wind Farm achieved a capacity factor of 27%

      In 2017 the Farm achieved a capacity factor of 27.5%

      Both capacity factors a long way from 40 % claimed in Pats post above.
      .

      And the generating income and subsidy income comparisons are very, very enlightening.

      2016; Electricity sales = $617990
      Renewable energy certificate sales = $625,015 [ subsidies from the fossil fuel generators forced by legislation to buy certificates which are then oncharged to the consumer ]
      .

      2017 ; Electricity sales = $437210
      Renewable certificates [ subsidies ] = $743674.
      .

      There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics of which the renewable energy industry is very masterful at twisting and distorting and corrupting to its own very significant financial benefit and the disinforming of the public who are forced to pay those exorbitant subsidies to the renewable energy operators and owners.

      190

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Politicians rarely say exactly what they mean , especially when they are trying to hide something so it wouldn’t surprise.
    A survey out today asked the question of voters if they could tell the difference between both major party policies and at the moment it seems the voters surveyed think there is very little difference.
    Time for Scomo to stamp his authority and end the energy wars once and for all by giving Paris the middle finger salute , ending subsidies for unreliables, building much needed dams and maybe throwing a few dollars at any company willing to build coal fired power stations .

    120

  • #
    Environment Skeptic

    The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On The…etc.
    “Spain lost four international arbitrations over cutting renewable energy subsidies.”
    http://microsegur.com/en/2018/07/05/spain-lost-four-international-arbitrations-over-cutting-renewable-energy-subsidies/

    50

  • #

    If John Church can find much sea level rise apart from the predictable post-1700s dribble I guess he can find a policy vacuum in our mega-spend on the Blob. Or a flying pig in a Mars-bound roadster. Or anything at all. (Do science qualifications fall out of Coco-Pop packets these days?)

    Anyone else getting the impression that Australia, in globalist circles, is now the prime mug for all things green? It’s like they want to see how much de-industrialisation, white elephant breeding and general foot shooting the skippies will tolerate before they try it out on the rest.

    140

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    As I have pointed out repeatedly, and been ignored, Australia produces roughly 1.3% of world emissions of CO2. Electricity generation is roughly 32% of that or 0.4% overall (and the world wide figures are dodgy enough to prevent more accurate figures).
    That means the
    Liberals want to cut emissions by 0.1% (of current world emissions)
    Labor are more ambitious at 0.2%
    and The Greens babble of 0.3% and all by 2030.

    Under the Paris Accord China can increase world emissions by 15%. India wants to increase them by 10% (but reserves the right to go higher) and Africa collectively will add another 10% overall.
    What effect on temperature would our small cut make? Assuming that it would have any effect.

    As for cutting household electricity bills the Liberals are doomed to failure. Their only hope is to take The Greens at their word about how cheap renewables are and abolish the subsidies well before the election.

    230

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Excellent outline of this nonsense.

      The whole nightmare is predicated on the concept that atmospheric CO2 influences atmospheric temperature:
      It Doesn’t.

      We are currently in what could be seen as “The new style of world war” where the Elites operate scams of immense proportions and enrich themselves by enslaving us.

      While conceding the brilliance of this scam, it’s time to call Enough!

      It must Stop.

      Europe is a Mess, Australia is on the brink.

      If we can remember Hans Christian Andersen’s warning in the Emperor’s New Clothes and act, we may recover the heritage gifted us in the Magna Carta.

      Revolt.

      KK

      130

    • #
      ivan

      Brilliant synopsis Graeme No 3
      Could I post it elsewhere in response to the truly deluded AGWs on another blog?

      00

    • #
      C. Paul Barreira

      Under the Paris Accord China can increase world emissions by 15%.

      Source?

      00

  • #
    Mark M

    “We will no longer sign commercial agreements with powers that do not respect the Paris accord,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the UN …

    https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2018/09/25/macron-rejects-trade-deals-with-countries-outside-paris-climate-pact-in-rebuke-to-us-exit?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=worldresources&utm_campaign=socialmedia

    60

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    This situation demonstrates the truth and reality of our political world: namely that the primary purpose is to get elected and use the power of office for self.

    The Laba Mooment has set itself up in the field of Superannuation where its’ union elite survives on Directors payments.

    Laba Super has “Invested” in the ultimate Claytons Investment, Renewables, and would be very unhappy if the funds under management became worthless because Kevies parting gift of taxpayers hard earned was stopped by the New Libs.

    Cunningly the Libs have seen fit to not annoy the mooments elites and the public gift of $3.8 Billion p.a. continues.

    Often, getting elected involves buying off part of opposition.

    Come to think of it, the Trumble family would be happy for the stay of execution on renewables as well.

    Collusion over money makes strange bedfellows.

    Ivan has put it very well at #1.3 above.

    KK

    70

    • #
      DaveR

      Interestingly Keith the union-controlled industry superfunds have heavily backed the renewable industry where other superfunds have been much more conservative. In terms of investment management, it would be fair to say many industry funds (not all) are heavily overweight the renewables sector.

      If the massive renewable subsidies, which are the prime reason for driving up power prices, are capped, or reduced, or even phased out over time, then the industry funds in general will take a massive hit compared to the rest of the field.

      Its fairly obvious the renewables industry subsidies are directly linked to the ALP through their union controllers.

      50

  • #
    Robber

    Policy vacuum? Not with Labor States still delivering economic madness on electricity prices.
    In June 2016, the Victorian Government committed to Victorian renewable energy generation targets of 25 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. The Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 (Vic) legislates the Victorian Renewable Energy Targets, demonstrating Victoria’s leadership on renewable energy. The Victorian Government has established the Victorian Renewable Energy Auction Scheme (VREAS) to support achievement of the Victorian Renewable Energy Targets (VRET). These targets seek to ensure that 25 per cent of the State’s electricity generation comes from renewable sources by 2020, rising to 40 per cent of generation by 2025. Successful projects of the scheme were announced on Tuesday 11 September, 2018.

    Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and her Energy Minister Mark Bailey say the minority Labor government is committed to its ambitious 50 per cent renewables target by 2030 despite claims it could push up prices. Facilitate the next wave of up to 400 megawatts of diversified renewable energy, including 100 megawatts of energy storage through a reverse auction. Provide electricity price relief by investing $770 million to cover the cost of the Solar Bonus Scheme.

    And despite the former SA Labor government delivering the highest electricity prices in the world, the madness continues: The South Australian government has also made a further commitment of $100 million to help deliver 40,000 home batteries through the Home Battery Scheme. The Scheme will open for applications in October 2018.

    60

  • #
    Tom R Hammer

    At this stage, does anyone really think there will be any meaningful action to improve Australia’s energy supply? The Lib/Nat coalition is a lame duck organisation, simply in charge until the next election, but lacking the numbers or the will to make any changes. Taylor has to make the best of a bad situation; something he has very little sway over. The Coalition seems incapable of even implementing policy blocks to hinder the incoming Labor wave. The national love affair with renewable energy still has a long way to run. The Pain hasn’t even started yet.

    50

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    It is indeed unfortunate that politicians can’t read. If they could, they could digest this.

    30

  • #
    DaveR

    Most commentators here are not focussing on the politics of the issue, which is driving the Morrison government decisions and actions at the moment, and will be for some time.

    Firstly, Morrison will not do anything significant on this until after the Wentworth by-election and the eminently winnable Victorian state election on Nov 24. That way wet Liberals remain on board.

    Morrison and Taylor have both said that Australia will meet its Paris target from the current settings, without the need for any further increase in renewables. That allows them to keep the Paris target in place, but they will only to pay lip service to its further requirements.

    The issue for Morrison is how to roll back the crippling renewable subsidies locked in by Rudd, thus reducing power prices at the expense of renewable profits, and repair the damaged base-load supply, but stay in office. The method so far has been to de-couple base load reliability from the Paris target. It is likely that financial barriers will be raised for the construction of new renewable insfrastructure. But that will only happen after the NSW state election on March 23, if the coalition is still there.

    10

  • #
    Drapetomania

    The Lib/Nat coalition is a lame duck organisation, simply in charge until the next election,

    Yes..and I will not vote in future for them or the parties like Liberal democrats anymore since they give their preferences to the coalition.
    Until the coalition actually..and I know this sounds crazy..but until they disavow the whole Co2 madness/energy “policies”..then thats it for Why they go the opposite direction to what their voting base wants has always puzzled me.
    Why they are trying to pander to the mad fauz green electorate that hates their guts..always baffles me as well.

    30

  • #
    Ian

    Jo you write “nature used to be a science journal” That, I would argue, is wrong. Nature used to be the science journal although this is disputed by Science. Whatever, it is sad to see Nature has lurched to the populist as indeed has Science and neither seem to review pro-Climate Change papers with any degree of critical scrutiny.

    00