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

Labor in Australia finally gets a message from the voters and “wants to end climate wars”

Labor dumps a bit of green extremism, but it’s mostly symbolic

Anthony Albanese says “Yes” to Coal (only with Carbon Capture) but still “No” to Nukes.  Keeps the same emissions target.

After losing three elections in a row on and with help from SARS-2, the Labor Party have realized they can’t wedge the coalition by being holier-than-all-the-workers that used to vote for them. They can’t be seen as anti-coal. So just in time for a key marginal byelection, Anthony Albanese, leader of the Opposition, offers a token olive leaf.

He’s got his eye on the Queensland election due in October, and all those seats the Labor party lost one year ago.

Anthony Albanese urges Scott Morrison and Coalition to work with Labor on energy policy

Federal Opposition leader Anthony Albanese has urged the Coalition to work with Labor on a bipartisan energy policy…

So Labor will support “development” of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This is the impossible idea of stuffing a gas back down the small hole it used to live in, when it was a rock and before it met O2 and grew threefold in weight and 2,000 times in volume.* Everyone in polite society knows it can’t work, but if you have to hate coal and also live with it, CCS is the get-out-of-jail card, where people can pretend that they want to find a low carbon way of burning a fuel made of carbon.

Ultimately the Labor Party are still climate believers with an uncosted zero emission target by 2050.

They probably figure if they get lucky, and the Coalition does create a “scalable” energy plan with them, they can just ramp up the targets on it if they win the election, then say they’re just using the bipartisan plan and “speeding” it up.

It’s not about reducing carbon — it’s about helping the renewables industry

Watch the deck-chairs of Labor desires:

However he said those  [CCS] projects should not be funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), as recommended by a recent review, arguing support should not be diverted from renewables.

Labor also remains opposed to the Emissions Reduction Fund, which pays organisations to reduce their carbon emissions…

Labor don’t want climate-money paid to friends of the Coalition, meaning farmers or small business owners, it wants money shuffled to renewables companies (friends of Labor). But the farmers and small business owners are reducing carbon at bargain prices compared to multinational Renewable giants.

The Emissions Reductions Fund was Tony Abbott’s direct auction plan, but Big-solar and Big-wind can’t compete with $14 a ton carbon reduction, which is why Albanese wants to funnel the money through other agencies. He says he wants to stop the pork barrelling, but he’d be stopping a successful program in order to send more pork to his friends. Big Renewables need Big Government.

Nukes would be a disaster for the Labor Party, they’d “solve” the climate crisis

Some Coalition MPs have called for the Government to look at establishing a domestic nuclear power industry, but Labor has again made it clear it does not back such a move.

The worst thing for the Labor Party (and the Renewables industry) is if the Coalition managed to get a nuclear plant running in Australia. It would achieve all the carbon reduction that wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and carbon capture could never do.

The National Energy Guarantee — the NEG is dead

The Labor Party has effectively dumped the NEG — which Malcolm Turnbull promoted. It was a hidden carbon tax on electricity generators forcing them to buy international carbon credits – something that suits the Big Bankers and the Big UN. It was designed to be impossible for coal.   It was always a Labor preferred plan — improbably endorsed by Labor, but not the Coalition, reminding us of that old cliche, that Turnbull was the best Leader the Labor Party never had.

The Labor plan has no plan

Energy Minister Angus Taylor criticised Mr Albanese’s speech today at the National Press Club, arguing it left a lot of questions unanswered. “They didn’t explain how their energy policies will create a single job,” he said.

“They didn’t explain how they’re going to bring down prices, how they’re going to keep the lights on, they didn’t explain what their targets were and they didn’t explain how they’re going to achieve those targets.”

The most significant change announced here is that Labor is aiming more for the centre, trying to look less extreme-Green. They’re still pandering to the Green vote, but they are trying in a small way to pander to the struggling Australians and blue collar workers too.

The Coronavirus era has meant people like seeing more bipartisan governments — with some agreement, good manners, and less adversarial nit-picking and demonization. Albanese is trying to look statesmanlike and cooperative. But that’s a lot better than trying to present themselves as smug Guru’s opposing corporate Nazi planet wreckers..

Paul Kelly, The Australian: Albanese’s offer one Morrison must refuse

The Labor leader’s speech and letter to the Prime Minister shows the coronavirus, not the bushfires, is framing climate change policy for Labor — as distinct from the Greens. Albanese is taking Morrison’s success with co-operative politics over COVID-19 and inviting him to achieve “bipartisan agreement” on climate change.

It is a neat but deceptive ploy. There will be no negotiation and no grand bargain. Albanese’s calculation was that if Morrison agreed, that would boost Labor’s “olive branch” credentials; but if Morrison declined, then Labor would have the moral high ground for seeking to repair the great energy policy divide.

Symbolic deck chairs are shaking.

——————————-

*Calculating the expansion of coal to CO2: 1 ton of Coal generates 2.8 tons of CO2. 1 ton coal fills 0.74m3.  1 ton of CO2 fills 556m3. Therefore, 1 ton of coal expands from 0.74 to 1590m3. or about 2148 times.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (61 votes cast)
Labor in Australia finally gets a message from the voters and "wants to end climate wars", 9.9 out of 10 based on 61 ratings

133 comments to Labor in Australia finally gets a message from the voters and “wants to end climate wars”

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    The dance has been choreographed all along for our entertainment, and now we approach final scene.

    Good cop – bad cop.

    All we need is consensus …

    … Paul Bongiorno on how the Liberal candidate in the Eden Monaro byelection, Fiona Kotvojs has transformed her views on [global warming] to echo those of Scott Morrison’s.

    https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2020/05/30/unplugging-the-economys-life-support/15907608009909

    A comment from twitter easily checked:

    “Kotvojs has just changed her tune for the election. Her article and some posts from her husband, Alan Burdon’s FB..since closed.Hmmm!
    She is a climate change denier and fossil fuel supporter.”

    ScoMo is a believer the failed doomsday global warming.
    All we need is for Labor to fall in line and it’s sunbeam & seabreeze collectors all the way to our wazoo and back.

    50

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      God Travis is is ages since I even looked at the Saturday Paper.
      And it is still a load of Greenist propaganda bull dust.

      PS How does your link about ScoMo relate to the Liberal party Eden Monaro by-election candidate ?
      I found nothing of relevance in it.

      33

  • #
    DaveR

    The NEG -enthusiastically drafted by Joshy boy with its hidden carbon tax – no wonder Turnbull was dumped. And Josh is still a supporter of a price on carbon. A danger for the coalition in the future.

    220

    • #
      Geoff Croker

      The Federal Government can, and is, printing money. The States cannot.

      The GST was a means of promoting business to increase state taxes. Unfortunately, the created GST bureaucracy exceeds the income. A transaction tax would have been better. Singapore and China will enable such a tax via the abolition of cash and the promotion of payment by mobile phone (ten pence). They will do it to control their citizens, not because financial enlightenment has set in. We get to look on and see if it works. Is it spiv proof? Does it collect more than it costs to implement?

      The Treasury must maintain the delusion that “money” is worth something. The reality is “money” is a sovereign’s debt. This is a very hard reality to accept.

      Treasury will impose any tithe, reward any booster, to maintain this reality.

      Taxing carbon is a bit like the old windows tax. The higher it goes the less windows in every building. Buildings got to the end point of no windows before “government” decided that it could no longer “improve” this form of taxation.

      Federal Labor has little chance of getting elected. They have no credible leaders. They are being consumed at the edges by extremists. “Treblinka” writ large.

      Federal LNP are showing inklings of commercial enlightenment. Covid-19 is showing what needs to get done. Without it we would still be living their “Russian front” economic model.

      As they print, spivs encircle the new money. This is normally the home of bankers. They seem paralysed by Covid untruths. Big business has usurped their cosy position in the money hand-out line-up. Let us hope that sensible projects get done and control is equally sensible. As this form of “sensible” does not abet greed, voters must keep a wary eye. It may not succeed.

      41

      • #
        RickWill

        The United Nations pushed hard for an email tax back in the 1990s. They saw it as means of being financially independent from people like Trump, who might demand accountability from them.

        81

  • #
    2dogs

    Albanese’s calculation was that if Morrison agreed, that would boost Labor’s “olive branch” credentials; but if Morrison declined, then Labor would have the moral high ground for seeking to repair the great energy policy divide.

    The way for Morrison to respond is to ask for a plebiscite on nuclear power.

    If Albanese declines, he is anti-democratic. (That, on top of opposing the SSM plebiscite.)

    If Albanese says yes to the plebiscite, but campaigns no in it, he becomes anti-science, and will most likely lose.

    If nuclear wins, climate change is solved as an issue, and he doesn’t have it to campaign on. A lot of other issues such as immigration or restarting class warfare are vote losers for the ALP.

    310

    • #
      PeterS

      By all means if we are to avoid a catastrophic end to our economy by scrapping renewables and going to nuclear to reduce our emissions then so be it. It really comes down to two choices and only two choices. Either we scrap the emission reduction nonsense and build coal fired power stations, or we keep the emission reduction nonsense and go nuclear. There is simply no other way to “come clean” on the issue of climate change. At the moment both major parties are pushing for lower emissions without nuclear. That is fatal and eventually one or both major parties will have to change their attitude on either coal and/or nuclear.

      250

    • #
      Komrade Kuma

      If Albo was serious about bipartisanship he would have gone aroundto ScoMo’s office and put his cards on the table, cut a deal (or not) and if so they would have jointly announced it, much like the National Cabinet was put together. Instead he went one out at the Press Club to milk the publicity addicted media response and try to leave ScoMo flat footed and having to play catch up.

      Stunt Value? 2 maybe 3/5
      Real Value zip

      Press flush as you leave the loo Albo… and leave the fan on… thanks maaate.

      90

      • #
        PeterS

        Agree. Also the only way for the ALP to change and be serious is to dump the Greens but of course they don’t like to.

        40

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Don’t do it Mr PM.
    Agreement to bi partisan climate policies will simply we’ve the government. The PM will be handing Labor a “big stick” with which to beat the PM’s policies.

    If Labor was to suggest putting nuclear power generation as a priority their approach just might start to look like an olive branch.

    The Labor Party is a socialist club with the same intent as all the Socialists on the planet and as such can never be trusted.

    230

    • #
      PeterS

      I always wondered what would have happened if we had a “Hawke” as the leader of the ALP. I suspect he would push for nuclear and beat the LNP to the punch. It really is time Australia grew up and went nuclear anyway even though it’s not necessary given we have so much coal. It would generate more jobs and businesses, something we now need desperately more than ever before.

      220

      • #
        el gordo

        We know that coal and nuclear are efficient, but ultimately it will come down to cost. We could have two coal fired power stations for the price of one nuclear power station, what do you think?

        150

        • #
          PeterS

          If it came down to cost then why in the hell are both parties pushing for more renewables and not going for coal instead? Renewables are far more expensive than nuclear for generating highly available power demanded by any modern society.

          260

          • #
            el gordo

            Premier Gladys has big plans for renewables and plans to test it, conducting a very big experiment.

            So we should put up our figures on what it would cost to build a nuclear plant, coal plant or renewables system.

            50

            • #
              PeterS

              Cost has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, no renewables project would be in existence today and no new ones would be even considered. We are like children scared to play with what too many perceived is too dangerous when it’s not (nuclear) and too many politicians in the LNP who are too chicken to admit the emperor has no clothes (emission reductions).

              170

              • #
                Dennis

                What will the politicians say when they realise that there is not enough suitable land to replace power stations with wind, solar and back up systems?

                70

              • #
                el gordo

                Startup costs are important with infrastructure spending.

                We are locking the gates to multinationals who want to build renewable farms on good agricultural land.

                31

              • #
                PeterS

                What will the politicians say? Well, if by then we still have the same politicians as we do today then they probably say build more renewables out in the sea. China has built the largest floating solar farm in the world.

                20

            • #
              Steve of Cornubia

              Yep, and she’s so sure it’s the right thing to do, she prepared to bet YOUR house on it …

              10

        • #
          Peter C

          Nuclear power plants cost more than coal plants at present.
          Several papers were presented at the Freidman Freedom Conference in Sydney 2018.
          South Korea was/is building 4 nuclear plants in the UAE for 20 billion. They are able to control the prices to a large degree by sequential construction and ordering long lead time items appropriately. Also the regulatory problems were not an issue.

          Small modular reactors seem very promising. Getting sufficient orders to set up production is holding them back. The mining industry seems like a good starting point to me, since they require a lot of diesel fuel to be shipped to remote locations. The locations also helps secure the plants against loony greeny protesters.

          210

          • #
            el gordo

            Thanks for that Peter.

            30

          • #
            PeterS

            and renewables cost far more than nuclear. When are people here going to wake up and realise cost has nothing to do with it? See my other posts here. Even if cost of the new small scale reactors were less than coal it won’t make the slightest difference. We as a nation are too child like being afraid of anything to do with nuclear. We need to grow up as a nation.

            150

            • #
              el gordo

              We already know that nuclear is expensive to build and then there is the operational factor.

              ‘Nuclear is also much more expensive, the WNISR report said. The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.’ Reuters

              11

              • #
                PeterS

                Hasn’t stopped countries around the word building more of them. Besides, renewables are far more expensive when the real cost is taken into account yet despite that fact we are going down that road. So, please stop using the cost argument. It is irrelevant. Focus on the real benefits of going nuclear as well as staying with coal. Cheaper, more reliable power in relative terms. Renewables on the other hand provide only more expensive yet unreliable power.

                50

              • #
                Robber

                Presumably they are US$ costs, so add 40% to get A$, so solar A$57, wind A$40-80. Then add the extra cost of construction in Australia, and backup for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
                Dr Alan Finkel,Australia’s Chief Scientist, calculated the 2020 cost of solar in Australia as A$91/MWhr without backup, and $172/MWhr with 12 hours backup. –
                Wind A$92/MWhr without backup – he did not cost wind with backup.
                He reported the cost of new supercritical coal as A$76/Mwhr.
                But still the green mantra is intermittent “renewables” are cheaper. How do we pick apart this deception?

                90

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Quick we need another interconnector — either to the USA where the nearest reactor was selling at $Aus67 per MWh or to France where they have been selling at 60-67€ ($Aus 98-110) per MWh for years.

                Much of the cost of building high pressure reactors is regulatory, which results in large size and years to build. No one knows what these newer types will cost. Many are free from high pressure, hydrogen buildup (which is what caused the Fukushima explosion).
                Canadian/US Design (Terrestrial Energy): Operates at 600C and is walk away safe.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgTgV3Kq49U

                The advantages of nuclear are reliability, and no CO2 released (for what that’s worth). Also, the number of people killed by nuclear accidents is less than those killed by wind turbines.
                And on CO2 reductions why can’t we count on the 17+% reduction available by up-grading our existing coal plants?

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘How do we pick apart this deception?’

                Only a balanced ABC could do it convincingly, but we may have to reinvigorate the climate wars to prove conclusively that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

                A coal fired power station at Dubbo might be a better alternative and less visually polluting. The nearest coal mine would be someway off, so would require new rail infrastructure. I’ll look at the feasibility.

                32

              • #
                el gordo

                The Gunnedah Basin is right next door, now all we need is a good price on a modest state of the art power station.

                https://www.resourcesandgeoscience.nsw.gov.au/landholders-and-community/minerals-and-coal/geoscience-for-landholders/coalfields

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                We can accept the Collinsville proposal as a starting point.

                ‘At a cost of $2 billion, Shine Energy wants to build what is known as a high-efficiency, low-emissions coal plant in the Central Queensland mining town.

                ‘Shine says building the 1-gigawatt plant, which would also include a solar component, would lead the transition away from older and dirtier coal plants by reducing emissions.’ ABC

                20

              • #
                Komrade Kuma

                The cost of generation is one thing, the cost of generating and having available as baseload or otherwise deliverable into an aggegate supply source system that can function as an orderly market and not like some daily South Sea power Bubble is quite another. Included in that cost must be any additional cost to the community of an adapted network to suit the new, widely disppersed network of relatively small generation sources. When I am confident those sums have been propoerly done I might take some notice of $$$$???!!&& numbers thrown around.

                10

          • #
            Graeme#4

            The mining industry in WA’s NW doesn’t need nuclear – it has easy access to cheap gas.

            31

            • #
              Peter C

              How do they get the gas from the North West shelf to the mines?

              20

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Pipelines Peter. The NW gas is also piped right down to Esperance on the southern coast. This 1400 km pipeline cost $400m and was completed in 12 months. I laugh when somebody claims that shorter gas pipelines would cost $6bn.
                Perth has a major gas pipeline running north-south, right through the metro area, and small gas peaking plants are located along the pipeline to cope with power peaks. The pipeline also supplies cheap energy to major industries.
                I believe not many folks have any idea of the huge scale of the mining and gas industries in the NW.

                71

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Sorry, it’s 1720 kms down to Esperance. And folks still think twice about connecting either the NT or NW gas networks to the eastern network, much less distance.

                30

              • #
                Graeme#4

                There is about 1300 MW of power stations running on gas in the NW. This network is separate from the Perth and SW network.

                40

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    Jo,
    The biggest problem I have with all these good intentioned government policies and programs is that they never review how it works or the consequences of them.
    So many examples of failures…hmmm.
    Okay, try recycling,
    With all the stickers on plastic products,they are not recyclable and have to be incinerated or shipped out or buried. The concept on paper is good but practicality costs more due to shipping it out and around.

    Another, is recycling of cars today is impossible due to the huge makes and models available and mostly made of plastics.
    Where did the safety pass plastic as being safe especially when it does shatter in cold climates.

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      One of the main problems is the fact that we have voters who have only themselves to blame for their voting patterns. They are by and large selfish and short sighted. So we end up with the governments we deserve. If we wanted to look longer term and plan for a greater and better future using long term strategies instead of stumbling along as we do and hope for the best but risk the worst then the public need to be educated on how to use their brains to think before they vote. That’s not going to happen simply because the drive is towards the other direction; training the public to be mindless fools starting at school.

      60

      • #
        Jojodogfacedboy

        The media and politicians make sure you have no choice in voting…
        Look at the US… Trump or Biden…Some choice.
        The Western nations are all the same.
        No real choice.

        26

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The illusion of “choice” is important to stop people rioting….

          Question – who are the people who give us the candidates to “vote” for?

          Funny how mo natter who you “vote” for you get the same result and same agenda.

          That is the defintion of a conspiracy….

          21

        • #
          Deplorable Lord Kek

          trump is a fantastic choice to have.

          the best leader of a western country in 30-40 years.

          80

  • #
    Zigmaster

    If you want to win elections it’s wise to “ Don’t mention the war”. Every time a party has made climate change key to their policy agenda they have lost. Gillard, Turnbull, Rudd, Shorten all attest to that. Albanese would be well advised to keep quiet about the subject.

    70

  • #
    MudCrab

    Anthony who?

    Is he part of the National Cabinet?

    Face it, Comrade Dan – unfortunately – is more National important now.

    30

  • #
    Rafe Champion

    We have two massive disabilities compared with every other western nation – we are an island and we have no nuclear power. We also have massive wind droughts over SE Australia when the windmills can practically stop for a day or more! Read all about it – wind droughts, choke points, the island problem (Jo has called this before but it needs to be played up) and of course, the absurd ban on nuclear power.

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/06/22/submission-to-nsw-re-inquiry/

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      The ban on nuclear is due to the fact we are immature as “adults” to play with what many perceive is a dangerous source of power in spite of the fact modern reactors are well and truly safe and getting better with the small scale ones now starting to appear. Cost has nothing to do with it. The fact both parties are relying on renewables instead of coal as the way forward is proof of that.

      100

      • #

        The anti-nuke campaigners arrived here to find a naive good-natured land of people untrained in spotting the vested interests in a “science” debate. The media failed to do the hard research, and there was no nuclear industry here to push back.

        Greenpeace pushed on an open door.

        We have so much coal, and it produces cheaper power, that even though we have the largest reserves of uranium in the world, it didn’t make sense for us to build nukes.

        Cost wise, we should be burning that brown coal while it’s still worth something.

        162

        • #
          PeterS

          The decision as to whether we go nuclear or stay with coal is moot since at the moment we are focusing on other means to generate power, predominantly renewables with some gas and diesel to reduce our emissions, which is of course a pointless exercise other than for some to make a lot of money. The only way to break that trend is for a minor party or parties to gain the balance of power and force one of the majors to change direction and put us back on at least the coal path and drop any more renewables.

          60

        • #
          Peter C

          Cost wise, we should be burning that brown coal while it’s still worth something.

          Luv it. I could not agree more.

          “The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones”; Sheik Yamani (Saudi Oil Minister-1990 approx).

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          “a naive good-natured land of people untrained in spotting the vested interests in a “science” debate.”

          Not much has changed, has it, except the “good-natured” part.

          Politicians are still naive, and are buying into the anti-CO2 non-science without noticing the massive vested interests that are pushing it.

          40

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The NSW Libs have started work on a super solar renewables program for the centre , based on Dubbo.

    One price estimate was $4,000,000,000.

    Just imagine that you were in a position to skim say just 1% of that : $40,000,000

    Every project needs consultancies to outline the design, engineering, construction and approvals pathway for the Planet saving “infrastructure”, doesn’t it.

    Of course: both Libs and Labs agree. They totally and absolutely agree.

    Some comment in the post seems to suggest that the the Labs are the only bad guys but this must be seen for what it is: a bipartisan approach.

    KK

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      Correct. The push for more renewables instead of coal and/or nuclear is a bipartisan approach. It has been for a long time yet many people even here don’t understand that fact.

      140

      • #
        el gordo

        Its a bipartisan approach because of a corrupt MSM, this is not easy to turn around.

        In central west NSW there is no real objection to the idea of renewable zones, all the Councils want this to happen. Non agricultural useless land made productive, its a great vote catcher.

        62

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          I’m so pleased to know that there is no corruption in either of the two main partis, just the Media.

          Which is controlled by ?, government, which has always involved one of the two main partis.

          50

        • #
          PeterS

          It’s a Catch-22. We have the MSM telling us so many lies but we have much of the public too lazy to do their own research to figure out the lies. The MSM feed on that and keep escalating the lies. Eventually the public become like mindless robots. The only way to break away from that spiral is for people to wake up and start using their brains to do their own research. Sure it takes some time and effort but that’s what it takes to get ahead in life. We have become too soft and too lazy. So we have only ourselves to blame, not the MSM nor the politicians. We elect to read the rubbish, watch the crap on TV (morning parrot shows and the like) and vote for the same stupid fools over and over. Yet we expect a different result? That’s one definition of insanity. We get what we deserve. If we don’t want to take control of our own destiny and do something about and instead let the MSM and major parties continue doing what they are doing then there is only one thing that will wake us up; crash and burn.

          80

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Peter, there is another significant aspect of the situation that must be looked at and that’s the behaviour of our “elected ones”.

            They are elected to work in our best interests when running the country, state or local area.

            Their pay and benefits packages are more than adequate compensation but the main focus, from both sides of politics, is primarily the setting up of “extra benefits” and situations that are often contrary to the interests of the community.

            What I’m saying here is that, not only is there a moral issue but there’s undeniably a misuse of time, resources and public assets which could be seen as criminal.

            The onus needs to be put back on these “users” so that any inappropriate activity is heavily penalised and publicised so that people can vote the right way next time.

            And as for the public service.

            KK

            50

            • #
              PeterS

              Of course all true but the only way to rectify the situation is to stop voting for them unless one wants consider we start a rev0lution, which I would be against as it would only make matters worse. A far better option is to give one or more of the minor parties who are against renewables and for coal/nuclear enough support to force a hung parliament and make one of the major parties comply during the negotiations to form a minority government.

              50

              • #
                el gordo

                That is unlikely to happen, the two majors are morphing into one.

                Back in Central West NSW, private sector investment is expected to drive renewables and without any substantial input from government.

                ‘It is expected that a pilot REZ in the Central-West region would unlock up to 3,000 megawatts of new generation by the mid-2020’s and be worth around $4.4 billion in private sector investment once fully developed. This is enough new generation capacity to power around 1.3 million homes. This REZ alone is expected to support 450 construction jobs in the local region.’ Energy NSW.gov

                03

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        We will have a new word for a white elephant…

        A “Dubbo”…..

        81

    • #
      Serge Wright

      The solar plan to add power at midday when it’s not needed is an obvious exercise in funneling massive amounts of taxpayer money to big green, where some of that money will be coming back as under the carpet payments. The really dumb part about this project is that they will need to switch it off on sunny days to protect grid stability and being located in a seasonal storm zone it will always be one big hail storm away from being switched off permanently.

      110

      • #
        PeterS

        True. Yet we have so many little emperors with no clothes managing the states with one big one as the national leader. So who is the child who is going to call it out and proclaim “Look, they all have no clothes!”. Perhaps we need a “Greta Thunberg” from the other side.

        40

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        It’ll be interesting to see what happens when one of our “minnie tornadoes” cuts through. Our last one was only about 100 metres wide but continued for about 15 kms.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        40

      • #
        Another Ian

        South Australia’s prposed new interconnector won’t like that I’m guessing?

        20

  • #
    Martin Wood

    This should complete the transfer of “green energy” industry to China. They have cornered the solar panel market and working for the wind turbine market too.
    See report at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/06/20/huawei-green-energy-chinas-goldwind-taking-turbine-world/
    Australia will have a huge bill to connect and regulate or face black-outs.

    30

    • #
      PeterS

      Meanwhile China is still building dozens of new coal fired power stations and several nuclear ones. They must think we are stupid, and they would be right.

      170

      • #
        John in Oz

        The ABC interviewed Malcolm Turncoat Turnbull yesterday and he stated that China is reducing their use of coal-fired power stations and lauding them for their efforts.

        Who to believe?

        81

  • #
    Martin Wood

    Producing and expanding there coal power capacity for cheap electric, thereby out competing the western producers.

    70

  • #
    Penguinite

    Yes, the would-be King is bereft of clothes! I like the idea of asking Labor for a plebiscite on nuclear! Labor, however, cannot be trusted! They have form in duplicity!

    30

    • #
      ivan

      The real question is ‘can any political party be trusted to put the needs of the people before ideology’?

      30

  • #
    Serge Wright

    Morrison will probably reject the energy plan idea and claim that the ALP can’t be trusted on supporting a watered down CC policy, given their past history of back-flipping on a carbon tax and being beholden the the greens absurd 0% emissions targets. In any case, one can expect that the relevance of CC will be far lower down on the policy list next election, as the world economy bites hard due to COVID and voters will be more worried about being able to fund the basic necessities of life. Most likely the ALP will focus on promising higher welfare handouts, their next favourite way of massive debt creation, in their long list.

    With CC on the slide, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Green’s policy focus. Most likely it will be a copy paste of the GND from the USA, with a push for a UBI, using enormous amounts of borrowed money without a payback plan, like all Green policies.

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      People too often forget that the ALP is held to account by the Greens. So anyone who really believes the ALP will ever get back to the centre and compromise on the renewables agenda and then expect them to follow through on that promise if they win government must really be naive to the max.

      80

      • #
        Dennis

        Journalist Max Walsh wrote in The Bulletin Magazine during 2006 that the Union Movement had successfully achieved a “corporate-style takeover” of the ALP that always had been the party representing unionists. Union trained executives had been moved into safe Labor seats replacing sitting Labor MPs and the Union objective was to control all levels of government in Australia.

        Note too the establishment of GetUp via the AWU with other unions such as CFMMEU donating, former union executive Bill Shorten was involved and later was appointed a director of the GetUp activist organisation modelled on activist organisations in other developed countries.

        Also, that the unions donate to the Greens, and from 2009 supported the Liberals In Name Only Black Hand Faction of left leaning MPs including to undermine Opposition Leader Abbott and then continuing when he became PM. And during the May 2019 federal elections GetUp worked to promote so called independent candidates (from the “sensible right”) who were also backed by merchant bankers, renewables investors generally and a former PM.

        The left have been on a long march to establish their supporters in government departments, local government, everywhere they can influence decisions. Consider the latest exposure of indoctrination of little children, uncovered by NSW MLC Mark Latham and reported in The Australian. A private sector business successfully applied to run training courses for teachers but did not divulge the real purpose of the training for teachers, unacceptable gender training for them to teach.

        Of course Union Labor and Greens will not oppose the renewables agenda or the NWO agenda, globalism and socialism.

        61

        • #
          PeterS

          Yes it’s amazing how much wheeling and dealing is going on right under our noses. It’s almost as though it’s a well orchestrated soft coup by the neo-Marxists. What worries me is they are succeeding in so many facets of our life, in particular the education of our children. The future really looks bleak. Many major changes need to be made to turn things around but I don’t see any hope of that happening any time soon as all our leaders are spineless, clueless, just don’t give a damn, or in a few cases are willing partners of the soft coup.

          71

  • #
    Robber

    With the Qld State election coming in October, it will be interesting to see what The Premier says about renewable energy.
    “Renewable energy represents a key priority for the Queensland Government, which has set a target to have 50% of Queensland’s energy generation coming from renewable sources by 2030 to reduce emissions, address climate change, create new jobs and diversify the state’s economy.”
    Interesting that the policy says nothing about closing down the coal industry.
    Qld generation for the last month comprised solar 9%, wind 3%, hydro 1%, gas 15%, coal 72%, average generation 6,900 MW.
    To meet their 50% target by 2030, the Qld government would need to slash by at least 50% the number of coal-fired power stations.
    But what does the opposition LNP say?
    DEB2020 says “Support Green Energy”. “As the national energy market changes and renewable technology becomes more affordable, renewable energy generation projects can stand on their own two feet. We need to get the balance right between baseload generation and renewable energy generation. Otherwise, Queenslanders will continue to pay more and our reliability will match South Australia.” But then thier policy statement continues: “An LNP Government would mandate investment by our government-owned energy companies in renewable energy generation. We need to transition to a future beyond coal.” (Groan) :-(
    Is that the only alternative, or is Qld doomed?

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      When you have two dogs with the same fleas it’s impossible to clean them out without getting rid of both dogs and start again or treat both dogs at once. In politics neither will happen so the circus continues on until the show is over and the f.t lady sings.

      81

  • #
    Ross

    Not sure if this blog is more appealing to international or Australian use – but it should be “tonne” not “ton”.

    20

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Which here in Oz we now mostly call ‘ton’ as there are no other types of tons here.
      Only the USA and UK still use non metric ways of measuring weight/mass.
      Which in the USA is their constitutional right !
      It’s in their 79th amendment.

      The Brits will just have to make do with being confused !

      :-)

      22

  • #
    Neville

    Lomborg estimates NZ’s net zero emissions by 2050 would cost about 5 trillion $ and OZ emissions are about 11 times NZ emissions, so Albo and Labor’s net zero could cost 55 trillion $ by 2050. Here’s Lomborg’s quote from the NY Post + link about 6 months ago

    “For New Zealand, the cost is similar to today’s entire expenditure on socialized education and health care. And getting all the way, rather than halfway, will likely cost 16 percent of GDP by 2050. That is more than New Zealand today spends on social security and welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined.

    Across the century, the cost for the small island nation of 5 million souls would add up to at least $5 trillion. And this assumes New Zealand implements climate policies efficiently, with a single carbon tax across all sectors of the economy over 80 years”. End of Lomborg quote.

    And don’t forget all pain for ZERO gain, see Zickfeld et al and Nic Lewis article at Dr Curry DEC 2018, checking the maths and data and generally agreeing with Zickfeld. The Royal Society and USA NAS study also backs Zickfeld . The entire world could shut down TODAY and no change in co2 levels for 1,000 years or many hundreds of years according to Nic Lewis.

    IOW the entire so called mitigation of so called CAGW is complete BS and fra-d. I hope Jo has the time to check this out. Is my quick OZ calc fair or not? Here’s Lomborg’s article from the NY Post. So is Lomborg correct? Net ZERO is a guaranteed loser, just check the data and evidence.

    https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the RS and NAS study. Question 20 and answer.

    Nic Lewis checked this data and he also found a long delay for mitigation as well, certainly many hundreds of years.

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

    30

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    A good post Jo. Thanks !
    It’s curious to read what a bunch of grumpy old farts can come up with here. Almost all head banging stuff that nobody in power will ever pay attention to. Ummmm ?

    Meanwhile something very very important is being missed : The COVID 19 global pandemic has completely distracted the Australian people’s minds from the ‘threat’ of scary climate change. The imminent threat of dying of being seriously ll for months is far more important than what might happen in 50-100 years time. And 99% of Australians can see that. It’s reflected by what we Australians have done during the past 4 months : social distancing, staying home, accepting screens at the supermarket checkouts, etc etc etc..

    And ScoMo has emerged from all this smelling sweet and clean and competent and NON PARTISAN presiding over a national cabinet. If he held a national election now he would win in a landslide..Most folks would say “Abanese ? Who’s he ?”

    Now who could have forecast that back in January ?

    He’s emerged at a National non partisan leader in the same way as Hawke did in 1983.

    The political landscape has been changed completely. In a world where 360,000 have died and 7,000,000 are infected and may still die,saving the nation from the global Covid pandemic is far, far more important..

    I think ScoMo will devote his attention to continuing that way of leading the country. Sure the Greens and Greenists in the Labor party will attempt to pump more hot air propaganda into the Climate change scare – using the ABC, SBS, The Age the Guardian etc. But it always was hot air and it will be just more irrelevant hot air..

    .

    78

    • #
      PeterS

      I think ScoMo will devote his attention to continuing that way of leading the country.

      So you agree with his plan to reduce our emissions regardless of how stupid it is. OK.

      31

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        No
        Do you prefer the Greenists plan to lead us down banning CO2 path ?

        14

        • #
          PeterS

          We are already on that path. That’s my point. Only time will tell if one or both major parties change direction.

          50

  • #
    John in Oz

    Albo and others can be as pro-coal as they likes but CCS is oft quoted as requiring 30% of a generator’s output to facilitate. This by itself would make a coal-powered station uneconomical making it unlikely to be built.

    If the pollies continue to allow ‘renewables’ to not guarantee supply at their rated power, legislate that their power must be used first plus demand CCS (when possible and safe), we will never see another fossil-fuelled power station.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      and we have no one else but PM Morrison to blame fro not coming up with his grand plan for a suitable and honest energy plan for the future. Go figure.

      31

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Carbon Capture aka Carbon Sequestration is untennable. An impossible achievement in a similar vein to the fictional Baron Munchausen’s fanciful ideas. Plants, and corals via algae, assimilate carbon naturally as part of the Carbon Cycle.

    40

  • #
    RickWill

    It amuses me to see that there has been a federal energy policy vacuum since 2013. Albanese is reported as saying Australia needs policy certainty to lower the cost of electricity.

    “Policy certainty” is a synonym for “guaranteed subsidies both in terms of value and period”.

    So the obvious question is – How is it possible to get lower cost power when the consumers must pay for subsidies offered to the SELECTED for a long term?

    The RET remains in operation till 2030. So Albanese is not even correct when he states there is no policy certainty. What he should be saying is there needs to be an increase and/or extension in the current policy certainty.

    The grid has reached a point where intermittents are competing with each other frequently enough that they can no longer just send out power when it is available. Rooftop solar is squeezing other intermittents out as it is the only source guaranteed to be dispatched (at least till now). There is no way of connecting more intermittent generation that will lower the cost of electricity.

    The illusion of intermittents being lowest cost must be dispelled. When intermittents with storage are economically competitive with the grid then the need for the grid will no longer exist.

    110

  • #
    Sean

    Stop thinking of CCS as pumping a lot of CO2 gas into a mine under pressure. It’s a reactive gas with water and alkaline earth minerals. In fact Australia has had a massive CCS project since well before history was ever recorded. You call it the Great Barrier Reef. Believe it or not, warm shallow seas are essential to its function.

    80

    • #
      Another Ian

      You might just have a wee problem getting permits for the gas distribution system to hook on th that

      10

  • #
    Dennis

    Hot on the heels of the Opposition Leader former Prime Minister Turnbull has renewed his call for more renewable energy and a not too distant future for hydrogen.

    Crony profiteers must be cheering.

    60

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s becoming clearer nothing really has changed since Turnbull has left. We still have Snowy 2.0 on the way. We are still being told we must reduce our emissions. We still haven’t seen any real action to have existing coal fired power stations that are soon due to be closed down replaced with new ones. I’m now at the same point as before when Turnbull was PM. I just have to wait for more coal fired power stations to be closed down and see the feathers fill the room as the chickens run around like crazy with their heads chopped off.

    60

  • #
    Rupert Ashford

    Irony is if we look on some news sites today there’s big polemic going on (driven by Dick Smith and surprise-surprise the AWU) about empty shelves and “made in China” and urging us to give the Aussie manufacturing industry a go for local production again. But they don’t realize that we priced ourselves out of that market with these elevated energy prices when we started worshiping at the green altar of Gaia/renewables/Big Renewables etc. And the likes of Dick Smith are aiding and abetting their own demise every time they open their mouths in support of this craze. I don’t think the Aussie population is suffering enough yet for the penny to drop though and that they will use their common sense next time they vote – they’re still only lukewarm on the matter.

    30

    • #
      Dennis

      I was employed for the last over twenty years of my working life by a large manufacturing business that produced consistently well above industry average profits before tax. For the last thirteen years I was managing director. The publicly listed holding company decided to sell the business for several reasons, including a potential substantial capital gain on investment. I was offered the opportunity with support from the board to proceed with a management buyout. That was about twenty years ago. With colleagues I produced a business plan and realised that probably within ten years the cost of manufacturing in Australia would impact adversely on the future of the business, importing products, resulting in substantial costs to close down factories.

      The business was sold to foreign buyers and I remained as MD but after a couple of years decided to take early retirement. Our prediction was accurate and the new owners were faced with the expense of factory closures about ten years later. And that was before the ever increasing cost of energy, particularly electricity costs.

      Australian governments have signed treaties and agreements with the United Nations that have made our nation uncompetitive globally as a manufacturing base for most purposes. Until the blue tape is cancelled and the supportive red, green and black tape legislation and regulations abandoned this nation has no manufacturing revival future.

      Yet there are so many opportunities, like increased steel production on the east and west coasts, railway in between to carry coal and iron ore and more. Ship building, South Korea has a high standard of living but is now a major ship building nation using Australian minerals and energy. And numerous other potential business ventures. High wage cost is not our worst handicap.

      140

  • #
    NuThink

    Surely Labor should work with the Coalition and not vice versa. The Coalition are in power – or are supposed to be, NOT Labor.

    20

  • #
    JCalvertN(UK)

    “It’s not about reducing carbon — it’s about helping the renewables industry.”
    This was the clear message that shone out from the recent Michael Moore movie.
    And the furious reaction that followed was further proof that Moore et al were right on the money.

    The renewable energy industry pre-dates the global warming scare. It was born in the Peak Oil scare.
    Then Peak Oil became less scary. (Thanks the sudden ‘miraculous’ discovery of hitherto unknown vast reserves. Was someone just trying to jack-up the price?)
    So, the renewable energy industry urgently needed a new scare.

    Then another ‘miracle’ happened – in the shape of James Hansen and his message of doom.
    Happy days were here again and the renewable energy industry was ‘cooking on gas again’ (Maybe that isn’t the most appropriate metaphor? But I couldn’t resist it!)

    The renewable energy industry is like the deodorant industry.
    Both make a product intended as a solution to some problem which isn’t normally of much concern to most punters.
    So, in order to sell their products, both industries must first persuade the punters that the problem really exists and needs urgent action. QED.

    80

  • #
    AndyG55

    ” like increased steel production on the east and west coasts, railway in between to carry coal and iron ore and more”

    http://www.eastwestlineparks.com.au/index.php

    Unfortunately it seems to have been a non-goer.

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      A non-goer meaning that the politicians have eyes only for UN agendas, national prosperity not in focus unless by accidental achievement producing bragging rights for election campaigning purposes.

      60

  • #
    Maptram

    Before the last Federal election, we saw the Bob Brown and the climate change believers trek to Queensland to the Adani mine site. At the same time CFMEU was demanding that Labor candidates show their coal mining in writing. Bill Shorten showed no support either way. He couldn’t support the Greens as it would upset the CFMEU and he couldn’t support the CFMEU as it would put the Greens offside. Albanese is just trying to distinguish himself from Shorten.

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      And do battle with the many Union Labor Factions, read The Latham Diaries.

      At this time the far left has the most influence.

      40

  • #
    Analitik

    It was quite funny watching the 7:30 Report last night with Albanese arguing that Labor’s 2050 zero carbon emissions target was in line with what “the science” was telling them while Leigh Sales was pointing out that “scientists” were saying that zero carbon emissions by 2050 wouldn’t keep the global temperature rise under 2 degrees (Celcius) by the end of the century.

    But hey, “the science is settled”, right?

    80

    • #
      Rupert Ashford

      The science unfortunately only serves its own pockets and political allies at the moment and do not pursue the truth like they used to.

      60

    • #
      JCalvertN(UK)

      And China?
      Australia can do nothing to offset China’s booming CO2 production.

      30

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Yes we can !
        We beg and plead and say “pretty please with sugar on top
        To the Chinese and Indians and Filipinos and Indonesians and Vietnamese and Japanese
        To stop burning coal.
        And when that does not work,
        We can pray to the holy Saint Greta of Sweden
        To save us.

        ( sarc/ )

        32

  • #

    Joanne mentions this with the last line of her Post:(my bolding here)

    *Calculating the expansion of coal to CO2: 1 ton of Coal generates 2.8 tons of CO2. 1 ton coal fills 0.74m3. 1 ton of CO2 fills 556m3. Therefore, 1 ton of coal expands from 0.74 to 1590m3. or about 2148 times.

    It’s a little hard to image that volumetric space.

    So, stand up and spread your arms straight out in front of you so that they make a right angle. Now, imagine another person standing directly in front of you, doing the same thing, so that your fingertips join.

    Fill that space with coal up to your shoulders.

    That is about a ton. (a ton being an Imperial weight ton, so 2240 Pounds, which is around 1 Tonne in weight, (1.016 Tonne) and here a US short ton is just 2000 Pounds, so much less than an Imperial ton)

    That one ton of coal is then crushed to the finest of powders, similar to talcum powder, and is then forced into the furnace/boiler with ram air, and this is just for the one furnace running one large scale coal fired Unit at a typical four Unit plant.

    That one ton of coal is burned in ….. 15 seconds.

    So, with all four Units in operation, the plant is burning one ton of coal every four and a bit seconds.

    Can you see why ALL of the maths surrounding power generation is simply beyond the comprehension of the average person. It’s easier to believe the ‘fakeness’ you read about power generation than the actual truth which is just so far beyond the understanding of people who need a calculator to add up two single digit numbers.

    Tony.

    120

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      I was teaching “Earth Science” and often the texts would mention tons of something. An example was the sediment washed off of different sorts of land, row crop, or grass hay, and so on.
      I suggested to the head of the department that we have a low wall built with sand piles (each a ton) on one side. Every student could be assigned the task of shoveling a ton of sand from one side to the other. Students in the next class would shovel it back.
      However, for tests the students needed a number, such as 4 tons. Memorizing such numbers doesn’t involve work or gaining knowledge. So we continued with the numbers and the wall was not built.

      20

      • #

        I got the shock of my life when I had a response to probably the biggest puzzle I have ever written, an article back in 2008, the true fact that one ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2, the puzzle similar to the schooldays puzzle along the lines of what’s heavier, a ton of coal or a ton of feathers.

        The response I received was that because the original statement was made at the U.S. EIA site at this link, (and scroll down to the second heading Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions) then it only applied to the U.S. short ton. Because of that it could not be applied to the Imperial Ton or the Metric Tonne.

        Tony.

        90

  • #
    Robber

    The futility of Western de-carbonisation: According to BP’s annual report of Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019.
    China is now contributing 29% of global CO2 emissions, USA 14.5%, EU 10%, India 7%, Japan, the former Soviet Union, (CIS), Canada and Australia 12%, South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan 12%, rest of world 14%.
    Most of the 40% growth in emissions since 2000 has come from China and developing countries.
    Perhaps Extinction Rebellion and the Greens and the IPCC would like to take their protests to Beijing.

    90

    • #
      RickWill

      China not only supplies Australia with COVID19 but also the money needed to buy what they manufacture. We ship coal and iron ore, they pay us in USD. We then use those USD to buy the cars, phones, solar panels, wind turbines, inverters, clothing, building materials, big screen TVs, white goods, cooking appliances, air-conditioners and all the other goodies essential to modern living.

      There is not much Australian manufacturing that can compete with Chinese manufacturers. China owns the UN so the IPCC is never going to upset that particular benefactor.

      90

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      It would be great if the Extinction Rebellion mob could be exiled to China permanently.Yes
      I’m sure that Xi’s CCP would gladly put them in re-education camps along with the Uygers & Tibetans.
      And turn them all into coal loving Mandarin speaking Chinese zealots!
      :-)

      12

      • #
        PeterS

        Same can be said for any politician holding to the myth that reducing emissions is a worthwhile exercise. That would include much of both major parties, including their respective leaders.

        10

  • #
    DonS

    Hi Jo

    I had to laugh when listening to Albanese talk about his “belief” in science. A bit like an illiterate stating his belief in the works of Shakespeare :) His “belief” in science is I suspect like his “belief” in free speech i.e. say what you like as long as I agree with it or it fits in with whatever is the latest fashionable ALP policy position.

    Carbon capture is a goer but atomic energy is not. What science is he talking about here? Hundreds of millions have been spent on trying to get CCS to work but has as far as I know been a complete failure. Meanwhile France produces about 70% of its electricity using nuclear reactors. We have also had nuclear reactor running in Sydney for what 50 years now without any problems. Looks to me that the science is pretty clear here.

    This is a political document not statement of science. Coal power generation with CCS will be massively expensive and with out the nuclear option the only alternative will be lots of lovely solar panels and wind turbines sold to us by Albo’s comrades back in China. They will be pleased! The other objective of this policy is to wedge the Liberal party, the majority of whos members are committed climate kooks who would be more than happy to sign up to this sort of thing. Clever move to use climate policy to make the LNP uncomfortable for a change I suppose.

    I agree with Jo on this in that we should be using the most cost effective method of power generation i.e. coal. Nuclear is all well and good but we can afford to sit back and see how the new reactor types perform before we commit to such a big change. We do not need to lead the world on this!

    The saddest thing of all is that all the time, money and hand wringing is for nothing. To solve a problem that does not exist. CO2 is not destroying the planetary climate!

    100

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Sooner or later we have to face the inevitable question of when our majority view that renewables are hopeless for many reasons, becomes the minority view of the public and one to which we must abide to honour democracy.
    How to we keep our view in the majority?
    I am beginning to think we need more oxygen, badly, soon.
    Geoff S

    20

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    Polarisation has always bothered me except when I am using a compass. It helps if you also have a map produced by someone who knew their trigonometry and exactly how to use a sextant. Much of the work has already been done for you by someone who has already faced the same puzzle you now face – which is the way to go? It helps to have information so gladly passed on by one who knew what they were doing.

    And so polarisation in politics has always confounded me. I start with the basic premise – has anyone been here and done this before? It turns out that in most situations someone has been here and done it before, because historic records tell us so. But, just occasionally, we are in new territory, and we are the ones to do the hard work, need to ‘know our stuff’, and can make a map to guide others in the future.

    On that basis I find myself to be both socialist and capitalist, a fan of both Adam Smith and Karl Marx to mention just two people who have written a detailed map to help us all and in some detail too. The key to interpreting these maps is that the polarised compass is simply pointing to magnetic north and not suggesting the next best step forward since that requires you to know something about your circumstances. First you need to get the map the right way around and locate where you are. Then you can interpret the information within the map to find the way you need to go to get to where you are going.

    The climate war doesn’t have a map of any usefulness because there are no experts out there capable of drawing one. We have been keeping records for a comparatively very short time and resolution of scale has been poor and is still poor in terms of longevity and coverage. Even now detail may not be accurate enough to allow us to choose the right way forward with or without a compass. Those who like to claim expertise can only use their imagination of the landscape conjured up by copious use of algorithms which may or may not provide useful output. These people do not yet know their subjects and yet claim to know the future.

    Adam Smith put it as “The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another.” Karl Marx says “There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.”

    Perhaps when we have an accurate map for climate and more knowledge of any role we may play in any changes that occur, we can introduce polarisation to help us find a way forward, but, until then, surely we need to apply common sense to what we absolutely know already and not be so rash in thinking we have better information now when we do not. We have had a decent energy map for a long time and it is still hugely valid despite what some charlatans may claim.

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      UK-Weather Lass:

      But we do have a map in Australia. I forget who the advertisement was for, but it involved a bemused character at Shipp Creek.
      Obviously this describes Australia’s official electricity policy and where we are going.
      Unfortunately paddles are expensive, but we are assured that they will be cheap real soon.

      30

      • #
        Rupert Ashford

        …and “they” have been telling us that “paddles” are too expensive and needs to become cheaper if we would only listen. What they don’t tell us is “cheaper compared to what and at what point in time…”

        00

  • #
    Choroin

    Listening to Albanese the other day was almost humorous.

    I got the impression it was like a double-hostage tape where he might as well have been reading lines from cue cards at gunpoint, but with two teams of hostage takers on each side; one side being ‘Green’ and the other side being a traditional voting block which is now at the point of realizing it’s politically homeless unless it gets the zip-ties, black bags, and a combie van on standby to force some issues into the party room.

    Labor party is almost a parody of Elon Musk’s inner dialogue right now (for those people who hate fan boys and know where Musk actually is on the political spectrum, fighting with ideological inconsistencies hard medication can’t even solve).

    70

  • #

    By offering a broad platform, Labor has moved away from a single economy-wide policy solution to climate change, such as a carbon price or emissions trading scheme. Instead, it has opted for a sector-by-sector approach. As bushfires, floods, droughts and protests are all set to continue, don’t expect this issue to go away after the federal election.

    00