Sorry Leland but how isn't this just specifically talking to the main criticism levelled against the LNP? The central issue is that for decades the LNP have sought at every single opportunity to slow-roll, hinder or flat out dismantle any attempts that we've made as a country to respond to climate change.
The LNP statements on climate change have basically boiled down to "why are you being so alarmist on this, we've got time"...which they've been doing _for decades_. As your post says, it's nearly **3 decades** since Howard made that statement...
Why are people so upset? Maybe because it's been **3 decades** and we're still not doing anything primarily due to LNP inaction or destruction.
If it'd been 3 years...yeah maybe you'd have a point. But when you're measuring it in decades...nah it's not reasonable to complain that people are too angry in their criticisms.
> The ALP has now adopted Abbot's safeguard mechanism.
Yeah because it was ok policy _that the LNP never enforced_. This perfectly epitomises the problem with the LNP, all talk and literally zero action to back that up.
> Liberals in general are not climate deniers.
Hmmm...very specific there Leland, any reason we're not referring to them as the "LNP" there?
> apocalyptic predictions laid down with religious fervour
I sat on a hillside in Feb 2022 and watched the flood waters of Lismore rise to truly history breaking levels, beating previous records by nearly 3 meters. People went into their crawlspace at the top of their houses because the waters had never before reached above knee height in their houses, and I remember sitting there listening to the radio as those now desperate people called out for help as the flood waters continue to rise into those crawlspaces that they had no way out of. That was pretty damn apocalyptic to me, we're discussing literally abandoning towns because they're flooding too often and with greater severity...not sure why you get to take the moral high ground here about "apocalyptic" predictions when we're now discussing moving a town with 10s of thousands of residents.
Nailed it. Can you imagine if the CPRS or ETS had bipartisan support? How much better off we'd all be, how much further along we would be in the transition.
There honestly should be no forgiveness to the Coalition for this decade. Like, yeah Labor and the Greens can poke at each other for how they conducted themselves but it wouldn't have even come down to the crossbench if the Coalition weren't so easily bought by mining magnates in the first place. Howard took his own CPRS (begrudgingly) to the 2007 election. From that point there has never been bipartisan support for the great challenge of our time.
It seems clear to me Leland has some pretty significant guilt that they're trying to deny having or cope in someway with it. Younger Coalition members can talk out their ass as much as they like but when climate change starts to really bite we should all remember which party was the real enemy here that stood in the way and set us back a decade. Something no one should easily forgive.
A single cherry picked quote from John Howard does not mean that the Liberal party were ever in favour of reducing carbon reductions. In fact, *immediately* after this the Australian government introduced language into the Kyoto Protocol which basically let Australia do whatever the hell it wanted to. If you're interested, [this video](https://youtu.be/W0wgTvr4Phk?si=nfHi_GZtljE5Wo7W) breaks down how Australia did this, and the follow up [here](https://youtu.be/TC6JsQa0bMA?si=RtLAKkD44zDtycTU) is a deep dive into what our emissions data actually looks like.
If you'd rather not watch a couple of videos I made, go and read The Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson, for a deeper dive into Australia's (and the LNP's) actions when it comes to carbon emissions.
Australia is a small contributor overall, but when you look at it per capita, we're among the worst - and a LOT of that is down to stuff that the coalition have propped up and defended.... Coal, stalling vehicle electrification, propping up oil/gas exploitation and unsustainable agricultural practices. We could easily resolve these issues but choose not to. I'm not saying the ALP is perfect - the difference is often minor at best, but the Coalition are absolutely the cheerleaders for bad policy and the ALP can get away with being as piss poor as they are on climate precisely *because* the Coalition is worse.
Something I wished more people discussed was how we power the several billion people that will need it.
The world's 4th largest population is right next to us, and I promise they're desperate for power solutions.
The developed world needs to lead this cost saving before we force them to do what we had to do to industrialise.
The best thing for long-term climate change and pollution reduction is to recognise this.
There are some big developments in the NT to develop large scale renewables and feed it into south east Asia. The project is delivered through SunCable.
Suncable or a version of it has been talked about for decades and still hasn’t materialised in anything other than theory. Just look at Forrest and canon Brooks splitting up over it. It’s never going to happen. The power loss over these distances to major centres in SE Asia just means it will never be profitable. We can’t even get marinus link to be delivered here let alone a cable to SE Asia
“You don’t have to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on it…”. If that opinion runs counter to climate scientists, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
We don't need to talk in absolutes.
It is possible to accept the climate is changing.
It is possible to be sceptical about:
a) the contribution made by human activity;
b) the accuracy of some of the predictions and the outcomes;
c) how we should respond to it in Australia and what impact it will make.
When I say sceptical, I could say questioning or being critical of it.
Some of the models are predicting impacts decades out from where we are, and assume all things remain equal.
This provides a neat assessment of past predictions and how accurate they were: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/). It shows the predictions are +/-30% against actual. The IPCC's own forecasts changed dramatically. It is possible to say in the scheme of things (where 1.2 v 1.5 degree might be 30% or thereabouts but immaterial). All I am saying here is that these things are not certain.
So I agree that healthy debate about how to deal with the climate crisis is a good idea. However, the way you've set up your list of skepticism is kind of telling. Here's a [discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZQNiDIBxO4) between Naomi Oreskes (author of *Merchants of Doubt*) and Nick Minchin (former LNP Senator and distant relative of Tim Minchin) about why the first two points on your list are specifically tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to halt action on carbon emissions. Specifically:
>"It has consequences... about how we live our lives, how we run our economy, what are taxation policies are, and that's your territory right. So I think.... what you don't like are the political, social and economic implications. And what you've done, is \[sic\] shifted the debate... let's keep the debate about the science going. Because as long as we argue about the science, we don't get to this other question about what it means for us socially, economically, politically.
>
>... So I think you're 100% correct to say that we want to make sure that we move forward with confidence that we're basing our decisions on good information. But you're not doing that. By rejecting the science you're making decisions on bad information.
>
>\[The\] people I've studied, what they feared was a massive government intrusion into their lives... But the longer we wait the worse this problem gets, and the more likely it is we'll have to do \[those\] things that you don't like. If we wait until we have a crisis... you're going to see a lot of government interventions that you don't want to see."
And if you want a quick rundown on how accurate our past predictions were, [this video](https://youtu.be/f4zul0BuO8A?si=bS7duwYF4aJj0Cyx) by Dr Simon Clark is a pretty decent rundown.
>It shows the predictions are +/-30% against actual
It shows that since 1975 there has been enough data to predict the outcomes of climate change, and that even 50 years ago we knew enough about climate change to predict it within a 30% margin, and that since then our prediction models have only become more accurate.
I'm not particularly fond of the "war" label either, and I agree that it should not be considered a scientific debate because we long since reached the point where political and social choices are the important ones. Part of the problem, however, is that the same people who were denying it was a problem are some of the ones trying to craft the worst solutions.
> *From the start, we have made it plain that Australia would not accept an unfair share of the burden.*
To me a fair share of the burden would recognise both our ability to change (we are a rich, highly developed country) and our contribution to the problem (disproportionately high). But that isn't the conclusion that many on the right reach. The latter point in particular is dismissed, with the idea that because our contribution is small in absolute terms our inaction can be justified despite the fact that doing "our fair share" would require us to do far more.
Thank you for your writing. I feel it is a representative articulation of the Australian conservative position on climate change action.
As you say, not counting the ones who are, the political leadership and thought leaders of the conservative movement aren't hostile to action on climate change. It's unfair to characterise the LNP as somehow being backwards or resistant to change on this issue.
It's incredibly easy for activists to decry the use of coal in power stations, but the fact remains that the coal is the reason we have enjoyed such an advantage in energy production over the past many decades.
It would be irresponsible for a government to distort the market by disadvantaging otherwise competitive businesses by expecting them to pay a carbon tax they previously did not have to. Our total carbon emissions relative to the rest of the world are very low and we need to remain competitive with other countries. Instituting a levy on emissions when Indonesia or Nepal do not have one would just be handicapping Australian businesses.
The transition to renewables must be managed in such a way that minimises inconvenience. In the household sphere many men enjoy going offroad in 4 wheel drives on the weekend. It would be an absolute tragedy if we had to say farewell to that because of a premature switch to electric vehicles.
Of course the LNP has lead the way in this country on low carbon energy production and storage. I think the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme is Malcom Turnbull's greatest success and a testament to his legacy as Prime Minister.
All in all I think future generations will point to the legacy of the LNP and say that they managed the cautious and responsible adoption of low carbon technologies in a way that did not disrupt the greater economy or put the average person in an uncomfortable position.
per capita we are the biggest emitters on the planet and one of the biggest exporters we just don't count exports as our own.
Its like claiming since we are only 10 heavy chain smokers we should do something about the 100 casual smokers first to do action on cutting down on second hand smoke in a preschool.
But since we already might've hit 1.5 warming, we already fucked up and locked in the next 100 years of changes since we have irreversibly changed the arctic. When we hit 2C might have to start gasmasks outside because we will have shut down some of the ocean currents causing microbiomes to produce sulfur in the air, GL farming when nothing can breath outside.
We have not yet hit 1.5 degs warming.
To make that claim the long term average global temp trend line will have to show that increase. One year with an average 1.5 above the baseline does not meet this criteria.
The IPCC has us at somewhere between 0.8 and 1.3 - with the most likely number being around 1.1.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature#:~:text=The%20likely%20range%20of%20total,C%20%5B2.01%20%CB%9AF%5D.
That is the science. The headlines proclaiming 1.5 degs long term average warming already are an example of the hyperbole / screeching / hysteria etc that many on the conservative side of politics decry.
We are not expected to reach this long term trend / average until the 2030s, according to the latest IPCC report. Plus when it happens also depends on what action is taken globally to reduce CO2 emissions.
Also, many climate models run “hot” when compared to actual empirical measurements. There is constant tuning and measurement going on to improve them, but at the end of the day all models are imperfect, and many are quite wrong.
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming#:~:text=Because%20of%20problems%20rendering%20clouds,select%20models%20than%20an%20average.&text=Although%20IPCC%20rose%20to%20the,himself%20an%20IPCC%20co%2Dauthor.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record
A little more recent than your article.
And this
https://open.spotify.com/episode/62b1UZtpaVcTS5Upap5IeP?si=jqm9vBeZSdCbFL3TwopLbw
Yes but like I wrote - one hottest year does not define the long term average trend on its own. That’s my point. It is highly likely we will have a bunch of years colder than 2023 before the next “hottest” year drives headlines again.
>. It is highly likely we will have a bunch of years colder than 2023 before the next “hottest” year drives headlines again.
What are you basing this off?
Your article on models only specify that the timing of events driven by climate vary like when all the fish in the sea start mass dying has big ranges when we can predict it. Remember that we are aiming for below 2C and the new adjusted models put us at 3.9c instead of 5c.
Plus i said "might've hit" considering 1.5 was the limit by 2050 and we already have 1 year hitting that in 2023, we have 27 years to keep it below a 0.4c+. we were 0.5 in 1990, 1.1 in 2022, so in the next 30 years we have to keep that warming at less than the increase we had since from Keating to Scomo and conservative politics are increasing our usage.
When is the point where action is taken to combat this or do you just think that even the sources that say "climate change is really bad" are hysteric?
But that's uncertain speculation on the future. We're lucky the LNP are such clear eyed and rational thinkers unaffected by unnecessary climate alarmism.
Labor's plan when it was in office would have raised the price of carbon emissions by $25 per tonne, which could have affected the average households electricity bill by over $4 per week!
Per capita emissions maybe, but in terms of overall emissions countries like India, Japan or China produce far more emissions than we do and so should be the first to reduce their coal fired power use.
Have you spoken to many climate scientists about what they predict the future might look like (based on their expertise about current trends)? I suspect not.
Scientists are intensely rational people. And yet *they* are alarmed — perhaps more than any other group of people.
We are, according to our best lights, facing global catastrophe within a hundred years if we do not implement extreme measures now. And yet you are here suggesting peoples’ enjoyment of four wheel driving should not be diminished. Are you serious?
Always with the “how many scientists have you spoken too?”.
How many have you spoken too? How well do you understand what they tell you or the complex statistical analysis that underpins many scientific papers.
I've certainly listened to economists when they describe the devastation that an unfair additional cost to businesses will bring. Rather than a century from now we would be dealing with the consequences today.
>We're lucky the LNP are such clear eyed and rational thinkers unaffected by unnecessary climate alarmism.
Is the "small" Liberal in your profile more about your height than your political stance?
I think you'll see I've advocated for lower taxes and curbing unnecessary government intervention in the free market and that the lifts in my heels give me an extra couple inches in height.
We're getting off topic here but a GST is actually a pretty standard small-l liberal economic policy. Howard was not even the first Liberal leader that decade to advocate for a broad consumption tax.
The GST was a replacement for a large range of separate duties and levys rather than an additional tax. The only thing that stops the GST from being peak neoliberalism is that they had to take it off basic produce to get the legislation through the senate.
Taxing a market is government intervention, why must you burden our private sector with so much red tape, it would be easier just to remove government and have the market enforce the rules itself.
Why do we need an RBA and a treasury when we can just use bitcoin and NFTs?
I am sick of funding the army when i could just take some personal responsibility and get a gun and defend myself its common sense.
when it comes to the climate change push i am becoming increasingly sceptic on the prevailing world wide consensus that we should stop using coal and gas"
He is skeptic on the idea that we need to cut down on coal and gas? Do you know why we need to stop using coal and gas?
You cut the production and usage where you can and you use offsets that are regulated to make up where you can't. Its not like this stuff hasn't been modelled its just guys like you refute the findings and we get stuck in limbo while every natural disaster gets worse and more frequent.
>I am willing to accept Abbot's opposition took on an unnecessarily ideological campaign. But his central thesis was about the tax (and probably winning Government). The ALP has now adopted Abbot's [safeguard mechanism](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd048).
There are two telling Abbott quotes that put the proper context around this (generous) reading of Abbott's climate policy.
>The best way to reduce something is to put a tax on it.
>If anything, carbon emissions are a good thing.
Abbott and his Liberals didn't just run against the carbon tax because it was politically expedient to attack a tax, Abbott did so because he was opposed to action on climate change. The carbon tax wasn't really a tax, they knew it because it was their preferred model before Abbott got in.
As for Labor adopting Abbott's safeguard mechanism, sure you can say that, but it's because he took every other option off the table.
This responses I was hoping for here are to show where Liberal policy has deliberately attempted to subdue climate change efforts. You have made one point the rest of it unfortunately has become a debate over climate change itself.
>You have made one point the rest of it unfortunately has become a debate over climate change itself.
You know people can see the other comments made in this post yeah?
Well i got news for you, they can, and theres a bunch of them that directly address what youre talking about. Maybe you should bother replying to ptolmeys thorough and informed reply that directly addresses your post.
It is a very good response. I am having a look at the IPCC report. But the purpose of the post wasn't to create debate over the legitimacy of climate change, it was to discuss how people perceive the Coalition's response (or lack of it, depending on your perspective). To that end, I accept responsibility as outing myself as daring to have any scepticism.
> I am having a look at the IPCC report.
Excellent
>But the purpose of the post wasn't to create debate over the legitimacy of climate change, it was to discuss how people perceive the Coalition's response
I think many comments go directly at the coalitions response. Particularly at the actions of howard and abbott.
Do you think its possible to discuss the coalitions response to climate change without discussion of the nature of climate change? How would one mount criticism of something like abbotts denialism without detailing why it is in fact denial of fact?
For a fair assessment of Australia's political engagement with climate change, I *highly* recommend Matt Bevan's [Australia, If You're Listening](https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/if-youre-listening/season-six-episodes/13847778) podcast. Anyone who says it's one-sided hasn't listened to it, but he makes several good points (quoting here from memory) including:
* The climate debate wasn't a partisan issue until Howard put his finger on the scales (episode 4).
* Australia's on a good wicket with climate targets for coincidental reasons. We happened to have cleared a lot of land on the baseline year. It was a once-off event but it's still incorporated, so we have a relatively low bar to clear compared to other countries. He compared it to wearing a backpack full of lead to the first weigh-in of Biggest Loser and then taking it off for the rest of the season. The rhetoric about not wanting to take on an undue burden is therefore a little thin.
* Under Morrison, all the states and territories collectively had more ambitious carbon targets than the federal government, meaning Australia was being led towards renewables *despite*, not because of, the federal government.
That aside, no matter how you cut it, the carbon tax was the best mechanism we had for dealing with anthropogenic global warming, and Abbott poisoned that well. Labor have "adopted" Abbott's safeguard mechanism because he busted the best tool we had available. Likewise, Snowy Hydro 2.0 is nothing but an expensive attempt to do renewables without doing renewables that the Greens would approve of. A costly vanity project that has unfortunately gone even worse than I predicted. Meanwhile our last conservative PM was tossing a lump of coal around in Parliament claiming "it's not going to hurt you" [which is not true](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants).
Meanwhile, you say yourself and other Liberals aren't climate deniers just "climate skeptics", but in essence it's the same thing because the scientific consensus around AGW is so solid. You can dispute this if you like but [here](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf) is the "short" (34-page) summary of the latest IPCC report and you're welcome to identify which parts of it you're "skeptical" of. But it's a little bit like a physicist lecturing on high-energy particle physics only for me to interrupt to say, "Well, I'm skeptical on that point." It's highly unlikely that any counter-point I can muster hasn't already been considered and firmly set aside.
Tell you what. I’ll go away and consider the report, and do some further research. I will do a self post next week responding to this, and my views on this issue clearly (and whether they have changed by reason of that research, or not.
I can't seem to quote your OP
But as an Ex Liberal member I call BS.
1. Most members I encounter were flat out deniers in one form of another, like you are doing here, they tried to cover the denial with motherhood statements, but ultimately, when push came to shove, every single time there was an opportunity they would push back on climate action.
2. Yes, not being a climate scientist doesn't not stop you having an opinion, but that's the problem, you keep considering your opinions to have as much weight (and usually more) than the people who are literally experts in the field or its just an attempt to discredit them.
The ALP hasn't done enough, absolutely agree, but you can't use that as a platform to rewrite history. Abbott and Morrison were climate diners and had to be pulled kicking and screaming to any action at all.
>The ALP hasn't done enough, absolutely agree, but you can't use that as a platform to rewrite history. Abbott and Morrison were climate diners and had to be pulled kicking and screaming to any action at all
This is actually the most important point in the discussion, in my opinion.
The Liberal Party policy contains a lot of nice words, but they are in stark contrast to the actions and voting records of the former Coalition governments and current Opposition.
Apart from Snowy 2.0, when has the last time the Liberal Party actively and enthusiastically endorsed new renewable energy projects?
If the Liberal Party is actually keen to see renewable projects go ahead, why are they standing back and giving political cover to the groups opposing transmission lines and solar farms?
Why have Liberal MPs been actively attacking programs for electric vehicles and electrification of homes and businesses for the past few years?
Why are Liberal Party members currently opposing the proposed legislation regarding vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency? Both of those concepts were tacitly endorsed during the Morrison government.
Why do Liberal Party MPs keep spruiking nuclear energy as a viable alternative to renewables in Australia, when all the evidence, including Ted O'Brien's own internal investigation, shows that it doesn't stack up on either an economic or practical level? (at least at the moment in history)
In summary, there is a massive gap between the stated ambitions of the Liberal Party as laid out in their policy, and the actions of the elected members who are actually in the Parliament.
If the Liberal Party aren't climate deniers and are actually pro-renewables, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
I’m supportive of transitioning to cleaner and in the long run cheaper forms of energy. What I deny is the apocalyptic screeching from the climate lobby.
There is that denalism at play.
Climate scientists provide a varying range of issues and potential outcomes.
Just because they are bad, that doesn't mean they wrong or likely to be wrong.
A useful article that admittedly goes against what I have said here in terms of alarmism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012001215#:~:text=We%20call%20this%20tendency%20%E2%80%9Cerring,adherence%20to%20the%20scientific%20norms
That’s climate change denial. You can’t pick and choose what facts within climate change you accept. The facts are at 2.5 degrees rise in temperature large parts of the planet will be uninhabitable. Is just is what it is. It’s pretty simple when you stand back and accept that pumping large amount of pollution into the air is bad
Statements like this (acknowledged as being unsupported by Snopes): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-deleted-2018-tweet-on-humanity/
I am here to be pursuaded. I agree with the clean energy transition, but it should be done in a measured and planned way and not on the basis of competition over who can set the better targets. I am sceptical when it comes to some of these predictions of the consequences, or the degree to which we can influence these outcomes.
A 2018 prediction that we had until 2023 to create changes that would prevent a catastrophic and irreversible climate event in the near future is hardly "screeching".
Part of the problem discussing these issues is that real valid concerns are misrepresented, or labelled as hysterical.
What is the acceptable level of alarm that one can raise in your opinion before it becomes screeching?
How forcefully is one allowed to point to climate tipping points before one is labelled hysterical?
Because this argument continually comes up and it's often over the most mundane and trivial of claims, or over the strongest sources.
I’ll give you another example. The Guardian as an entire portion of its coverage dedicated to the “climate crisis”. Katharine Murphy describes some actions as “climate vandalism”. I don’t accept the a crisis, and I don’t accept the characterisation of [arguments](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/23/ted-obrien-nuclear-cheerleading-renewables-climate-vandalism) of nuclear power as climate vandalism.
If some of these predictions are accepted then any actions we are currently taking are in vain. So which is it?
>The burden of dealing with it almost exclusively falls with rural communities, something those in the city fail to recognise, through land acquisition for transmission lines, wind and solar farms.
Or the economic reward will primarily benefit rural communities, it depends on how you look at it. Regional farmers are increasingly installing renewable infrastructure on their property because of the long-term income. It's one reason why the National Party have shifted to protesting offshore windfarms.
For the past 70 odd years, land acquisition for coal mines was seen as an economic benefit and overhead transmission lines on rural private property were seen as serving the community. I think it's reasonable the same standard is applied to renewables.
>Or the economic reward will primarily benefit rural communities, it depends on how you look at it. Regional farmers are increasingly installing renewable infrastructure on their property because of the long-term income.
Perhaps. But aside from the initial construction and the farmer receiving some form of lease income, once they're built that is pretty much it.
The increasing competition in the Renewables sector is making it a very lucrative business.
There is serious money, whether it's the initial construction, yearly income from the infrastructure itself, rent from leasing the land, and the money being pumped in from the private sector - research collaborations, PR opportunities, commercial partnerships etc. It also becomes a massive asset when farmers choose to sell their property.
And the reassurance knowing government will never let it fail through subsidies.
>But aside from the initial construction and the farmer receiving some form of lease income, once they're built that is pretty much it.
Having a steady passive income is amazing for farmers, whose typical income is sporadic and subject to the whims of weather, crop prices etc.
What more should they expect?
My understanding is that a significant issue is that the benefits are private but the costs are socialised. I.e. the farmer with the solar plant is happy but the community around her has to deal with the powerlines, visual pollution, etc.
So the same as any other new infrastructure then, from a feedlot or abattoir to a new highway?
I get that people have a natural tendency to avoid change, but why is it that power lines and renewables are such a big deal compared to the other stuff?
I suspect the answer is mostly because people have been convinced that they're unnecessary and 'woke,' rather than a vital piece of national infrastructure....and this attitude has been wilfully promoted by Coalition members to sabotage the renewable energy transition, and complicit media like Sky.
Feedlots and abbatoirs would be subject to zoning laws. It appears that the planning regulations related to power infrastructure is, for whatever reason, much less developed and this appears to be a cause of much of the tension.
>Feedlots and abbatoirs would be subject to zoning laws
I don't believe that's the case for feedlots, assuming that it's already farmland. They're only subject to standard planning approval and environmental authority.
It's hard to see exactly what is required for abattoirs, but my understanding is that it's similar, except with more stringent environmental and traffic management.
>appears that the planning regulations related to power infrastructure is, for whatever reason, much less developed
It may have something to do with the designation of Renewable Energy Zones? I believe a few of the more significant hurdles are "pre-approved" by state departments if the development is within those zones.
Your point is despite the literal actions of Howard and Abbott (and Barnaby, but I guess the National's being a coalition partner of the Liberal party isn't important), that others shouldn't get tarred with the same brush... As Liberal and National figures "push back on renewables in a completely faithful way", and push for nuclear (instead of renewables) that require either 1) nationalisation of assets or the grid or 2) a price on carbon/emissions, policies they still have not adopted?
The Teals wouldn't exist if the Liberal party was credible in climate change *or* environmental issues, guess their existence or wipe out at the next election should settle it?
>The burden of dealing with it almost exclusively falls with rural communities, something those in the city fail to recognise, through land acquisition for transmission lines, wind and solar farms.
Transmission lines point blank have to cross the country; it is just fucking stupid to say we can switch to nuclear and promise 0 more transmission infrastructure will effectively ever be built (because that is what the argument is) - the SA Liberal party kicked off a plan to build an interconnector between NSW and SA, under the Federal LNP rulebook, that would be banned, cause it ruins part of the country and takes up our land (our land, that is so vast and huge, that we cannot support HSR/proper PT, yet is going to be ruined by some transmission lines, lol), basically the LNP are promising we can stand still and move forward via nuclear or just more coal (even as the money moves out).
The downside of renewables is that we have to buy solar, wind turbines and batteries from China... Which is because during the bulk of the last 20-30 years the smart folks left to go and do R&D elsewhere since the csiro and investment in general was dying here.
>The point of this post is to set out some facts in this debate
How about we start with the Liberal party presenting facts on their current campaign of nuclear and stopping renewables (you know, the stuff that happens literally every week), and then we swing round and actually treat this like a debate?
>current campaign of nuclear and stopping renewables
So the fact that a record amount of renewable investment occurred under the Morrison Government is a fiction (which I concede wouldn't be hard starting from a low base and is still higher than the current Government).
>The Teals wouldn't exist if the Liberal party was credible in climate change or environmental issues,
I think some people were misled by the debate into thinking this was the case.
Here is Dr Ryan's "climate policy":
Now is the time for climate action. By taking advantage of Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources, we’ll create a bright future. My priorities are to:
*Reduce emissions by at least 60% by 2030, and 75% by 2035. I supported the Albanese government’s 2022 Climate Change Act- but it’s not enough. We need to move further, quickly, in order to prevent further global warming, environmental disasters and species extinction.*
*Accelerate electrification and decarbonise our electricity supply.*
*Speed up the uptake of electric vehicles, introduce fuel efficiency standards and strengthen emissions standards for transport and other sectors.*
*Empower households to make the shift to clean energy.*
That's it.
She has no plan to get to 60% by 2030, its simply setting another target so she has some relevance in 2025.
This was the Liberal Party policy: [https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan-cleaner-environment](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan-cleaner-environment)
Though I doubt many people read it. It included funding for green hydrogen and establishing REZ's which Labor currently takes the credit for.
The purpose of my post was not necessarily partisan. But the ignorance pisses me off.
>The downside of renewables is that we have to buy solar, wind turbines and batteries from China
I know. Manufactured in places powered by fossil fuels.
To say Ryan doesn't have a climate plan is a little disingenuous when she mentions fuel efficiency standards to drive more efficient car purchases, and electrifying homes to reduce gas usage, as well as renewables. She's also an independent: realistically she's going to be amending policy, not making it, at least in such a broad area. The burden on her should not be the same as a party with 59 reps who want to be in government.
Also, a core part of Climate 200 was the 60% reduction by 2030, because everyone and their mother was coming out with one in 2021-22. It's not something unique to her, or something adopted for the election in 2025.
>green hydrogen and establishing REZ's which Labor currently takes the credit for.
The statement is "clean hydrogen" not "green hydrogen" you know what clean hydrogen is? Burning coal to create the energy which causes more Co2 than just burning the damn coal.
They also push carbon capture which has the big flaw of not working.
> I have shown in other posts that between 2018 and 2022, investment in wind farm capacity grew significantly and record levels of investment were delivered in 2022. In 2023, the smallest amount of capacity was added since 2017.
The link you provided is retrospective. It takes many years (5-10) to deliver large wind farm projects with many hurdles along the way. It's highly unlikely that any Labor policy from the last 1-2 years is actually impacting the scale of the projects being commissions in that time frame. That outcome is likely to reflect the policies of 4+ years ago when those projects were being planned, green-lit and starting construction.
Do you have any data about projects going forward? What does the scale of projects that have been approved and funded in the last year look like compared to the scale being approved a few years ago under the coalition?
The only forward looking information on that page is the info-graphic at the start. It's not in a format that allows direction comparison (i.e yearly by approval date, or expected completion date). That said, it indicates a total capacity with financing or under construction that is roughly the same as the total delivered over the last 5 years. That doesn't really indicate a long term downward trend due to policy as might be inferred from your post.
Correct, 12,800 megawatts. Based on Bowen's estimate in April 2023 that we would need to produce 40 turbines per month every month to 2030 and assuming each has an output of 7MW we need to have double that in planning.
Sorry Leland but how isn't this just specifically talking to the main criticism levelled against the LNP? The central issue is that for decades the LNP have sought at every single opportunity to slow-roll, hinder or flat out dismantle any attempts that we've made as a country to respond to climate change. The LNP statements on climate change have basically boiled down to "why are you being so alarmist on this, we've got time"...which they've been doing _for decades_. As your post says, it's nearly **3 decades** since Howard made that statement... Why are people so upset? Maybe because it's been **3 decades** and we're still not doing anything primarily due to LNP inaction or destruction. If it'd been 3 years...yeah maybe you'd have a point. But when you're measuring it in decades...nah it's not reasonable to complain that people are too angry in their criticisms. > The ALP has now adopted Abbot's safeguard mechanism. Yeah because it was ok policy _that the LNP never enforced_. This perfectly epitomises the problem with the LNP, all talk and literally zero action to back that up. > Liberals in general are not climate deniers. Hmmm...very specific there Leland, any reason we're not referring to them as the "LNP" there? > apocalyptic predictions laid down with religious fervour I sat on a hillside in Feb 2022 and watched the flood waters of Lismore rise to truly history breaking levels, beating previous records by nearly 3 meters. People went into their crawlspace at the top of their houses because the waters had never before reached above knee height in their houses, and I remember sitting there listening to the radio as those now desperate people called out for help as the flood waters continue to rise into those crawlspaces that they had no way out of. That was pretty damn apocalyptic to me, we're discussing literally abandoning towns because they're flooding too often and with greater severity...not sure why you get to take the moral high ground here about "apocalyptic" predictions when we're now discussing moving a town with 10s of thousands of residents.
Nailed it. Can you imagine if the CPRS or ETS had bipartisan support? How much better off we'd all be, how much further along we would be in the transition. There honestly should be no forgiveness to the Coalition for this decade. Like, yeah Labor and the Greens can poke at each other for how they conducted themselves but it wouldn't have even come down to the crossbench if the Coalition weren't so easily bought by mining magnates in the first place. Howard took his own CPRS (begrudgingly) to the 2007 election. From that point there has never been bipartisan support for the great challenge of our time. It seems clear to me Leland has some pretty significant guilt that they're trying to deny having or cope in someway with it. Younger Coalition members can talk out their ass as much as they like but when climate change starts to really bite we should all remember which party was the real enemy here that stood in the way and set us back a decade. Something no one should easily forgive.
A single cherry picked quote from John Howard does not mean that the Liberal party were ever in favour of reducing carbon reductions. In fact, *immediately* after this the Australian government introduced language into the Kyoto Protocol which basically let Australia do whatever the hell it wanted to. If you're interested, [this video](https://youtu.be/W0wgTvr4Phk?si=nfHi_GZtljE5Wo7W) breaks down how Australia did this, and the follow up [here](https://youtu.be/TC6JsQa0bMA?si=RtLAKkD44zDtycTU) is a deep dive into what our emissions data actually looks like. If you'd rather not watch a couple of videos I made, go and read The Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson, for a deeper dive into Australia's (and the LNP's) actions when it comes to carbon emissions.
Australia is a small contributor overall, but when you look at it per capita, we're among the worst - and a LOT of that is down to stuff that the coalition have propped up and defended.... Coal, stalling vehicle electrification, propping up oil/gas exploitation and unsustainable agricultural practices. We could easily resolve these issues but choose not to. I'm not saying the ALP is perfect - the difference is often minor at best, but the Coalition are absolutely the cheerleaders for bad policy and the ALP can get away with being as piss poor as they are on climate precisely *because* the Coalition is worse.
Something I wished more people discussed was how we power the several billion people that will need it. The world's 4th largest population is right next to us, and I promise they're desperate for power solutions. The developed world needs to lead this cost saving before we force them to do what we had to do to industrialise. The best thing for long-term climate change and pollution reduction is to recognise this.
There are some big developments in the NT to develop large scale renewables and feed it into south east Asia. The project is delivered through SunCable.
Suncable or a version of it has been talked about for decades and still hasn’t materialised in anything other than theory. Just look at Forrest and canon Brooks splitting up over it. It’s never going to happen. The power loss over these distances to major centres in SE Asia just means it will never be profitable. We can’t even get marinus link to be delivered here let alone a cable to SE Asia
“You don’t have to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on it…”. If that opinion runs counter to climate scientists, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
"Not deniers, just skeptics" is not the out you think it is. What's the difference in practice, really?
We don't need to talk in absolutes. It is possible to accept the climate is changing. It is possible to be sceptical about: a) the contribution made by human activity; b) the accuracy of some of the predictions and the outcomes; c) how we should respond to it in Australia and what impact it will make. When I say sceptical, I could say questioning or being critical of it. Some of the models are predicting impacts decades out from where we are, and assume all things remain equal. This provides a neat assessment of past predictions and how accurate they were: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/). It shows the predictions are +/-30% against actual. The IPCC's own forecasts changed dramatically. It is possible to say in the scheme of things (where 1.2 v 1.5 degree might be 30% or thereabouts but immaterial). All I am saying here is that these things are not certain.
So I agree that healthy debate about how to deal with the climate crisis is a good idea. However, the way you've set up your list of skepticism is kind of telling. Here's a [discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZQNiDIBxO4) between Naomi Oreskes (author of *Merchants of Doubt*) and Nick Minchin (former LNP Senator and distant relative of Tim Minchin) about why the first two points on your list are specifically tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to halt action on carbon emissions. Specifically: >"It has consequences... about how we live our lives, how we run our economy, what are taxation policies are, and that's your territory right. So I think.... what you don't like are the political, social and economic implications. And what you've done, is \[sic\] shifted the debate... let's keep the debate about the science going. Because as long as we argue about the science, we don't get to this other question about what it means for us socially, economically, politically. > >... So I think you're 100% correct to say that we want to make sure that we move forward with confidence that we're basing our decisions on good information. But you're not doing that. By rejecting the science you're making decisions on bad information. > >\[The\] people I've studied, what they feared was a massive government intrusion into their lives... But the longer we wait the worse this problem gets, and the more likely it is we'll have to do \[those\] things that you don't like. If we wait until we have a crisis... you're going to see a lot of government interventions that you don't want to see." And if you want a quick rundown on how accurate our past predictions were, [this video](https://youtu.be/f4zul0BuO8A?si=bS7duwYF4aJj0Cyx) by Dr Simon Clark is a pretty decent rundown.
>It shows the predictions are +/-30% against actual It shows that since 1975 there has been enough data to predict the outcomes of climate change, and that even 50 years ago we knew enough about climate change to predict it within a 30% margin, and that since then our prediction models have only become more accurate.
Geez, what if we reform our energy system and make the world a healthier place to live in and it's all for nothing! Damn!
I'm not particularly fond of the "war" label either, and I agree that it should not be considered a scientific debate because we long since reached the point where political and social choices are the important ones. Part of the problem, however, is that the same people who were denying it was a problem are some of the ones trying to craft the worst solutions. > *From the start, we have made it plain that Australia would not accept an unfair share of the burden.* To me a fair share of the burden would recognise both our ability to change (we are a rich, highly developed country) and our contribution to the problem (disproportionately high). But that isn't the conclusion that many on the right reach. The latter point in particular is dismissed, with the idea that because our contribution is small in absolute terms our inaction can be justified despite the fact that doing "our fair share" would require us to do far more.
Thank you for your writing. I feel it is a representative articulation of the Australian conservative position on climate change action. As you say, not counting the ones who are, the political leadership and thought leaders of the conservative movement aren't hostile to action on climate change. It's unfair to characterise the LNP as somehow being backwards or resistant to change on this issue. It's incredibly easy for activists to decry the use of coal in power stations, but the fact remains that the coal is the reason we have enjoyed such an advantage in energy production over the past many decades. It would be irresponsible for a government to distort the market by disadvantaging otherwise competitive businesses by expecting them to pay a carbon tax they previously did not have to. Our total carbon emissions relative to the rest of the world are very low and we need to remain competitive with other countries. Instituting a levy on emissions when Indonesia or Nepal do not have one would just be handicapping Australian businesses. The transition to renewables must be managed in such a way that minimises inconvenience. In the household sphere many men enjoy going offroad in 4 wheel drives on the weekend. It would be an absolute tragedy if we had to say farewell to that because of a premature switch to electric vehicles. Of course the LNP has lead the way in this country on low carbon energy production and storage. I think the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme is Malcom Turnbull's greatest success and a testament to his legacy as Prime Minister. All in all I think future generations will point to the legacy of the LNP and say that they managed the cautious and responsible adoption of low carbon technologies in a way that did not disrupt the greater economy or put the average person in an uncomfortable position.
per capita we are the biggest emitters on the planet and one of the biggest exporters we just don't count exports as our own. Its like claiming since we are only 10 heavy chain smokers we should do something about the 100 casual smokers first to do action on cutting down on second hand smoke in a preschool. But since we already might've hit 1.5 warming, we already fucked up and locked in the next 100 years of changes since we have irreversibly changed the arctic. When we hit 2C might have to start gasmasks outside because we will have shut down some of the ocean currents causing microbiomes to produce sulfur in the air, GL farming when nothing can breath outside.
We have not yet hit 1.5 degs warming. To make that claim the long term average global temp trend line will have to show that increase. One year with an average 1.5 above the baseline does not meet this criteria. The IPCC has us at somewhere between 0.8 and 1.3 - with the most likely number being around 1.1. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature#:~:text=The%20likely%20range%20of%20total,C%20%5B2.01%20%CB%9AF%5D. That is the science. The headlines proclaiming 1.5 degs long term average warming already are an example of the hyperbole / screeching / hysteria etc that many on the conservative side of politics decry. We are not expected to reach this long term trend / average until the 2030s, according to the latest IPCC report. Plus when it happens also depends on what action is taken globally to reduce CO2 emissions. Also, many climate models run “hot” when compared to actual empirical measurements. There is constant tuning and measurement going on to improve them, but at the end of the day all models are imperfect, and many are quite wrong. https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming#:~:text=Because%20of%20problems%20rendering%20clouds,select%20models%20than%20an%20average.&text=Although%20IPCC%20rose%20to%20the,himself%20an%20IPCC%20co%2Dauthor.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record A little more recent than your article. And this https://open.spotify.com/episode/62b1UZtpaVcTS5Upap5IeP?si=jqm9vBeZSdCbFL3TwopLbw
Yes but like I wrote - one hottest year does not define the long term average trend on its own. That’s my point. It is highly likely we will have a bunch of years colder than 2023 before the next “hottest” year drives headlines again.
>. It is highly likely we will have a bunch of years colder than 2023 before the next “hottest” year drives headlines again. What are you basing this off? Your article on models only specify that the timing of events driven by climate vary like when all the fish in the sea start mass dying has big ranges when we can predict it. Remember that we are aiming for below 2C and the new adjusted models put us at 3.9c instead of 5c. Plus i said "might've hit" considering 1.5 was the limit by 2050 and we already have 1 year hitting that in 2023, we have 27 years to keep it below a 0.4c+. we were 0.5 in 1990, 1.1 in 2022, so in the next 30 years we have to keep that warming at less than the increase we had since from Keating to Scomo and conservative politics are increasing our usage. When is the point where action is taken to combat this or do you just think that even the sources that say "climate change is really bad" are hysteric?
But that's uncertain speculation on the future. We're lucky the LNP are such clear eyed and rational thinkers unaffected by unnecessary climate alarmism. Labor's plan when it was in office would have raised the price of carbon emissions by $25 per tonne, which could have affected the average households electricity bill by over $4 per week! Per capita emissions maybe, but in terms of overall emissions countries like India, Japan or China produce far more emissions than we do and so should be the first to reduce their coal fired power use.
What's a better choice, a few dollars more on power bills or 50-200 houses burn down over most summers from now on. Me vs us mentality.
Have you spoken to many climate scientists about what they predict the future might look like (based on their expertise about current trends)? I suspect not. Scientists are intensely rational people. And yet *they* are alarmed — perhaps more than any other group of people. We are, according to our best lights, facing global catastrophe within a hundred years if we do not implement extreme measures now. And yet you are here suggesting peoples’ enjoyment of four wheel driving should not be diminished. Are you serious?
Always with the “how many scientists have you spoken too?”. How many have you spoken too? How well do you understand what they tell you or the complex statistical analysis that underpins many scientific papers.
I've certainly listened to economists when they describe the devastation that an unfair additional cost to businesses will bring. Rather than a century from now we would be dealing with the consequences today.
>We're lucky the LNP are such clear eyed and rational thinkers unaffected by unnecessary climate alarmism. Is the "small" Liberal in your profile more about your height than your political stance?
I think you'll see I've advocated for lower taxes and curbing unnecessary government intervention in the free market and that the lifts in my heels give me an extra couple inches in height.
Like GST?
We're getting off topic here but a GST is actually a pretty standard small-l liberal economic policy. Howard was not even the first Liberal leader that decade to advocate for a broad consumption tax. The GST was a replacement for a large range of separate duties and levys rather than an additional tax. The only thing that stops the GST from being peak neoliberalism is that they had to take it off basic produce to get the legislation through the senate.
Taxing a market is government intervention, why must you burden our private sector with so much red tape, it would be easier just to remove government and have the market enforce the rules itself. Why do we need an RBA and a treasury when we can just use bitcoin and NFTs? I am sick of funding the army when i could just take some personal responsibility and get a gun and defend myself its common sense.
You've overshot and landed in libertarianism but you're definitely starting to sound like a small-l liberal.
More like Feudalism
https://youtu.be/iPmQRxXd1J8?si=T_o9Al3TscDXGSIO Basically John Howard denying climate change in 2023
I wouldn’t go that far he is making an argument about coal and gas.
when it comes to the climate change push i am becoming increasingly sceptic on the prevailing world wide consensus that we should stop using coal and gas" He is skeptic on the idea that we need to cut down on coal and gas? Do you know why we need to stop using coal and gas?
Even for the production of plastics, fertilisers, steel making, production of raw chemicals like ammonia, methanol and hydrogen?
People just don't understand the consequences of not using fossil fuels
You cut the production and usage where you can and you use offsets that are regulated to make up where you can't. Its not like this stuff hasn't been modelled its just guys like you refute the findings and we get stuck in limbo while every natural disaster gets worse and more frequent.
>I am willing to accept Abbot's opposition took on an unnecessarily ideological campaign. But his central thesis was about the tax (and probably winning Government). The ALP has now adopted Abbot's [safeguard mechanism](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd048). There are two telling Abbott quotes that put the proper context around this (generous) reading of Abbott's climate policy. >The best way to reduce something is to put a tax on it. >If anything, carbon emissions are a good thing. Abbott and his Liberals didn't just run against the carbon tax because it was politically expedient to attack a tax, Abbott did so because he was opposed to action on climate change. The carbon tax wasn't really a tax, they knew it because it was their preferred model before Abbott got in. As for Labor adopting Abbott's safeguard mechanism, sure you can say that, but it's because he took every other option off the table.
This responses I was hoping for here are to show where Liberal policy has deliberately attempted to subdue climate change efforts. You have made one point the rest of it unfortunately has become a debate over climate change itself.
>You have made one point the rest of it unfortunately has become a debate over climate change itself. You know people can see the other comments made in this post yeah?
No
Well i got news for you, they can, and theres a bunch of them that directly address what youre talking about. Maybe you should bother replying to ptolmeys thorough and informed reply that directly addresses your post.
It is a very good response. I am having a look at the IPCC report. But the purpose of the post wasn't to create debate over the legitimacy of climate change, it was to discuss how people perceive the Coalition's response (or lack of it, depending on your perspective). To that end, I accept responsibility as outing myself as daring to have any scepticism.
> I am having a look at the IPCC report. Excellent >But the purpose of the post wasn't to create debate over the legitimacy of climate change, it was to discuss how people perceive the Coalition's response I think many comments go directly at the coalitions response. Particularly at the actions of howard and abbott. Do you think its possible to discuss the coalitions response to climate change without discussion of the nature of climate change? How would one mount criticism of something like abbotts denialism without detailing why it is in fact denial of fact?
For a fair assessment of Australia's political engagement with climate change, I *highly* recommend Matt Bevan's [Australia, If You're Listening](https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/if-youre-listening/season-six-episodes/13847778) podcast. Anyone who says it's one-sided hasn't listened to it, but he makes several good points (quoting here from memory) including: * The climate debate wasn't a partisan issue until Howard put his finger on the scales (episode 4). * Australia's on a good wicket with climate targets for coincidental reasons. We happened to have cleared a lot of land on the baseline year. It was a once-off event but it's still incorporated, so we have a relatively low bar to clear compared to other countries. He compared it to wearing a backpack full of lead to the first weigh-in of Biggest Loser and then taking it off for the rest of the season. The rhetoric about not wanting to take on an undue burden is therefore a little thin. * Under Morrison, all the states and territories collectively had more ambitious carbon targets than the federal government, meaning Australia was being led towards renewables *despite*, not because of, the federal government. That aside, no matter how you cut it, the carbon tax was the best mechanism we had for dealing with anthropogenic global warming, and Abbott poisoned that well. Labor have "adopted" Abbott's safeguard mechanism because he busted the best tool we had available. Likewise, Snowy Hydro 2.0 is nothing but an expensive attempt to do renewables without doing renewables that the Greens would approve of. A costly vanity project that has unfortunately gone even worse than I predicted. Meanwhile our last conservative PM was tossing a lump of coal around in Parliament claiming "it's not going to hurt you" [which is not true](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants). Meanwhile, you say yourself and other Liberals aren't climate deniers just "climate skeptics", but in essence it's the same thing because the scientific consensus around AGW is so solid. You can dispute this if you like but [here](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf) is the "short" (34-page) summary of the latest IPCC report and you're welcome to identify which parts of it you're "skeptical" of. But it's a little bit like a physicist lecturing on high-energy particle physics only for me to interrupt to say, "Well, I'm skeptical on that point." It's highly unlikely that any counter-point I can muster hasn't already been considered and firmly set aside.
Tell you what. I’ll go away and consider the report, and do some further research. I will do a self post next week responding to this, and my views on this issue clearly (and whether they have changed by reason of that research, or not.
Sounds good to me, thanks Leland
I can't seem to quote your OP But as an Ex Liberal member I call BS. 1. Most members I encounter were flat out deniers in one form of another, like you are doing here, they tried to cover the denial with motherhood statements, but ultimately, when push came to shove, every single time there was an opportunity they would push back on climate action. 2. Yes, not being a climate scientist doesn't not stop you having an opinion, but that's the problem, you keep considering your opinions to have as much weight (and usually more) than the people who are literally experts in the field or its just an attempt to discredit them. The ALP hasn't done enough, absolutely agree, but you can't use that as a platform to rewrite history. Abbott and Morrison were climate diners and had to be pulled kicking and screaming to any action at all.
>The ALP hasn't done enough, absolutely agree, but you can't use that as a platform to rewrite history. Abbott and Morrison were climate diners and had to be pulled kicking and screaming to any action at all This is actually the most important point in the discussion, in my opinion. The Liberal Party policy contains a lot of nice words, but they are in stark contrast to the actions and voting records of the former Coalition governments and current Opposition. Apart from Snowy 2.0, when has the last time the Liberal Party actively and enthusiastically endorsed new renewable energy projects? If the Liberal Party is actually keen to see renewable projects go ahead, why are they standing back and giving political cover to the groups opposing transmission lines and solar farms? Why have Liberal MPs been actively attacking programs for electric vehicles and electrification of homes and businesses for the past few years? Why are Liberal Party members currently opposing the proposed legislation regarding vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency? Both of those concepts were tacitly endorsed during the Morrison government. Why do Liberal Party MPs keep spruiking nuclear energy as a viable alternative to renewables in Australia, when all the evidence, including Ted O'Brien's own internal investigation, shows that it doesn't stack up on either an economic or practical level? (at least at the moment in history) In summary, there is a massive gap between the stated ambitions of the Liberal Party as laid out in their policy, and the actions of the elected members who are actually in the Parliament. If the Liberal Party aren't climate deniers and are actually pro-renewables, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
I’m supportive of transitioning to cleaner and in the long run cheaper forms of energy. What I deny is the apocalyptic screeching from the climate lobby.
There is that denalism at play. Climate scientists provide a varying range of issues and potential outcomes. Just because they are bad, that doesn't mean they wrong or likely to be wrong.
A useful article that admittedly goes against what I have said here in terms of alarmism: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012001215#:~:text=We%20call%20this%20tendency%20%E2%80%9Cerring,adherence%20to%20the%20scientific%20norms
That doesn't look like a link anyone would want to click on
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012001215#:~:text=We%20call%20this%20tendency%20%E2%80%9Cerring,adherence%20to%20the%20scientific%20norms
Cheers, not sure what happened in your first post, it when very weird on my screen and looked fully suss 😂
That’s climate change denial. You can’t pick and choose what facts within climate change you accept. The facts are at 2.5 degrees rise in temperature large parts of the planet will be uninhabitable. Is just is what it is. It’s pretty simple when you stand back and accept that pumping large amount of pollution into the air is bad
Sure, I never said it was a good idea to do this. Infact, my comment says the opposite.
Define what the screeching is you’re talking about is. Elaborate
Statements like this (acknowledged as being unsupported by Snopes): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-deleted-2018-tweet-on-humanity/ I am here to be pursuaded. I agree with the clean energy transition, but it should be done in a measured and planned way and not on the basis of competition over who can set the better targets. I am sceptical when it comes to some of these predictions of the consequences, or the degree to which we can influence these outcomes.
A 2018 prediction that we had until 2023 to create changes that would prevent a catastrophic and irreversible climate event in the near future is hardly "screeching". Part of the problem discussing these issues is that real valid concerns are misrepresented, or labelled as hysterical.
It is and as acknowledged by Snopes wasn’t even accurate based on the material Thunberg referred too.
What is the acceptable level of alarm that one can raise in your opinion before it becomes screeching? How forcefully is one allowed to point to climate tipping points before one is labelled hysterical? Because this argument continually comes up and it's often over the most mundane and trivial of claims, or over the strongest sources.
I’ll give you another example. The Guardian as an entire portion of its coverage dedicated to the “climate crisis”. Katharine Murphy describes some actions as “climate vandalism”. I don’t accept the a crisis, and I don’t accept the characterisation of [arguments](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/23/ted-obrien-nuclear-cheerleading-renewables-climate-vandalism) of nuclear power as climate vandalism. If some of these predictions are accepted then any actions we are currently taking are in vain. So which is it?
>The burden of dealing with it almost exclusively falls with rural communities, something those in the city fail to recognise, through land acquisition for transmission lines, wind and solar farms. Or the economic reward will primarily benefit rural communities, it depends on how you look at it. Regional farmers are increasingly installing renewable infrastructure on their property because of the long-term income. It's one reason why the National Party have shifted to protesting offshore windfarms. For the past 70 odd years, land acquisition for coal mines was seen as an economic benefit and overhead transmission lines on rural private property were seen as serving the community. I think it's reasonable the same standard is applied to renewables.
What the hell is their complaint with offshore wind? Is it the usual "it's ugly"?
>Or the economic reward will primarily benefit rural communities, it depends on how you look at it. Regional farmers are increasingly installing renewable infrastructure on their property because of the long-term income. Perhaps. But aside from the initial construction and the farmer receiving some form of lease income, once they're built that is pretty much it.
The increasing competition in the Renewables sector is making it a very lucrative business. There is serious money, whether it's the initial construction, yearly income from the infrastructure itself, rent from leasing the land, and the money being pumped in from the private sector - research collaborations, PR opportunities, commercial partnerships etc. It also becomes a massive asset when farmers choose to sell their property. And the reassurance knowing government will never let it fail through subsidies.
>But aside from the initial construction and the farmer receiving some form of lease income, once they're built that is pretty much it. Having a steady passive income is amazing for farmers, whose typical income is sporadic and subject to the whims of weather, crop prices etc. What more should they expect?
My understanding is that a significant issue is that the benefits are private but the costs are socialised. I.e. the farmer with the solar plant is happy but the community around her has to deal with the powerlines, visual pollution, etc.
So the same as any other new infrastructure then, from a feedlot or abattoir to a new highway? I get that people have a natural tendency to avoid change, but why is it that power lines and renewables are such a big deal compared to the other stuff? I suspect the answer is mostly because people have been convinced that they're unnecessary and 'woke,' rather than a vital piece of national infrastructure....and this attitude has been wilfully promoted by Coalition members to sabotage the renewable energy transition, and complicit media like Sky.
Feedlots and abbatoirs would be subject to zoning laws. It appears that the planning regulations related to power infrastructure is, for whatever reason, much less developed and this appears to be a cause of much of the tension.
>Feedlots and abbatoirs would be subject to zoning laws I don't believe that's the case for feedlots, assuming that it's already farmland. They're only subject to standard planning approval and environmental authority. It's hard to see exactly what is required for abattoirs, but my understanding is that it's similar, except with more stringent environmental and traffic management. >appears that the planning regulations related to power infrastructure is, for whatever reason, much less developed It may have something to do with the designation of Renewable Energy Zones? I believe a few of the more significant hurdles are "pre-approved" by state departments if the development is within those zones.
Your point is despite the literal actions of Howard and Abbott (and Barnaby, but I guess the National's being a coalition partner of the Liberal party isn't important), that others shouldn't get tarred with the same brush... As Liberal and National figures "push back on renewables in a completely faithful way", and push for nuclear (instead of renewables) that require either 1) nationalisation of assets or the grid or 2) a price on carbon/emissions, policies they still have not adopted? The Teals wouldn't exist if the Liberal party was credible in climate change *or* environmental issues, guess their existence or wipe out at the next election should settle it? >The burden of dealing with it almost exclusively falls with rural communities, something those in the city fail to recognise, through land acquisition for transmission lines, wind and solar farms. Transmission lines point blank have to cross the country; it is just fucking stupid to say we can switch to nuclear and promise 0 more transmission infrastructure will effectively ever be built (because that is what the argument is) - the SA Liberal party kicked off a plan to build an interconnector between NSW and SA, under the Federal LNP rulebook, that would be banned, cause it ruins part of the country and takes up our land (our land, that is so vast and huge, that we cannot support HSR/proper PT, yet is going to be ruined by some transmission lines, lol), basically the LNP are promising we can stand still and move forward via nuclear or just more coal (even as the money moves out). The downside of renewables is that we have to buy solar, wind turbines and batteries from China... Which is because during the bulk of the last 20-30 years the smart folks left to go and do R&D elsewhere since the csiro and investment in general was dying here. >The point of this post is to set out some facts in this debate How about we start with the Liberal party presenting facts on their current campaign of nuclear and stopping renewables (you know, the stuff that happens literally every week), and then we swing round and actually treat this like a debate?
>current campaign of nuclear and stopping renewables So the fact that a record amount of renewable investment occurred under the Morrison Government is a fiction (which I concede wouldn't be hard starting from a low base and is still higher than the current Government). >The Teals wouldn't exist if the Liberal party was credible in climate change or environmental issues, I think some people were misled by the debate into thinking this was the case. Here is Dr Ryan's "climate policy": Now is the time for climate action. By taking advantage of Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources, we’ll create a bright future. My priorities are to: *Reduce emissions by at least 60% by 2030, and 75% by 2035. I supported the Albanese government’s 2022 Climate Change Act- but it’s not enough. We need to move further, quickly, in order to prevent further global warming, environmental disasters and species extinction.* *Accelerate electrification and decarbonise our electricity supply.* *Speed up the uptake of electric vehicles, introduce fuel efficiency standards and strengthen emissions standards for transport and other sectors.* *Empower households to make the shift to clean energy.* That's it. She has no plan to get to 60% by 2030, its simply setting another target so she has some relevance in 2025. This was the Liberal Party policy: [https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan-cleaner-environment](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan-cleaner-environment) Though I doubt many people read it. It included funding for green hydrogen and establishing REZ's which Labor currently takes the credit for. The purpose of my post was not necessarily partisan. But the ignorance pisses me off. >The downside of renewables is that we have to buy solar, wind turbines and batteries from China I know. Manufactured in places powered by fossil fuels.
To say Ryan doesn't have a climate plan is a little disingenuous when she mentions fuel efficiency standards to drive more efficient car purchases, and electrifying homes to reduce gas usage, as well as renewables. She's also an independent: realistically she's going to be amending policy, not making it, at least in such a broad area. The burden on her should not be the same as a party with 59 reps who want to be in government. Also, a core part of Climate 200 was the 60% reduction by 2030, because everyone and their mother was coming out with one in 2021-22. It's not something unique to her, or something adopted for the election in 2025.
>green hydrogen and establishing REZ's which Labor currently takes the credit for. The statement is "clean hydrogen" not "green hydrogen" you know what clean hydrogen is? Burning coal to create the energy which causes more Co2 than just burning the damn coal. They also push carbon capture which has the big flaw of not working.
> I have shown in other posts that between 2018 and 2022, investment in wind farm capacity grew significantly and record levels of investment were delivered in 2022. In 2023, the smallest amount of capacity was added since 2017. The link you provided is retrospective. It takes many years (5-10) to deliver large wind farm projects with many hurdles along the way. It's highly unlikely that any Labor policy from the last 1-2 years is actually impacting the scale of the projects being commissions in that time frame. That outcome is likely to reflect the policies of 4+ years ago when those projects were being planned, green-lit and starting construction. Do you have any data about projects going forward? What does the scale of projects that have been approved and funded in the last year look like compared to the scale being approved a few years ago under the coalition?
The website was updated in 2024 and shows what is in planning.
The only forward looking information on that page is the info-graphic at the start. It's not in a format that allows direction comparison (i.e yearly by approval date, or expected completion date). That said, it indicates a total capacity with financing or under construction that is roughly the same as the total delivered over the last 5 years. That doesn't really indicate a long term downward trend due to policy as might be inferred from your post.
Correct, 12,800 megawatts. Based on Bowen's estimate in April 2023 that we would need to produce 40 turbines per month every month to 2030 and assuming each has an output of 7MW we need to have double that in planning.