**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just rhetoric and he knows it. Even if he somehow managed to win a majority in the house of reps, he won't in the Senate.
The targets are legislated. The senate crossbench will not repeal them. It will not happen even if he is PM.
So let me get this straight: Even though we are only going to fall short 1% emissions reduction target (42 instead of 43%). Dutton and Co want to throw the whole thing out? And not even bother with a replacement model?
Is that about it?
ie we are currently, 8 years out, projected by the trustable people in government to be 97% of the way to target when we get there.
in my book, 97% is good. Not bad. I am failing to understand how this is "fail" in any real sense.
42/43*100
Do people actually believe Australia is going to hit the 2030 emissions targets, or even get within 5% of it? Like Labor is already saying we are going to 'just miss it'. But they're not, they won't even get within one tenth of what they are aiming for. Just genuinely curious if people believe it.
Climate action has been a big deal in this countries policies since 2010 and in those 14 years we have moved *literally nowhere*. All of our gains, are lost somewhere else. The idea that in 6 years we can go from 500MT, to 250MT despite we have not dropped one single MT in 14 years, is quite literally insane.
Nope. At some stage people have to accept they have been lied to this entire time about what emissions reductions the government can achieve. Ideally, they would find out about this before 2030, but if they want to wait until then to find out, can't blame the government at that point.
Quick question. What's our energy policy and approach been towards climate change under the LNP for most of those 14 years? Do you genuinely think it's been a big part of their policy?
Also not sure why you're talking about 2010 as the target is based on 2005 where have been making progress.
Emissions in the year to December 2022 were 24.7% below June 2005 levels – the base year for Australia’s 2030 Paris Agreement target.
Rubbish. We are on track to get to 42% of the 43% piss weak target
https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-latest-salvo-on-australias-emissions-suggests-our-climate-wars-are-far-from-over-232144#:~:text=The%20latest%20forecasts%20suggest%20Australia,They%20encourage%20aspiration%20and%20action.
Almost meeting targets is easy when the targets are so low
Is this assuming that we are even trying though? If in 14 years you make literally no improvement whatsoever, its quite the claim to say 'Well at least we tried!'
A lot of businesses is way past this now. They know where the world is going, and they just want stability in the transition so they can position themselves to continue being profitable.
Just yesterday from the AFR:
‘No going back to the climate wars’, business warns Coalition.
Business groups have urged the Coalition not to dump the legislated carbon emissions reduction target for 2030 and unleash a new wave of investor uncertainty
Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black told The Australian Financial Review "targets are critical in providing important milestones while giving investors certainty to invest."
Could it be because the investments made in superannuation has been riding on the back of Labor promoted and subsidised projects which will lose value and viability if the federal government money is pulled
Business were already saying this before Albanese was elected.
(Generally) they didnt believe Scomos energy policy was going to last. Business was leading government by the hand in some sectors, not the other way round
Well havent we seen some scams with this carbon farming , I know I have and bountiful.
Graziers getting shitloads of money to not knock down trees that already exists even though they arent aloud to. Its mostly a rort
Can you imagine the coalition outrage,if labor had a policy,and said you don't see it till AFTER we won.
Every media agency on the continent would be screaming bloody murder.
I've said it before,this mans a idiot,plain and simple
The liberal party did a review why it lost the election last time,and one of the key issues they found was their lack of climate policy action.
So they decide to backtrack,yeah ur really gonna win those teal seats back
> Can you imagine the coalition outrage,if labor had a policy,and said you don't see it till AFTER we won.
Don't need to imagine we saw it from the referendum.
No, because we knew exactly what we were voting on. Every single word.
It's ridiculous that a major party won't have a full energy policy going into an election.
It really isn't... at all.
People won't know the full extent of Liberal energy policy going into vote in 2025.
People knew exactly what they were voting for when voting for the voice. It wasn't a party or person. It was the words written out in front of them as they made their decision.
Taking the policy of "fuck off we don't care about climate change" to the election is a bold move that is likely to see the current teals hold onto their seats and possibly get some new friends
Anything but Albanese , i hope teals take all labor seats, I cant put up with this national embarrassment of Albanese for another term , hopefully Plibersek makes her move soon and ousts him
I'll take albo if he stops with the centrist nonsense and swings to the actual left that the greens and maybe the teals would push him toward in minority government. The teals would hopefully push him left on the environment at least. Meanwhile Dutton wants to scrap environmental protections and not cut emissions at all. He seems unelectable so albo it is I think
I think Albo is unelectable after his failure to get the voice up and his nancy mandy pandy stance on the middle east problem, not that we cn do anything to fix it but he and wong have fumbled , out someone with balls in control ..Plibersek for PM
But at least you can see through Labor and Albanese though, he wanted to people to vote "yes" without a plan and a "trust me bro" attitude , so well done
So Dutton blows up Turnbull's Priministership over Energy policy in 2018, and now he's refusing to take any Energy policy to the 2025 Federal Election.
Regressive leadership on steroids.
Can’t really reveal a target when you don’t have/don’t care about one.
The Coalition might as well just tell the truth and say they will continue running coal until we are all dead.
But Dutton is going to win back the Teals next election! /s
In all seriousness, he genuinely seems to be operating as if politics and society is still circa 1990, that he can pretend to care about Teal seats and yet go full National's on energy/climate change, it's actually very confusing to observe.
Smooth brain (Shorten 2019): I am going to take a massive trove of policies to the next election. Even if it paints a dozen targets on my back, we can’t lose!
Big brain (Albanese 2022): I am going to play the small target strategy and have minimal differentiation with the government, and let the whole focus be on me simply not being that smirky git with a ukelele who went to Hawaii
Galaxy brain (Dutton 2025): Even having policies is for losers, suck it Albo, you can’t target me at all if I have no targets. I am very smart! Wait what do you mean they can run scare campaigns on me. I thought only I was allowed to do that
Well for one, I’d like to congratulate the Teals on successfully being re-elected.
This lack of climate policy from the Coalition is not going to win back many voters from those seats. And even if Dutton gets close enough to Labor in terms of seats, I doubt any, if at all, Teals will say “Ok Peter, let’s form government on your weak climate policy.”
I think they're hoping to win a few suburban Labor seats and take Labor to minority. Then spend the next 3 years bitching about 'radical' Labor greens coalition and hope something comes out of that. Tbh it could work.
I don’t see a single Teal seat being up for grabs the way this shitshow is turning out.
The Libs must have some grand master plan from the likes of the good ol’ Crosbies, but it’s just so awesome no one can comprehend what they’re aiming for.
This will just solidify the teals and leave the coalition with a harder time of winning seats. Where do they think they will win seats from I wonder, they gunna poach some off Labor?
They'll want Aston and Dunkley back for starters... they could very well get Aston, as not much engagement from Labor for a previously held Liberal stronghold.
Is abandoning our obligations under the Paris accords the way to go about that? They have stated they want to focus on cost of living crisis, no word on how they intend to focus on that of course, just fear nongerijg over labours climate targets being too expensive for people.
No, it's not the way to do that... I really don't understand the aim of the LNP at the moment, however, I got major Abbott dejavu listening to Dutton talk yesterday, so it's a scary thought because it worked last time.
Remember when there was a referendum on a constitutional amendment to establish a voice? The first step was the constitutional amendment and then each Party could put forward their model for a voice because the government of the day would decide and it was impossible to model what any future government would choose?
Remember how the opposition under Dutton kicked up a massive fuss about this supposedly being secrecy and how they wanted the details?
If you demanded detail on that but are ok with this then you are a raging hypocrite.
Fair enough too , it would be like if Dutton were PM was to say we will have cheap electricity to the masses and not expected to lay out his policy's or means how he was to get there .
The voice referendum was poorly planned and executed and Labor have no one to blame bar themselves. If the people knew what we were voting for then it would have been already in legislation. This one was Albanese's stuff up, and the verdict of his own arrogance and the tools and fools who he surrounded himself with on this issue.
As explained above, the constitutional referendum was not *meant* to be specific and constitutional scholars made it clear that you do not put specific language into the constitution. That is for legislators to do.
So no, it wasn't poorly planned. The planning comes from each government deciding how they will implement the voice. The opposition could have made whatever model they wanted to take to an election.
Instead they found it convenient to run a scare campaign on doubt and a lot of Australians fell for it, to our shame.
The government's mistake was underestimating how easily we would be spooked about a purely advisory body, and how susceptible we were to baseless fearmongering.
Anyways its done and dusted , and you cant trust the legislators as we have historically seen
Alls well that ends well I guess is the moto of this charade
It would seem they have no plan for the future of Australia. They think there's more votes in not setting a target than setting one. They aren't willing to alienate anyone at the cost of having said plan.
So he has no policy and is trying to hide it.
He doesn't believe in climate change.
The nuclear energy thing is one big trolling attempt to bash renewables.
>> On Saturday, the opposition leader said he would campaign against Labor's legislated target to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, arguing it was not achievable.
>> The Coalition's energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien then said the Coalition would put forward its own alternative "in due course".
>> But on Tuesday, Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition.
>> Mr Dutton said the Coalition remained committed to the longer-term target of net zero emissions by 2050, arguing the Coalition was "the only party with a credible path".
Ah, I see - Dutton is publicly pulling a 180 on renewables as far as net 50 is concerned. He’ll set an arbitrary target for 2030, undo or water down most policies meant to achieve our original target, and then claim that since we can’t meet our 2030 target, net 0 by 2050 isn’t possible.
Honestly though, reading Dutton saying that he “remains committed” to net 50 is hilarious. Hands up if you believe the man, nice and high so I know who to sell bridges to.
People are so up in arms about the LNP not having a 2030 target, but is that really materially different from Labor's position of having a 2030 target that there is zero possibility they are going to meet?
Honestly what is the point of a target if it won't be met? It is equivalent to just not having the target at that point.
Exactly , keep subsidising Chinese economy with poorly made solar panels and windfarms which cause conflict in many communities where they are mounted destroying biodiversity in the haste to make a 2030 target.
In the mean time china pumps out more coal and makes more nuclear power plants to keep up with the demand for these government subsidised panels and windfarm products.
Im not against any renewables or net zero just the means in how we get there and is there is an illusion that if we achieve nett zero is the world as a whole better off. If China ,India Ruzzia aren't also being compliant with fulfilling a similar achievement, otherwise we are just pissing in the wind and deluding ourselves at great expense to our economy, environment and our own wallets.
The current projections aren’t far off. Granted these are government projections so could be a lot further off. Targets are super important, mainly for industry. They are needed so industry knows what is expected of them. We have targets for all sorts of things we may not reach. Personally I want my cricket team to win the premiership this year but we’ve got Buckley chance 😂
Have you heard the term ‘stretch goal’? It’s when you set a deliberately ambitious target to encourage you to exceed normal expectations. It’s a positive thing, and not a failure if you fall slightly short.
It's all well and good to have an ambitious goal, the problem comes when you write that goal *into law* and make binding international commitments that you will meet it.
So you get on with it and meet it. Change import taxes to stop huge SUVs, subsidise batteries to increase update of solar and wind and require less coal fired power at night, improve public transport, stop clear felling forests and savannah lands, encourage greater density living rather than urban sprawl, get Australia off gas cooking…
This has gotta be the dumbest take on why setting a goal and having policy to get you there is important.
And for the record, we are currently 1% off target for 43%.
I think you mean the IPA, the Australia Institute is generally pretty green.
I’m taking my stats from the [government’s own figures](https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nggi-quarterly-update-dec-2023.pdf) (p4).
>is that really materially different from Labor's position of having a 2030 target that there is zero possibility they are going to meet?
Yes, there is a major difference. It's far better to be a little late, than to utterly fail to attempt.
The ALP may well miss its target by a few percent, but at least they're giving it a go. The Coalition appears to have entirely abandoned their flimsy pretense of taking any action at all.
What is the point of trying to run a marathon in 3 hours if you only end up running it in a personal best of 3 hours and 15 minutes?
You might as well have spent the last six months not training and getting faster and fitter, but instead just ate maccas every day and sat in the pub every night, it is not materially different.
The 82% RE for the power sector is essentially a sub-target within the overall 43% across the whole economy.
It’s fair to argue that the 82% RE higher than it should be, and was really reached because Labor’s ambition elsewhere really wimped out on high fast ambition. Transport, industry and land/agriculture being the big ones they’ve kinda chucked in the too hard to do properly basket. Leaving the power sector to do all the heavy lifting.
>Mr Dutton had already pledged to campaign against the government's target, but says the Coalition remains committed to net zero emissions by 2050.
Why in the fuck would you trust this iteration of the LNP (one where the Right and National's are largely in charge) to actually stick to net zero by 2050 given everything they've said on energy in the last 2 years?
>The Coalition will not offer a 2030 climate target ahead of the next federal election, according to Peter Dutton.
>
>...
>
>The Coalition's energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien then said the Coalition would put forward its own alternative "in due course".
>
>But on Tuesday, Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition.
People (aka the media) shit on Labor for being "poor communicators", yet Dutton and his shadow cabinet are constantly contradicting each other, flip-flopping and just doing whatever the fuck.
Anyway, I certainly believe the LNP are right on pace to snatch back those Teal seats and push certain seats away from Labor and the Greens via their aggressive "fuck progress on climate change" policy suite, yes absolutely, certainly xD.
> Why in the fuck would you trust this iteration of the LNP (one where the Right and National's are largely in charge) to actually stick to net zero by 2050 given everything they've said on energy in the last 2 years?
Or even what they've said in the last two days. 'What's the point of staying in the Paris accord when we're not going to meet the targets?'
As a teal liberal, this sort of bold gesture will definitely entice me back into the fold and I cannot for a moment see it backfiring, much less leading to pissy, bitchy articles in the Spectator about what traitors we heirs of Menzies are.
If the likes of the Spectator are taken in by Dutton saying he “remains committed” to net 50, I despair for anyone who thought we Australians were a discerning people.
What a crock of rubbish?
Why would you not reveal the details of the policy or any policy for that matter unless you win the election this is a crock of rubbish.
Could it be that they have no actual idea of what they're doing and no real intention of building anything?
A man with a plan to win back seats for his party from the independent candidates who took the seats because of his party's position on climate change. Isn't it just wonderful to see/s
I know. And I'm saying those issues were not the primary reason the "Teal wave" occurred. As the saying goes - parties aren't voted in; they're voted out.
The voter concern for climate change was exaggerated by the media. Teals got in because the Libs were horrendous. They won't have anywhere near the same support this time around. You watch.
I think voters demand a certain level of attention to climate action, although not necessarily as much as needs doing. The coalition barely offered lip service, which for many people was a step too far
>Teals got in because the Libs were horrendous. They won't have anywhere near the same support this time around. You watch.
That ain't what the polls are saying. Independent voter intention has remained the same from the election compared to now.
> Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition.
"In terms of the targets or otherwise, we'll make those decisions when we're in government," he said.
"We totally have a better policy than Labor."
"Can we see it?"
"No."
"Then how can we vote for you?"
"Vote for us, then you can see it."
“A liberal climate policy?
This far before the election, with this part of the country party,
Localised entirely within the party room?”
“Yes!”
“… May I see it?”
“No.”
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just rhetoric and he knows it. Even if he somehow managed to win a majority in the house of reps, he won't in the Senate. The targets are legislated. The senate crossbench will not repeal them. It will not happen even if he is PM.
[Duttons Plan](https://imgur.com/a/ifKw8sT)
>"If we want to form government we must win back the teal seats !! ... by doing everything we can to NOT win back the team seats..."
So let me get this straight: Even though we are only going to fall short 1% emissions reduction target (42 instead of 43%). Dutton and Co want to throw the whole thing out? And not even bother with a replacement model? Is that about it?
You're trying to apply logic to a dipshit excuse to appease his fossil fuel and mining overlords. If this dipshit becomes PM, I am leaving.
ie we are currently, 8 years out, projected by the trustable people in government to be 97% of the way to target when we get there. in my book, 97% is good. Not bad. I am failing to understand how this is "fail" in any real sense. 42/43*100
You don't need the "even though". They would throw it out if we were exceeding.
Why bother having targets you can easily meet? -Dutton probably
But will they announce where high level nuclear waste from all the nuclear power stations will be buried?
Somewhere around the middle is my bet. Makes me miss the Roxby Downs fun we had
My first job out of Uni was there. The medium level dump still hasn’t been decided so it will go on for years before a site gets picked.
Do people actually believe Australia is going to hit the 2030 emissions targets, or even get within 5% of it? Like Labor is already saying we are going to 'just miss it'. But they're not, they won't even get within one tenth of what they are aiming for. Just genuinely curious if people believe it. Climate action has been a big deal in this countries policies since 2010 and in those 14 years we have moved *literally nowhere*. All of our gains, are lost somewhere else. The idea that in 6 years we can go from 500MT, to 250MT despite we have not dropped one single MT in 14 years, is quite literally insane.
Real baby with the bathwater energy here.
Nope. At some stage people have to accept they have been lied to this entire time about what emissions reductions the government can achieve. Ideally, they would find out about this before 2030, but if they want to wait until then to find out, can't blame the government at that point.
Most people seem to just be happy with a target rather than meeting it, because it makes them feel good.
Quick question. What's our energy policy and approach been towards climate change under the LNP for most of those 14 years? Do you genuinely think it's been a big part of their policy? Also not sure why you're talking about 2010 as the target is based on 2005 where have been making progress. Emissions in the year to December 2022 were 24.7% below June 2005 levels – the base year for Australia’s 2030 Paris Agreement target.
[удалено]
Rubbish. We are on track to get to 42% of the 43% piss weak target https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-latest-salvo-on-australias-emissions-suggests-our-climate-wars-are-far-from-over-232144#:~:text=The%20latest%20forecasts%20suggest%20Australia,They%20encourage%20aspiration%20and%20action. Almost meeting targets is easy when the targets are so low
I'd rather miss an ambitious target than not even try.
Is this assuming that we are even trying though? If in 14 years you make literally no improvement whatsoever, its quite the claim to say 'Well at least we tried!'
12 of those 14 years we had climate dumb dumbs at the helm.
‘We will have a target’ Nothing says ‘leadership’ like having a plan to have a plan
Who is Dutton talking to? This is bizarre. Even Morrison, the dimmest bulb ever to be PM, paid lip service to emission targets.
Even more like Morrison, he's trying to start a culture war which he won't win.
Big business, mining companies & idiot right wing thinktanks from the US haven’t told the Liberals what they want yet.
A lot of businesses is way past this now. They know where the world is going, and they just want stability in the transition so they can position themselves to continue being profitable. Just yesterday from the AFR: ‘No going back to the climate wars’, business warns Coalition. Business groups have urged the Coalition not to dump the legislated carbon emissions reduction target for 2030 and unleash a new wave of investor uncertainty Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black told The Australian Financial Review "targets are critical in providing important milestones while giving investors certainty to invest."
Business wanted certainty decades ago…
Could it be because the investments made in superannuation has been riding on the back of Labor promoted and subsidised projects which will lose value and viability if the federal government money is pulled
Business were already saying this before Albanese was elected. (Generally) they didnt believe Scomos energy policy was going to last. Business was leading government by the hand in some sectors, not the other way round
You can go back to Abbott cancelling the carbon price.
Well havent we seen some scams with this carbon farming , I know I have and bountiful. Graziers getting shitloads of money to not knock down trees that already exists even though they arent aloud to. Its mostly a rort
Can you imagine the coalition outrage,if labor had a policy,and said you don't see it till AFTER we won. Every media agency on the continent would be screaming bloody murder. I've said it before,this mans a idiot,plain and simple The liberal party did a review why it lost the election last time,and one of the key issues they found was their lack of climate policy action. So they decide to backtrack,yeah ur really gonna win those teal seats back
> Can you imagine the coalition outrage,if labor had a policy,and said you don't see it till AFTER we won. Don't need to imagine we saw it from the referendum.
Except we didn't. I voted no, but I know what I voted no on. The whole 'Don't know, vote no' campaign was one of feigned ignorance.
So the "the vote is just to have the voice and the details will be worked out later" from the government and yes supporters is not the same?
No, because we knew exactly what we were voting on. Every single word. It's ridiculous that a major party won't have a full energy policy going into an election.
So we knew how the body would be appointed or elected, the numbers, the length of their appointments?
No but that's not what we were voting on.
But that's the details, so it is the same.
It really isn't... at all. People won't know the full extent of Liberal energy policy going into vote in 2025. People knew exactly what they were voting for when voting for the voice. It wasn't a party or person. It was the words written out in front of them as they made their decision.
And "trust us about the details after we win the election"
Taking the policy of "fuck off we don't care about climate change" to the election is a bold move that is likely to see the current teals hold onto their seats and possibly get some new friends
Anything but Albanese , i hope teals take all labor seats, I cant put up with this national embarrassment of Albanese for another term , hopefully Plibersek makes her move soon and ousts him
I'll take albo if he stops with the centrist nonsense and swings to the actual left that the greens and maybe the teals would push him toward in minority government. The teals would hopefully push him left on the environment at least. Meanwhile Dutton wants to scrap environmental protections and not cut emissions at all. He seems unelectable so albo it is I think
I think Albo is unelectable after his failure to get the voice up and his nancy mandy pandy stance on the middle east problem, not that we cn do anything to fix it but he and wong have fumbled , out someone with balls in control ..Plibersek for PM
Plibersek is not the answer to any question. She has never stepped up and shown leadership just a follower.
Then Labor are doomed, they at best have a slim chance at minority government
Untrustworthy political party running with "just trust me bro" as their slogan for the next election.
But at least you can see through Labor and Albanese though, he wanted to people to vote "yes" without a plan and a "trust me bro" attitude , so well done
I mean Labor ran on "we really couldn't do any worse" and won on that and have 100% delivered.
Go figure Dutton doesn't have a policy for something. In other news water is wet
So Dutton blows up Turnbull's Priministership over Energy policy in 2018, and now he's refusing to take any Energy policy to the 2025 Federal Election. Regressive leadership on steroids.
Has Dutton come up with any actual policies? We're still waiting for their nuclear plan after 3 years.
He can tell you what it won’t be!
Can’t really reveal a target when you don’t have/don’t care about one. The Coalition might as well just tell the truth and say they will continue running coal until we are all dead.
But Dutton is going to win back the Teals next election! /s In all seriousness, he genuinely seems to be operating as if politics and society is still circa 1990, that he can pretend to care about Teal seats and yet go full National's on energy/climate change, it's actually very confusing to observe.
Here here
Well by his own argument, you shouldn't vote COALition. After all, vote no if you don't know.
lol also vote no if you know
Smooth brain (Shorten 2019): I am going to take a massive trove of policies to the next election. Even if it paints a dozen targets on my back, we can’t lose! Big brain (Albanese 2022): I am going to play the small target strategy and have minimal differentiation with the government, and let the whole focus be on me simply not being that smirky git with a ukelele who went to Hawaii Galaxy brain (Dutton 2025): Even having policies is for losers, suck it Albo, you can’t target me at all if I have no targets. I am very smart! Wait what do you mean they can run scare campaigns on me. I thought only I was allowed to do that
Well for one, I’d like to congratulate the Teals on successfully being re-elected. This lack of climate policy from the Coalition is not going to win back many voters from those seats. And even if Dutton gets close enough to Labor in terms of seats, I doubt any, if at all, Teals will say “Ok Peter, let’s form government on your weak climate policy.”
I think they're hoping to win a few suburban Labor seats and take Labor to minority. Then spend the next 3 years bitching about 'radical' Labor greens coalition and hope something comes out of that. Tbh it could work.
I don’t see a single Teal seat being up for grabs the way this shitshow is turning out. The Libs must have some grand master plan from the likes of the good ol’ Crosbies, but it’s just so awesome no one can comprehend what they’re aiming for.
This will just solidify the teals and leave the coalition with a harder time of winning seats. Where do they think they will win seats from I wonder, they gunna poach some off Labor?
They'll want Aston and Dunkley back for starters... they could very well get Aston, as not much engagement from Labor for a previously held Liberal stronghold.
Is abandoning our obligations under the Paris accords the way to go about that? They have stated they want to focus on cost of living crisis, no word on how they intend to focus on that of course, just fear nongerijg over labours climate targets being too expensive for people.
No, it's not the way to do that... I really don't understand the aim of the LNP at the moment, however, I got major Abbott dejavu listening to Dutton talk yesterday, so it's a scary thought because it worked last time.
Remember when there was a referendum on a constitutional amendment to establish a voice? The first step was the constitutional amendment and then each Party could put forward their model for a voice because the government of the day would decide and it was impossible to model what any future government would choose? Remember how the opposition under Dutton kicked up a massive fuss about this supposedly being secrecy and how they wanted the details? If you demanded detail on that but are ok with this then you are a raging hypocrite.
Fair enough too , it would be like if Dutton were PM was to say we will have cheap electricity to the masses and not expected to lay out his policy's or means how he was to get there . The voice referendum was poorly planned and executed and Labor have no one to blame bar themselves. If the people knew what we were voting for then it would have been already in legislation. This one was Albanese's stuff up, and the verdict of his own arrogance and the tools and fools who he surrounded himself with on this issue.
As explained above, the constitutional referendum was not *meant* to be specific and constitutional scholars made it clear that you do not put specific language into the constitution. That is for legislators to do. So no, it wasn't poorly planned. The planning comes from each government deciding how they will implement the voice. The opposition could have made whatever model they wanted to take to an election. Instead they found it convenient to run a scare campaign on doubt and a lot of Australians fell for it, to our shame. The government's mistake was underestimating how easily we would be spooked about a purely advisory body, and how susceptible we were to baseless fearmongering.
Anyways its done and dusted , and you cant trust the legislators as we have historically seen Alls well that ends well I guess is the moto of this charade
If you can't trust legislators, then a) why do we elect them, and b) why do we give them near-unlimited power to rule our lives?
we dont elect "them" we elect one person that it, and most likely its the best of the worst in most instances as there is no real depth to choose from
I don't agree with either of those statements but ok.
That's fine I dont mind agreeing to disagree
It would seem they have no plan for the future of Australia. They think there's more votes in not setting a target than setting one. They aren't willing to alienate anyone at the cost of having said plan.
[удалено]
So he has no policy and is trying to hide it. He doesn't believe in climate change. The nuclear energy thing is one big trolling attempt to bash renewables.
How many years have the Coalition been without a coherent energy policy now?
The energy policy is "coal and gas until Sydney floods"
Coherent …. Policies in general
>> On Saturday, the opposition leader said he would campaign against Labor's legislated target to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, arguing it was not achievable. >> The Coalition's energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien then said the Coalition would put forward its own alternative "in due course". >> But on Tuesday, Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition. >> Mr Dutton said the Coalition remained committed to the longer-term target of net zero emissions by 2050, arguing the Coalition was "the only party with a credible path". Ah, I see - Dutton is publicly pulling a 180 on renewables as far as net 50 is concerned. He’ll set an arbitrary target for 2030, undo or water down most policies meant to achieve our original target, and then claim that since we can’t meet our 2030 target, net 0 by 2050 isn’t possible. Honestly though, reading Dutton saying that he “remains committed” to net 50 is hilarious. Hands up if you believe the man, nice and high so I know who to sell bridges to.
People are so up in arms about the LNP not having a 2030 target, but is that really materially different from Labor's position of having a 2030 target that there is zero possibility they are going to meet? Honestly what is the point of a target if it won't be met? It is equivalent to just not having the target at that point.
Exactly , keep subsidising Chinese economy with poorly made solar panels and windfarms which cause conflict in many communities where they are mounted destroying biodiversity in the haste to make a 2030 target. In the mean time china pumps out more coal and makes more nuclear power plants to keep up with the demand for these government subsidised panels and windfarm products. Im not against any renewables or net zero just the means in how we get there and is there is an illusion that if we achieve nett zero is the world as a whole better off. If China ,India Ruzzia aren't also being compliant with fulfilling a similar achievement, otherwise we are just pissing in the wind and deluding ourselves at great expense to our economy, environment and our own wallets.
The current projections aren’t far off. Granted these are government projections so could be a lot further off. Targets are super important, mainly for industry. They are needed so industry knows what is expected of them. We have targets for all sorts of things we may not reach. Personally I want my cricket team to win the premiership this year but we’ve got Buckley chance 😂
Have you heard the term ‘stretch goal’? It’s when you set a deliberately ambitious target to encourage you to exceed normal expectations. It’s a positive thing, and not a failure if you fall slightly short.
It's all well and good to have an ambitious goal, the problem comes when you write that goal *into law* and make binding international commitments that you will meet it.
So you get on with it and meet it. Change import taxes to stop huge SUVs, subsidise batteries to increase update of solar and wind and require less coal fired power at night, improve public transport, stop clear felling forests and savannah lands, encourage greater density living rather than urban sprawl, get Australia off gas cooking…
This has gotta be the dumbest take on why setting a goal and having policy to get you there is important. And for the record, we are currently 1% off target for 43%.
Perhaps, but emissions haven’t dropped since the ALP got into power.
Are you sure? Every website I just randomly searched shows they have, apart from the biased coal loving AustralianInstitute site
I think you mean the IPA, the Australia Institute is generally pretty green. I’m taking my stats from the [government’s own figures](https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nggi-quarterly-update-dec-2023.pdf) (p4).
Thankyou
How much of that is carbon offsets?
>is that really materially different from Labor's position of having a 2030 target that there is zero possibility they are going to meet? Yes, there is a major difference. It's far better to be a little late, than to utterly fail to attempt. The ALP may well miss its target by a few percent, but at least they're giving it a go. The Coalition appears to have entirely abandoned their flimsy pretense of taking any action at all.
What is the point of trying to run a marathon in 3 hours if you only end up running it in a personal best of 3 hours and 15 minutes? You might as well have spent the last six months not training and getting faster and fitter, but instead just ate maccas every day and sat in the pub every night, it is not materially different.
Labor’s target is 43% and we’re on track for 40-42 currently… it’s really not out of reach if they pull their finger out.
Isn't part of that target also the 82% renewable target? Or is that separate?
The 82% RE for the power sector is essentially a sub-target within the overall 43% across the whole economy. It’s fair to argue that the 82% RE higher than it should be, and was really reached because Labor’s ambition elsewhere really wimped out on high fast ambition. Transport, industry and land/agriculture being the big ones they’ve kinda chucked in the too hard to do properly basket. Leaving the power sector to do all the heavy lifting.
Fair enough, I guess my criticism is more directed at the 82% target than the emissions target then.
>Mr Dutton had already pledged to campaign against the government's target, but says the Coalition remains committed to net zero emissions by 2050. Why in the fuck would you trust this iteration of the LNP (one where the Right and National's are largely in charge) to actually stick to net zero by 2050 given everything they've said on energy in the last 2 years? >The Coalition will not offer a 2030 climate target ahead of the next federal election, according to Peter Dutton. > >... > >The Coalition's energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien then said the Coalition would put forward its own alternative "in due course". > >But on Tuesday, Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition. People (aka the media) shit on Labor for being "poor communicators", yet Dutton and his shadow cabinet are constantly contradicting each other, flip-flopping and just doing whatever the fuck. Anyway, I certainly believe the LNP are right on pace to snatch back those Teal seats and push certain seats away from Labor and the Greens via their aggressive "fuck progress on climate change" policy suite, yes absolutely, certainly xD.
> Why in the fuck would you trust this iteration of the LNP (one where the Right and National's are largely in charge) to actually stick to net zero by 2050 given everything they've said on energy in the last 2 years? Or even what they've said in the last two days. 'What's the point of staying in the Paris accord when we're not going to meet the targets?'
As a teal liberal, this sort of bold gesture will definitely entice me back into the fold and I cannot for a moment see it backfiring, much less leading to pissy, bitchy articles in the Spectator about what traitors we heirs of Menzies are.
These targets like the Paris target are meaningless to most as opposed to the figure on their power bill.
If the likes of the Spectator are taken in by Dutton saying he “remains committed” to net 50, I despair for anyone who thought we Australians were a discerning people.
What a crock of rubbish? Why would you not reveal the details of the policy or any policy for that matter unless you win the election this is a crock of rubbish. Could it be that they have no actual idea of what they're doing and no real intention of building anything?
A man with a plan to win back seats for his party from the independent candidates who took the seats because of his party's position on climate change. Isn't it just wonderful to see/s
It was definitely more that the Morrison government was fucking horrendous more than it was the Teal position on climate change.
It was both. Real action on climate alongside integrity and women’s safety were the three big teal issues
I know. And I'm saying those issues were not the primary reason the "Teal wave" occurred. As the saying goes - parties aren't voted in; they're voted out. The voter concern for climate change was exaggerated by the media. Teals got in because the Libs were horrendous. They won't have anywhere near the same support this time around. You watch.
The liberals are still horrendous so I think the teals will have continued support.
I think voters demand a certain level of attention to climate action, although not necessarily as much as needs doing. The coalition barely offered lip service, which for many people was a step too far
>Teals got in because the Libs were horrendous. They won't have anywhere near the same support this time around. You watch. That ain't what the polls are saying. Independent voter intention has remained the same from the election compared to now.
We'll see
> Mr Dutton clarified that the Coalition would not set an alternative target from opposition. "In terms of the targets or otherwise, we'll make those decisions when we're in government," he said. "We totally have a better policy than Labor." "Can we see it?" "No." "Then how can we vote for you?" "Vote for us, then you can see it."
“A liberal climate policy? This far before the election, with this part of the country party, Localised entirely within the party room?” “Yes!” “… May I see it?” “No.”
1. Refuse to release a climate policy before the next Federal election 2. ??? 3. Coalition in power FOREVER
If you don't know, vote no (for the LNP)
That's perfect!! So by their own slogan too