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

70% of Australians don’t even want to spend $1 a week on “Net Zero”

The most devastating thing about this survey is not what it says about energy policy but what it says about our democracy.

70% of Australians think energy policy should be about reliable cheap supply, not about stopping storms, and 70% don’t want to even spend $1 a week saving the world from climate change.  Despite this, neither major party stands for that 70%.

Imagine what our election campaign would look like if both parties were trying to win over voters?

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) asked 1,007 Australians  “How much would you personally be willing to pay each year for Australia to reduce its emissions to zero by 2050?” And 42% said “Nothing at all”. Nine out of ten Australians don’t want to spend much at all. Yet somehow both major political parties agree to spend billions every year on a transition we don’t have to have.

We don’t have to have wind or solar power, big batteries, big interconnectors, big Snowy 2.0 and we don’t have to buy international carbon credits.

Bear in mind Australians are not paying $50 or $100 a year on climate bills, they’re paying $1,300 a year.*

So state and federal governments are spending wildly more than the voters want. Who do they serve?

It’s like all major parties are working to keep 3% of the population happy.

How much would you personally be willing to pay each year for Australia to reduce its emissions to zero by 2050? Graph. IPA survey.

 

And 70% of Australians think energy policy should primarily be about getting cheap and affordable energy, not about changing the weather.

Survey, What should be the main focus of Australian energy policy, IPA, Graph, 2022

The scary thing is that a bit over 1 in 4 voters (28%) do think that energy policy should try to cool the world.

Daniel Wild points out this was much higher a year ago:

…What is significant about this finding is how far attitudes toward cutting emissions have shifted over the past year. A similar survey undertaken by the Lowy Institute in April 2021, before Scott Morrison committed Australia to Net Zero, found 55 per cent of Australians believed reducing carbon emissions should be a priority of the federal government, while 44 per cent believed reducing household bills (affordability) and reducing the risk of blackouts (reliability) should be a priority (and 1 per cent weren’t sure).

More Australians would be concerned about national security if they knew this:

Australia’s entire strategic oil reserve is only enough for 1.5 days of domestic consumption, and we lack the capacity to bulk store fuel resources locally. At the turn of the century, Australia had eight operational oil refineries, enough to almost meet our domestic consumption of fuel, however only two remain today.

As it is, Australians want national defence more than “Net Zero”:

The same survey undertaken by the IPA found that 61 per cent of Australians agree the federal government should be more focused on national defence rather than meeting Australia’s Net Zero emissions by 2050 target, while only 39 per cent disagree.

Thanks To Rafe Champion

REFERENCES

IPA Survey

*Moran, Alan (2020) Australians pay $1300 in hidden climate bills each year.

10 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

101 comments to 70% of Australians don’t even want to spend $1 a week on “Net Zero”

  • #
    bobby b

    I live next to Canada on the northern US border.

    I would be willing to pay $10 per week – heck, $20 per week – to increase global warming. My money would come back to me quickly in reduced food costs.

    Far more people die of cold than of heat.

    720

    • #
      Klem

      I live in Canada at the 45th parallel and our winter is likely warmer than yours.

      201

      • #
        John Hultquist

        I’m at 47°N, about 140 miles south of the Washington – B.C. border and about 140 miles north of you. East of the Cascades the winters are cold and a near desert climate.

        bobby b says “food costs” but my issue is heating costs — November through March. Most nights go below freezing and wind is often above 20 mph, and sometimes twice that.

        50

      • #
        bobby b

        I’m at 45 also. But stuck in the middle of the entire landmass. No nice buffering bodies of water nearby. ;(

        20

    • #
      Bozotheclown

      We might be neighbors Bobby b and I cannot disagree with your point. More warm would render more land available for growing food.

      I like to be warm and I like to eat. WIN WIN!

      130

  • #
    Lance

    Clearly, Australia is managed by a scientifically and economically illiterate group of arrogant elitists disassociated from the majority of the public.

    But then again, AU is way behind the destruction wrought upon its citizens if one compares the scale to that effected by Biden & Co in 14 months. The race to the bottom isn’t finished, but AU will have to accelerate national stupidity to catch up.

    540

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, Australia (and the rest of the West) is managed by a scientifically and economically illiterate group of arrogant elitists. However, they are not that much disassociated from the majority of the public. After all, they keep voting them in (either major party) who don’t hide the fact that they want to shut down our fossil fuel industry to promote net zero emissions, in fact they boast about it. So the public can’t pretend they don’t know, then complain when it hurts them yet still voting for them. At the end of the day the voters have the power to put a stop to all this madness in one day; at voting day. Simply support a party that will stop the madness dead in its tracks so that no major party holds the balance of power in both houses of parliament. Otherwise, the public should stop whining and groaning as they get the governments they vote for and deserve.

      410

      • #
        Erasmus

        Compulsory preferential voting ensures the continuation of the unsatisfactory political situation. If we could just vote for the party we want to support things might be different.

        343

        • #
          PeterS

          Clearly you know how our preferential voting works. Neither do most voters sadly. As a result we end up with one or the other major party in full control of one or both houses, in particular the lower house whereby the government normally has majority rule and can do its thing without any other side having much say. It’s why we are stuck in a loop with currently just one other way out, the upper house where it doesn’t take much for one or the other major party often with the help of one or more of the minor parties to pass legislation that’s not in the best interests of the nation. We need far more representation of the people in both houses, and that means minor parties who do hold the interests of the people to more supported by us voters. If the people are not interested then they won’t have that sort of representation. So, the madness continues.

          150

          • #

            I recommend that the election system is fine except for the state. The vote there should be for states and regions. The constitution allows that the senate vote in Qld can be split into 3 regions with 2 (or 4 in double dissolution) senators representing each region. However, for improved democracy there should citizen initiated referenda and recall (to apply to al public service including judges & the GG) as in Switzerland which has 3 to 4 ,multiple question votes per year. It woild not cost much if properly organised and very much less that poor decisions like net zero, tanks that are useless and the French submarine debarkle.

            30

        • #
          David Maddison

          Agreed. But another problem is that most people don’t realise you don’t have to follow the preferences allocated by the party you vote for but you can and SHOULD allocate your own preferences.

          Compulsory voting is itself a problem. Forcing people to vote who have absolutely no clue or understanding of what they’re voting for means parties try to appeal to the most ignorant, moronic voters, e.g. those wanting the most “free stuff”.

          382

          • #
            FarmerDoug2

            I agree with compulsory voting i.e turn up and post a paper but you don’t have to post “a vote” and preferences should not be compulsory.

            90

        • #
          jelly34

          Here is how to defeat the two party(not preferred)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS3IfC-i6I

          70

          • #
            Destroyer D69

            According to the Electoral act Part XVIII The scrutiny, Secs 268Aand 269 (Despite what you will be told at the polling pace) a vote in the senate is NOT INFORMAL if…..”.268A(b)if there are more than 6 squares printed on the ballot paper below the line -the voter has consecutively numbered any of those squares from 1 to 6 (whether or not the voter has also included one or more higher numbers in those squares)” AND “sec 269(1)(b) the voter has marked the number 1,or the number 1 and one or more higher numbers,in squares printed on the ballot paper above the line.” Ask about this option at the polling station and beware of the response!!!!!!!

            10

        • #
          Destroyer D69

          According to the Electoral act Part XVIII The scrutiny, Secs 268Aand 269 (Despite what you will be told at the polling pace) a vote in the senate is NOT INFORMAL if…..”.268A(b)if there are more than 6 squares printed on the ballot paper below the line -the voter has consecutively numbered any of those squares from 1 to 6 (whether or not the voter has also included one or more higher numbers in those squares)” AND “sec 269(1)(b) the voter has marked the number 1,or the number 1 and one or more higher numbers,in squares printed on the ballot paper above the line.”

          00

        • #
          Ted1

          Compulsory preferential voting ensures that a candidate cannot get elected if half + 1 of voters put him/her last.

          It is the best system, and we in Australia have it for our House of Representatives. (Our “lower house”.)

          Our senate setup is weird. But no more weird than New Zealand and Tasmania.

          30

    • #
      Ozwitch

      Well, to be fair we’re trying our best but population demographics alone mean we can’t win the prize for dumbest country. This is why we need more immigration apparently, as there are not enough jobs for the current population so more immigrants will mean a better economy or something.

      00

  • #
    b.nice

    The real cost of “net zero” would be the almost total destruction of Australian society.

    Unfortunately, their are those people who know this, and still want “net zero” !

    390

    • #
      PeterS

      Then there are those who know this (destruction of our once great nation) and don’t want net zero emissions yet still vote for a party that promotes it very strongly and openly. Go figure.

      260

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    Net Zero is a not an actual ‘policy’.
    It is a political construct for assembling a narrative.
    Like BLM, Climate Change, and Anti-vax, the name is absurd in that’s it is designed to silence the counter argument.
    Actions taken labeled ‘Net Zero’ have other purposes, like political coalition and market control.

    360

  • #
    b.nice

    Early morning, And SA is using 83% gas !
    Some wind in NSW, and of course zero solar….

    What happens when coal and gas are “net zeroed” ??

    420

    • #
      James Murphy

      What happens when coal and gas are “net zeroed” ??

      A lot less in every workplace, I imagine…

      210

    • #
      Ronin

      “What happens when coal and gas are “net zeroed” ??”

      The lights go out… hopefully.

      130

    • #
      KP

      ..The Chinese come to help.

      hmm… I wonder if they could start a political party to overthrow ALL the global warming rubbish and win control of Australia through the ballot box? A promise to go back to the 1970/80s with no political correctness, no Wokeism, diesel & petrol freely available, coal and nuclear power dirt cheap and full supermarket shelves. They would romp in!

      20

  • #
    Erasmus

    The climate change and renewables push has come from activists and left leaning media, while our politicians have failed dismally to recognise the facts, leading to ridiculous energy policies.
    It’s succeeded in kneecapping western economies, probably the main aim.
    We are governed by idiots and badly served by the media.

    290

  • #
    PeterS

    Shutting down our fossil fuels combined with the sanctions on Russia are dramatically increasing our risk of massive food shortages in most countries around the world. If left to it’s logical conclusion, millions will die of famine making the COVID-19 pandemic a joke. Then again some of us know why all this is happening.

    260

    • #
      Bozotheclown

      Not more “millions” please?

      There are too many Millions not yet accounted for. Covid millions, Famine Millions, Climate Millions, pretty soon it gets to be REAL numbers!

      50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Australia has many genuine serious problems such as massive government debt, massive government over-regulation, Chi-comm influence in surrounding Pacific Islands, moral degeneracy, ongoing discrimination against the unvaxxed etc. (to name but a few) and yet these problems are ignored or not recognised.

    It’s disturbing that 30% think “Net Zero” is even a problem.

    280

    • #
      PeterS

      It is a problem according to the voters. Let’s see if it remains a problem after the next federal election, or it’s shut down quick smart and not our fossil fuels. It has to be one or the other, we can’t have it both ways, not without switching to nuclear.

      70

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Old men living in the cities don’t want to pay, that’s the breakdown if you look at the details.

    So it is the same demographic that comments here

    155

    • #
      TdeF

      The physics and physical chemistry of the planet is not a matter of personal opinion. Science is not a consensus subject. Being wrong has no value.

      450

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, didn’t you forget to add “white” to “old men” just to ensure your rant was not only ageist and sexist but fully racist as well in compliance with Leftist standards of discrimination?

      480

    • #
      bobby b

      You mean the cohort that actually has the highest percentage of science-based education backgrounds? Those old men in cities?

      530

    • #
      Eng_Ian

      Peter,
      I am not sure where you received the data to support to your claim. It sounds reasonable but do you have anything beyond your words to support it?

      We could look at this another way. Let’s say the world has four types of people, grouped as follows, young males who have not moved out of home, earned a salary and had to pay the bills. Similar for young women. Old males, who have worked for around 30 years, performing work tasks ranging from shoveling effluent to managing small teams or maybe a small business. Similar for old women, however, some of these women are mothers and have had time off, let’s say 5 years, to raise the family in a loving household. The parents know the stories are fake, but have had to rely on the unicorn and fairy stories to recite to the little ones to stop their tantrums and emotional outbursts, sometimes the parents are asked hard questions in front of their kids and don’t want to spoil the narrative. A little like Santa Claus, no parent would deny his existence in front of a 5 year old.

      So let’s ask a question. Would you spend $50 a week to have unicorns and fairies power the world or would you like dirty black coal and the polluting oil that seeps into the rivers and seas?

      I’m betting your assessment would be true, those old males will tell you the truth. In summary, if you believe that unicorns and fairies can solve your problems then you will support them.

      Seen a unicorn recently?

      310

      • #

        The data is linked by Jo above. The is a skew that can be seen without needing to do a data analysis compared is an over representation of older men and younger women. (and a corresponding under-representation of older women and younger men).

        How to correct? Just do a nice little matrix of population proportions and multiply it all out. Of course this is just age and assumes that age is important in some way. There are a myriad of ways to categorise people and if there is a particular characteristic that influences opinion it should be taken into account. Voting intention maybe? Anyway, the brute force way to overcome a bias is to survey a lot of people. Is 1000 enough?

        111

        • #
          Lawrie

          I agree with the bigger sample size. If the survey is to have real meaning then it might mean 5000 rather than a 1000. I am guessing those who do surveys know how many people give a realistic result or is it based on how many a machine can call in a day? I am sometimes surveyed for a seat in the electorate of Bass which is in Tasmania. I happen to live 1200 km away in NSW in the seat of Lyne.

          00

    • #
      b.nice

      There is absolutely zero need to go to “net zero” .
      It will in fact do irreparable damage to Australia, and any other country that attempts it.
      Only a completely ignorant fool could even think it is a good think.
      Time to get out of that inner-city, far-left mental jail you have locked yourself into, and wake up to reality.

      370

    • #
      el+gordo

      A greater percentage of old women in the cities are global warming zealots.

      164

      • #
        Annie

        And the basis for your statement is?

        80

        • #
          el+gordo

          Guardian Essential Poll 2020.

          ‘The survey indicates Australian women support meaningful climate action more than men, especially regarding setting a zero-carbon pollution target for 2030 (81% to 69%) and setting the same target for 2050 (83% to 78%)’.

          30

          • #
            Annie

            Riiight. The Guardian, ok. Did it also ask them how much they were prepared to contribute financially to the mythical problem of CC?

            40

            • #
              el+gordo

              ‘When it comes to power prices, voters were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “It doesn’t matter how electricity is generated, as long as prices don’t go up, and the supply is secure”.

              ‘Nearly half of the sample agreed with the statement (47%) and about a third (29%) disagreed. Men were more likely to strongly agree with the statement than women (30% to 18% respectively).’ (Guardian)

              10

      • #
      • #
        Lawrie

        There is, or maybe was, a group of old women around here who knitted for climate change. I had to wait for my wife one day so sat down to talk to them. They were well conditioned by the ABC and Fairfax so I asked a few simple questions to which the answer was “denier”. After a while the obvious leader wanted to know where I got my information so I said Jo Nova and WUWT. She promised to look it up. I haven’t seen them since but Covid may have played a part. The message is that we have to engage these folk because they act out of ignorance.

        70

    • #
      Ronin

      “Old men living in the cities don’t want to pay, that’s the breakdown if you look at the details.”
      How did you work that out, Peter.

      70

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I should remember that no ever looks at the links Jo posted, if you had…

      111

      • #
        John Hultquist

        ” that no ever looks ”

        Slow down. And remember mother’s advice: I’ve told you a thousand times not to exaggerate.

        50

  • #
    TdeF

    The problem with Nett Zero is that it is an emotional construct. It has no basis in science. Burn a tree, grow a tree. CO2 is bad. Do no harm.
    Save the planet. Utter nonsense.

    Consider first the world has increase 8x in human population since 1850 and the production of CO2 per person has grown massively, but CO2 has only gone up 50%? CO2 levels, good or bad, are obviously not connected to human development.

    The planet desperately wants more CO2.

    And according to NASA and the CSIRO, the planet has dramatically greened by about 15% since satellites started measuring vegetation around 1980.

    And CO2 has also gone up about 15% in the same time. According to nett zero increasing vegetation by 15% must reduce CO2 by 15%, not increase it. More CO2, more trees is the unavoidable conclusion. Nett zero busted.

    So where did the plants actually get the extra CO2 to grow? From the air of course. Then why didn’t CO2 go down?

    Self evidently trees do not control CO2. CO2 controls trees. More CO2 means more trees and CO2 does not go down. The planet flatly contradicts nett zero and Dr. Andrew Forrest and friends. Growing trees does not reduce CO2.

    The ‘biosphere’ is not a closed finite CO2 system and human CO2 is therefore not dangerous pollution. It is the stuff of life. And the biosphere will take all the CO2 it can get and prosper. And that means more food for every living thing.

    The real reason CO2 increases is that even slight ocean surface warming means more CO2 based on Henry’s Law. Almost all, 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Man made Global Warming is busted. We do not and cannot control CO2. CO2 does not produce warming. Ocean surface warming produces CO2, as you would expect. To draw the reverse conclusion that CO2 warms the ocean is without explanation. Oceans do not radiate IR like the land and do not cool rapidly overnight.

    The plants certainly do not control CO2. CO2 controls the plants, as proven by NASA and the CSIRO.

    And Australia’s millenium drought ended just as the Federation drought ended a century before, in flooding rains. That’s not Climate Change. It’s the climate.

    The unproven logic behind nett zero is that we have to have zero impact on the planet which can neither tolerate nor absorb extra CO2 and that CO2 is highly undesirable, insoluble and produces rapid warming. And that we can control CO2 by growing trees. None of this is true. The tooth fairy may exist.

    Science is not involved at all in nett zero. It is an emotional fantasy of conservation accounting pushed by the Green industrial complex and communist countries and the Chinese controlled UN to damage us. The WHO is a recent example when Adhonem announced officially in 2020 that the Wuhan manufactured virus was not infectious human to human. Now why did he do that? We cannot trust the UN.

    Highly soluble CO2 is in very rapid equilibrium between the oceans, the sun and the cycles of ocean currents. Nothing we can or does alters CO2 levels. Look at CO2 levels over time. What has 500,000 windmills and billions of solar panels actually achieved? Nett Zero.

    Nett Zero is an example of human megalomania. Humans are masters of the planet. Rubbish. We are irrelevant. If we all vanished tomorrow, CO2 would go up and down as it always did. I am appalled that the Australian government has fallen for such obvious nonsense. But it is taught at primary schools in Western democracies, which is the entire problem. A world of Grumpy Gretas so celebrated by the UN, US Congress and the CO2 COPS.

    450

    • #
      David Maddison

      Most people are unaware that until CO2 started to naturally increase, CO2 in the atmosphere was becoming dangerously low. Plant life ceases at about 150 to 200ppm CO2 depending on which photosynthetic mechanism the plant uses.

      Had CO2 not increased due to natural causes, the planet would be dying.

      Also, I think the CO2 increase can be attributed to ocean warming after the Little Ice Age. The time constant of warming the ocean is so large it took hundreds of years for the oceans to warm and release CO2.

      240

    • #
      Bill Burrows

      Why is everyone getting into such a lather about “Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050”? Australia is and has always been a ‘Net Zero Emitter’ of CO2 since well before Captain Arthur Phillip arrived with the First Fleet. This assumes we measure sources and emissions in accord with current Australian government intentions, the 2015 Paris Agreement and UNFCC/IPCC guidelines.

      I have simplified the supporting evidence (down to essential sources) and condensed the argument to 2 and a bit pages. Check it out: https://www.keepandshare.com/doc22/113294/australia-is-already-a-net-zero-co2-emitter-thanks-to-its-forests-and-rangelands-pdf-619k?da=y [Not sure if there is a daily download limit on this file. Apologies if you temporarily strike one].

      20

  • #
    Lawrie

    Good morning all. I have forwarded this piece of real information onto my local representatives, Federal and State. I know they read it and so I suggest everyone here sends the news to their reps and demand they pass it on to the PM. The Coalition could romp in with a decent energy policy which means dumping Net Zero.

    191

  • #
    Anton

    Don’t complain. Start a new party. Even if it is not elected it will influence the policies of the big boys out of fear of losing votes.

    91

  • #
    Neville

    I’m afraid there’s little we can do to wake up our MSM, Pollies, so called scientists etc and if the polls are correct we’ll have a Labor/ Greens govt in a couple of months time.
    The idea of waking up to an Albanese, Bandt govt fills me with dread and yet so many Aussies will think this is a wonderful outcome for the next 3 years.
    But even the alarmist Dr Finkel ( Chief Scientist) was honest enough to tell the Senate ( under oath) that Aussies could reduce all of our Human co2 emissions today and it would have ZERO impact on the climate.
    I’ve tried to explain this to some people and the hostility by some is unbelievable and just confirms my understanding of our so called education system in 2022.
    But then again even the Biden donkey and most of the MSM , plus most global pollies, plus so called scientists etc are all selling this fra-dulent nonsense to their voters and have done so for over 30 years.
    But China, Russia, Iran etc will relish our stupidity and wait for more opportunities to exploit our weaknesses in the coming decades.

    240

    • #
      Mark Allinson

      “The idea of waking up to an Albanese, Bandt govt fills me with dread and yet so many Aussies will think this is a wonderful outcome for the next 3 years.”

      Yep, the same folks who blindly and keenly volunteered to enter an experimental drug trial for a 99.7% survivable disease want to strangle our industries and send them to China.

      When a culture fixes its vision on suicide the people will not only vote for more destruction, they will demand it.

      140

  • #
    Robert Swan

    What is significant about this finding is how far attitudes toward cutting emissions have shifted over the past year

    Daniel Wild might see this as significant, but I’m not convinced. If this same survey was run on a second sample of 1000 people on the same day, does he think that “attitudes toward cutting emissions” would be identical? I don’t. His “shift in attitudes over a year” is more likely down the participants being a different mix.

    If polls were to be trusted, we’d already have a Labor government in Canberra and Britain would still be in the EU.

    70

    • #
      el+gordo

      Taking a closer look at the IPA poll, they were fair and balanced in location, cities and regions, and age of participants.

      So his “shift in attitudes over a year” seems on the money, as we focus on the hip pocket nerve in this election year.

      60

      • #

        Take an even closer look.
        Ages
        Male 23% ↓ 27% ↓ 37% ↓ 51% 75% ↓ 77% ↓
        Female 77% ↓ 73% ↓ 63% ↓ 49% 25% ↓ 23% ↓

        16

      • #
        Robert Swan

        el+gordo,

        they were fair and balanced

        Gee Aye’s point about 3/4 of the respondents over 55 being male says it might not be as balanced as you think.

        My doubts are less technical. The results are from 1007 particpants. Strange number don’t you think? Is there some magic in 19×53? Did they really make exactly 1007 phone calls and get 1007 complete responses? Or were there 1100 calls made, and 93 “Get lost” responses. Or was it 1500 calls, and 493? They don’t say. Don’t you think non-participants should reduce confidence in the result?

        50

  • #
    Dave of Gold Coast, Qld.

    Not at all surprised by the poll, if they had asked me I would be a no Net Zero voter. I am still waiting for someone to scientifically prove CO2 is doing anything but greening the planet. To have Net Zero means no humans, animals or birds as we all exhale the harmless gas that makes everything grow. Most CO2 comes naturally from the oceans as many of us know and weather is cyclic IF anyone did research. As usual it is all about money, power and control. The MSM would fall over if it didn’t have a cause to promote, the ABC in particular.

    170

  • #
    Mike+of+NQ

    Liberals are missing, sorry, missed a massive opportunity. In WA, the Liberal Party went with net zero by 2030 and to shut all coal fired power stations by 2025. They won 2 seats in their last state election. Tony Abbott promised cheap reliable power and never succumbed to net zero, and won 90 seats.

    280

  • #
    Ronin

    UK, gas 68%, wind 6%.

    110

  • #
    Ronin

    That 30% of Australians want to spend money we don’t have on a problem that doesn’t exist, shows a disconnect from reality.

    We can’t vote out the two majors but we can vote for the tail to wag the dog.

    190

  • #
    Neville

    So what impact have the wealthy OECD countries made on Human co2 emissions since 1970 or 1990? The answer of course is ZERO impact and nearly all of the increase in Human co2 emissions over the last 30 or 50 years has been from the NON OECD, like China, India and “other developing countries”. Here’s the Wiki graphs data up to 2018.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    And Willis Eschenbach has checked all of their so called “Climate Emergency” claims and found NOTHING to be concerned about.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

    In fact Human population has more than doubled since 1970 ( 3.7 bn then to now 7.9 bn or increase of about 4.2 billion) and yet GLOBAL life expectancy has increased from 56.5 years in 1970 to 73 years in 2022. Anyone still believe in their EXISTENTIAL threat or emergency or crisis lunacies?

    Again why are we wasting billions $ on this fantasy here in Australia and WASTING endless TRILLIONs $ from wealthy OECD countries around the world?

    And African life expectancy( our poorest continent) today is much HIGHER than GLOBAL life expectancy in 1970. Global life exp in 1970 was 56.5 years and African life exp today is 64 years ( about 46 years in 1970). Yet Africa has also suffered from the HIV/AIDs emergency and yet their population has increased from 363 million in 1970 to about 1400 million today. So where is their African CLIMATE EMERGENCY over the last half century? Look up the data for yourselves.

    60

  • #
    Ronin

    “Again why are we wasting billions $ on this fantasy here in Australia and WASTING endless TRILLIONs $ from wealthy OECD countries around the world?”

    Because we have swallowed the con job, hook line and sinker.

    110

    • #
      Ross

      Its like the COVID policies-our “leaders” were just doing what the rest of the world was doing. That’s their excuse. Australia has this jumped up opinion of ourselves that we are somehow influencer on the world stage. Can be traced back to our involvement in the setup of the UN post WWII. It gave us an overinflated opinion of ourselves which other countries and organisations use to their advantage. So, we get publicly shamed for not doing enough for the “climate”, by the UN etc. For chrissakes, we only have a population of 25m, we’re a drop in the ocean.

      100

  • #
    Neville

    Very true Ronin and certainly their fantasy world seems to have strong support around the globe.
    Yet Africa has managed to increase their population by nearly 4 times since 1970 and increased their life expectancy by another 18 years in the last 50 years.
    And their previous increase in life expectancy since 1800 or even 200K years ago was about 15 years.
    See Dr Rosling’s BBC data video since 1810.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    40

  • #
    Russell

    To be consistent with arguments about stupid leftist polls, was it possible for participants to opt-out of the IPA/Dynata selection?
    Many do not trust the “designed outcome”. No amount of additional polling compensates for this systemic bias.
    It is interesting that they “captured” a few 25-34 yo participants earning $500,000 to $999,999 … not sure they’d actually answer their own phones?
    CC is on the nose right now … so just have to wait for the fed election results.

    40

  • #
    Brenda Spence

    Just heard an interview with a lawyer in Lismore, blaming the floods on climate change. She wants the govt out because they are not taking it seriously enough.

    Sheesh! Couldnt be because they live on a flood plain, and how about someone build dams?

    150

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    In truth, Net Zero is like a rubber band. It starts at one size but can be stretched. Stretching the truth is telling a lie.

    90

  • #
    Roy

    What this says is 70% of people realise climate change caused by humans is a load of rubbish and don’t want to give the time of day or their money to it. Don’t forget all life is carbon based .We are talking about carbon dioxide here aren’t we? That gas that plants need to survive and produce oxygen for us to survive ?

    40

  • #
    Serge Wright

    Energy supply is the foundation of our very existence in a modern society. If you remove the supply, then we die. It’s that simple !!!

    On the topic of net-zero, I often wonder why so many people are willing to push for a policy of using wind, solar and batteries, that is not yet proven anywhere and carries a risk of failure that threatens the lives of millions of people in our country alone. And the only justification for this policy and its enormous risk is to remove a tiny amount of gas that is the source of all life on earth.

    Something is wrong in the minds of so many…

    50

  • #

    This is not the Australia that I saw when I first migrated here in 1976. This country is being pushed down the toilet by “Pollies” that have no idea what they are doing. Serve the People? Yes, give them a right Big Serve……………………..

    40

  • #
    Serge Wright

    “The same survey undertaken by the IPA found that 61 per cent of Australians agree the federal government should be more focused on national defence rather than meeting Australia’s Net Zero emissions by 2050 target, while only 39 per cent disagree.”

    That’s an interesting survey question. In today’s ideologically twisted society you could translate that to 61% “normal” centre-right voters and 39% hard left-wing voters. Perhaps there is hope!!!

    40

  • #
    Doc

    I wonder if that 28% wanting to cool the world would still do so if informed that with cooling they get increased human death rates from a wide variety of factors including starvation.

    They have obviously forgotten the 1970’s, (but probably most have were never been told) when climate scientists were warning the earth was cooling, crop production would fall and there would be inadequate food supplies – for 4billion people. What would they have said with nearly double that population who are currently being well fed when away from regional turmoil.

    50

    • #
      Annie

      A lot of the man-made climate change enthusiasts weren’t alive in the 1970s and have no memories thereof. A shortage of food, clothing, heating, transport, mobile ‘phones, etc. etc. might wake them up a bit as they shiver.

      10

  • #
    Doc

    Has anyone noticed? There is a total silence from the AGW crowd over the climate doom and gloom they should be forecasting due to the war in Ukraine. Is that because it’s the other side of the NATO line and Russia can obviously produce as much gas and coal, burn as much fuel as it wants because it must produce totally clean burning of ff and is never subject to climate activism, nor disgust in the UN.

    70

  • #
    sophocles

    It seems that 70% if Australians can recognise and reject a scam when they see it.

    That’s all Klimate is: a Scam.

    60

  • #
    Simon

    It’s framed as a choice, but there isn’t one really. Global surface temperatures will continue rising until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero. The question should really be: How much would you pay to keep temperatures below +2°C, +3°C, +4°C up to complete ecosystem annihilation. Runaway greenhouse gas global warming is implicated in at least two of the big five mass extinction events.

    19

    • #
      Lawrie

      We will never know Simon because in times past the earth has been much warmer and CO2 level has been much higher and the planet survived and even thrived. The worry about the poles defrosting is spurious since there have been periods when they were both ice free and tropical forests grew in Siberia and Alaska. The biggest worry was when the earth COOLED and Europe and North America disappeared under miles of ice. So Simon you should welcome a few degrees of extra warmth as so many people living in the higher latitudes certainly would.

      50

    • #
      el+gordo

      Global SST should steadily fall over the next five years as CO2 continues to rise.

      20

      • #
        bobby b

        “Global SST should steadily fall over the next five years as CO2 continues to rise.”

        And the warmists will then loudly proclaim that, due to their concern and action, they have saved the world, but there’s still so much work to do, so please send money to . . .

        20

    • #
      b.nice

      “How much would you pay to keep temperatures below +2°C, +3°C, +4°C up to complete ecosystem annihilation”

      If I want a fantasy, I’ll pay to go to a Disney movie.
      Most of them have more credence than climate models.

      Oh, and did you know that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, it was probably at least +4°C, probably more.. and the ecosystem flourished.
      Its doing even better now that CO2 are at a slightly higher level, despite the world still being in a colder period.

      20

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘ … at least two of the big five mass extinction events.’

      There was a lot of volcanic activity during the Great Dying, with copious amounts of CO2. Ocean acidification and acid rain might then have taken place. Or perhaps global warming could have potentially reduced oxygen in the ocean and the release of poisonous hydrogen sulfide, which may have also impacted the ozone layer.

      A very large volcanic eruption close to Antartica brought the world out of glaciation.

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    Here we have it. Ukrainian leader Zelensky will come to address our parliament. Is he going to give a similar speech to this one? Climate Expert Zelensky Calls For An End To Fossil Fuels
    If so it means that PM Morrison and possibly our forthcoming PM Albanese will be even more supportive of Zelensky. Does anyone still need more proof that our leaders are the real enemies? Russia might still be our enemy too but at the moment we have far worse and more real enemies from within.

    10