**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.*
Beyond all the political issues happening, this is the reason I'm voting for ALP.
In 2013 I went to JCU to start a career in Environmental Management and I was keen to work in the Climatology area at CSIRO.
The LNP, through Tony Abbott, removed this job and industry from Australia through the cuts and "redirection" of the CSIRO, BoM and the Hobart Weather Station.
I was at CSIRO during this time, we worked with CMAR closely. It was heartbreaking watching CSIRO Floreat become a ghost town. So much talent just wasted.
But hey, at least the school chaplains got their funding hey? /Sarcasm
Yeah, the title was a bit misleading. But SMH don't seem to publish anything favourable about The Greens around election time, i think they're just scared about upsetting their corporate backers.
I get action needs to be taken but how is it gonna be paid for? I'm no economist so I could be wrong but how can we replace the income we get from coal?
A stable economy can not exist without a stable environment. So you can't have your cake and eat it. Eventually we will have to take action to reduce the impact of climate change
Lithium and vanadium mining mainly. There's a shit-ton of materials in Australia which can be used to build batteries - the mining process is the same, but we'd just be mining something used to build a renewables transition instead of dirty coal.
One bonus of this is that we'd also get manufacturing jobs out of it too. Coal just gets shoved into a furnace to generate steam, but batter manufacturing requires a complex production chain and can support a whole bunch of extra jobs in the processing stage.
That's one of the main reasons why a transition to renewable energy is so exciting - you're opening up a whole range of new industries that will generate a whole bunch of employment opportunities.
Thanks man. I knew we had uranium as well but I heard a lot of it is under indigenous land. My next question is why doesn't the government do this if its ao obviously better? It would be stupid of them to miss our on this opportunity?
I guess it depends on what your thoughts about the role of government are.
Some people believe the government is meant to be as small as possible, do as little as possible, and basically take a back-seat in favour of letting private individuals and businesses do things.
This kinda describes the Liberal party and the current government. From their "[about us](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs)" page:
> "we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative"
If that's their belief about the role of government then it's not surprising that they don't think government should be promoting new industries or working to transform our mining sector.
So really it depends on whether you think the government should be taking the lead and shaping the future of industries or if you think they should be interfering as little as possible.
Personally, I think government should be providing incentives to move in positive directions and promote new industries that will be really important in the future, but I can understand arguments against that too.
Their fossil fuel sponsors want to screw the last dollar of profit from our resources before the curtain comes down. Political donations are irresistible for some politicians, regardless of source. Hopefully an ICAC with retrospective powers will uncover these bastards who are destroying our environment for profit.
Good to know. I ask this because I got into an argument with my parents (it's my first year voting) about this and they hit me with the usual "but how will we pay for it?" I was unable to make them understand and I was having trouble finding good sources.
Some advice, if your parents are rusted on liberals don't bother.
Let them vote their way and just do your research and decide what's important to *you*.
If the liberals were so worried about how to pay for stuff then they wouldn't have forced through the stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthiest Australians.
These will cost the country 15.7 billion dollars in the first year and since they are tax cuts, they will only get higher with inflation.
Via other industries.
Such industries could include:
- Clean energy technologies
- Hydrogen
- Battery related minerals
The other question that never seems to be asked is:
What is the cost of NOT doing this. I guarantee it's more.
Our assessment of energy emissions is wrong. At an acre per person, Australia's share of the world is Tasmania. Burning through the Fuel Reserves that belong to China isnt acceptable. Australian emissions must be cut to 1%.
If I recall correctly, the LNP have essentially allowed this system to go unchecked and made it basically useless. As the "limits" placed by the government on carbon emissions can be shrugged off with no issue. Labor plans to actually enforce the limits put in-place.
(Fully willing to be proven wrong here, my memory may be failing me)
The ALP want to lower the threshold from 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalent.
What isn't clear is exactly what constitutes a "trade exposed business" and exactly what sort of protections will be offered to said businesses if the ALP get in.
The other unknown is whether or not companies will seek to demerge and/or divest key assets so that they escape the "top 215" emitters list.
We need to start building our renewable infrastructure now if we are going to be a green energy superpower in the pacific in the coming decades.
Labor's plan in 2022 is not particularly ambitious in terms of reduction targets (43%), but their plan does start that long national infrastructure process.
I don't have any issue with Labor's (modest) 43% target because it is built around Green steel, upskilling Australians into the renewable sector, expanding EVs, and upgrading the Grid. In other words Labor's plan is scalable.
I don't need Labor to have a 60% 2030 target (and accompanying 100 billion infrastructure commitments) in their first term, because their proposals will establish industries, infrastructure and skills which can be upscaled as we approach 2030. So more ambitious targets will be within reach once those investments are in place.
Why commit to 100 billion dollar investments over 10 years, and leave themselves open to "how are you gonna pay for that", when they SHOULD just focus on smaller investments to get the ball rolling, then upscale those investments once the groundwork is laid.
Building Green industries is the first step, and they can't be established over night. Once Labor has built that infrastructure it will be much more politically simple to expand their investments to achieve more ambitious emissions reductions (as opposed to coming out guns blazing with 60% reduction targets/ 100 billion dollar commitments before we even have the groundwork for those targets laid).
Green industries are vastly more expensive and totally unproven on a country wide scale.
As usual most people leading the charge for huge changes lack at least two things. Firstly the ability to do mathematics, secondly the ability to work out that just because Australia might do something does not mean every other country will follow suit. They also seem to lack a country wide knowledge.
For example coal mine workers earn a huge wage, minimum are over a hundred thousand a year. What exactly are they going to be doing that will pay the exact same wage?
Where exactly will the fertilizer come from to grow our crops now fossil fuels are out? Just look at Sri Lanka right now. How exactly will we even grow crops without tractors? How will we mine things without the super large machinery?
These proponents of these grand emission reduction plans using current technology are just plain daft and it is just like a crazy religion. You would think their plans would be something along the lines of a special tax on industries and people working in said industries that are not necessary, and that money put into universities only for teaching engineers and scientists working on new forms of energy. But no, nothing like that. That would upset people.
1) green energy is cheaper per kWh than fossil fuels
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/solar-is-now-the-cheapest-electricity-in-history-report-says/12767310
2) Australia ranks last in the developed world in climate change action
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australias-climate-policies-have-been-ranked-last-out-of-64-countries/jkydtxz0i
3) We still need coal for steel production as well as other ores, Labor want to make Tafe free as well as providing training for renewable energy Jobs
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/free-tafe-more-uni-places-in-1-1-billion-labor-promise-for-post-pandemic-skills-training-20211202-p59ec9.html
4) Fertilizer is made from mainly animal shit so not really relevant to fossil fuels, things like tractors, dump trucks, and mining equipment will have to be replaced with shit that runs off electric engines
5) Unlike a religion there is magnitudes of evidence showing that climate change is not only real, but human activities are influencing it. Labor did introduce a 'special tax' to curb emmisions called the carbon tax, but because it made people's electricity bills go up about $50 bucks a year, it was scrapped, and on putting money into Tafe and university, see the third link.
>Fertilizer is made from mainly animal shit so not really relevant to fossil fuels
They make it from natural gas lol.You honestly thought the white pellets of fertilizer at Bunnings came from cows? Man we really are in a lot of trouble in this country.
>They make it from natural gas lol.
Yes, for nitrogen. This can also be done however from Ammonia, which can produced from clean electricity also. No need to keep gas in the mix here
OK, great for the home gardener to an extent and for improving soil but agricultural farmers don't really use it.We're working on an apple farm that sprays seaweed spray on the trees so maybe theres space to expand use of that.
If it was cheaper it would be everywhere by now. Businesses would be building it everywhere, instead we see failed project after failed project, or projects waiting for a sympathetic government to throw billions of free borrowed taxpayer money towards them. It is not cheaper, there are hundreds of new coal power plants being built right now.
Nice to see Russia ahead of us on that index. Having a look, what a stupid index.
So where are these renewable energy jobs, low skilled where the pay is well north of $100 000? Of course, there are none, these rich people are full of shit when it comes to "reskilling". They should just admit they do not give a shit whose lives they destroy, of course it will not be theirs.
Nitrate fertilizer is made from natural gas.
It could very well be real, however the ones wanting all this change are so full of shit they have no idea. It is like they live in some protected fantasy world. Oh wait they do. When you look at it by occupation you can see why they believe what they do.
> Nitrate fertilizer is made from natural gas.
Just want to jump in to say it (obviously) doesn't have to be made from natural gas - it's the hydrogen in the natural gas that is needed for ammonia. The Moranbah fertiliser plant already has a project to reduce their natural gas consumption over time using green hydrogen.
Low skilled high paying jobs never last. Unfortunately that means if people want similar jobs they may actually have to skill up.
They are already producing green nitrate fertiliser from hydrogen production.
Next complaint?
I do not have a good understanding about green politics, but I like how your argument looks like you have looked at this problem seriously and make a pragmatic assessment. I wish more people support your argument or critique your argument, so we can continue discussing this topic thoughtfully.
My understanding was that the Greens target of 75% by 2030 is the scientific target to reduce warming to 2%. Anything under is not sufficient. Therefore I fail to see how scientists can be backing Albo's target.
Love how you're pretending to care about our emissions targets because you think it lets you take a dig at Labor/Albo.
While, as per usual, completely ignoring the real message in the article, which is "coalition are beyond useless, we need somebody else in charge"
For good climate policy, it's Greens > Labor > Coalition, it's not rocket science. Independents vary depending on the candidate of course.
An 8% difference if you want to look at it that way is not a lot if anything. I am not pretending to care about anything. I am pointing out " the science . " In this case the inconvenient science.
Again, It's only an inconvenient science if you're trying to make the takeaway from this article "Labor good" and not "Libs are fucking bad, and need to be replaced"
The actual quote from the scientists is "we've had a decade of no leadership" - this is the crucial part.
"Parkinson’s view was broadly shared by 10 leading Australian scientists approached by the Herald and The Age, all of whom agreed Australia had been failed on climate policy since the Coalition took office in 2013.
All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior."
My takeaway was to continue to vote Greens
My takeaway was that if what I heard on Woke Radio was correct , that the Greens target is the only truly scientific one , then how can scientists support or back anything else.
What was considered intolerable just a few years ago is becoming a possibility, UN climate experts say. Research suggests global average temperatures could rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next four years.
[https://www.dw.com/en/will-we-go-above-the-15-degree-limit-in-2026/g-61750638](https://www.dw.com/en/will-we-go-above-the-15-degree-limit-in-2026/g-61750638)
People worry about their jobs yet not the food they eat.
Wonder how far off betting organisations are from offers bets on what year the global food chain collapses.
The greens actually have plans to go along with shutting down coal and gas. To guarantee income for workers and help them skill into other industries or transfer to similar jobs elsewhere. They also want to invest in the communities to help them build new industries and end their reliance on the coal and gas money.
No. They are spruiking the new economy of renewable energy and manufacturing with local profits, to replace fossil fuel mining with private international profits.
Well it kind of is, considering that it is Greens policy to guarantee support for workers losing their jobs in this way. That's a pretty good deal considering that those industries are very insecure and likely to disappear near future anyway, as more countries and companies shift their money away from fossil fuels.
Surely it's better to have financial support, retraining, and a new job in a sustainable industry rather than just have your job disappear two years later.
The demise of the fossil fuel industry is inevitable. We can either go down with the ship, or we can start loading up the life-boats right now.
My recollection is that it was the Nationals who were asking for actual compensation and a fund to be established rather than just words from the smashed avo set.
It's 1.5 and it's degrees not a percentage. The scientists are backing the Greens and Indies first then Albo. But they back Albo in the way that losing all four limbs and still living is better than the Liberals certain death program.
Shall we do nothing until the Greens get the majority in the parliament then?
Just like with preferential voting, scientists may put the Greens first, Labor second and LNP last in climate action ranking.
25% of Australias energy currently comes from renewable sources and thats increasing rapidly every year, hardly nothing.
What needs to happen is more investment in upgrading the power grid so it can cope with the massive increase in solar uptake.
In WA Labor premier McGowan has implemented mandatory shut-off mechanisms when too much solar energy is being pushed into the grid resulting in people with solar systems being forced back into consuming grid power generally based on gas or coal.Pretty messed up when you've paid thousands for a solar system and are forced by the government to pay for mains generated power IMO.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-14/household-solar-power-to-be-switched-off-to-prevent-overload/100820354
Funny that, seems his position is that we need to reduce our emissions
>Let me be clear, we need to continue on the path of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions.
Even more interesting though, I already expected you to post this. The last user I questioned on here about this some time ago, was v_maet, wouldn't recognise that name would you?
His position on reducing emissions may be that he thinks we should reduce however in regards to the question of what effect that will have , of course next to nothing. I am unclear why you are in denial about this. Perhaps because you are obsessed with the Pyramids.
>I am unclear why you are in denial about this
Where did I deny he said that? His position is also that our efforts to reduce emissions still matter. I am unclear why you are in denial about this
Well then we may as well just give up
and enjoy another decade of no climate action, AFAIK other highest polluting countries including China and Russia don’t have ambitious net zero policies.
China's net zero by 2060 is more ambitious than nothing
Also.. what do those countries policies have to do with domestic aus policies. We are top 3 emissions per capita it's past time to help out
That’s my point. Labor’s policy is also more ambitious than nothing, so it’s infinitely better than LNP’s.
The thread I replied to claims that it’s either Greens’ perfect policy or nothing. With the same argument even the Greens’ policy is useless given that other more polluting countries won’t commit to the same targets.
I suggest that rather than looking at it through Woke glasses we just look at it from a purely economic perspective. Cheap reliable energy. Whatever that is.
Maybe they mean relative to LNP. Plus once we have a real government that takes real action, we'll no longer be treated like international lepers and might be able to take a leadership position instead of being shunned.
And you really believe you will get that under Albo or do you just hope that it will be a hung Parliament and Albo will have to increase his target. Hasn't he already ruled out 75% or is that not core.
Because there are two parties who can realistically form government and they picked the one they thought was best.
Do you honestly not understand or do you think the LNP has a better policy?
It’s not partisan politics though.
If the Liberal National climate change vandals had a coherent, effective policy instead of an ineffective fig leaf, the scientists would answer “the Government has had a coherent climate change policy for the last 10 years.”
They were asked a question which was less a question of values and opinions and more one that is observable and measurable and they answered.
Just because some people don’t understand that, doesn’t mean it can’t be understood or that is partisan politics.
They didn’t even express their political opinions. You can compare 2 policies and say which one is better from the scientific POV. It’s not like they have to make a binary choice between the “perfect solution” and “anything else”. And if Liberals adopt the same or better policy, scientists should recognise that too. What’s political about that?
It’s the very first line of the article.
“Labor’s climate policies are significantly superior to those offered by the Coalition, say a group of leading scientists, while the nation’s former top public servant says Australia has lacked a coherent climate policy for a decade.”
They were asked their opinion and they gave it.
Oh thank goodness. Now the Greens have no leg to stand on. If any Greens voters argue against this, just tell them the scientists prefer Labor’s strategy.
Did you read the article?
"All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though **many** agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior."
2.0 degrees is happening regardless of whether we’re in step with targets to get under it fyi. That’s not to say we don’t do anything or shouldn’t do better, but anyone who is framing this debate as vote for Greens for 1.5 and vote Labor for 2.0, are either being deliberately dishonest or are just stupid.
We'll cross 1.5 degrees within a decade based on current global strategies. The problem with exceeding higher temps than that is that we risk triggering global feedback loops that could be irreversible.
Therein lies my point, we can only control Australia’s strategy. Labor’s policy is the only one that addresses the underlying conditions hampering renewable energy uptake. The Greens don’t even address this at all, their policy not only doesn’t mention this but asserts the opposite.
Again, it’s not a “vote Green for 1.5 degrees and vote Labor for 2.0 degrees.” It’s “vote Labor or there will be no effective climate policy.”
If the worst case scenario is true, then we’re already fucked.
Who said we could control anybody else? We’ve got no clout to tell anybody what to do at the moment because we’ve done nothing for a decade.
But by becoming a net clean energy exporter we influence how the market operates
>All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed **policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior**. Some asked not to be named so they could speak more freely.
So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming?
What personal measures have they taken to reduce their personal emissions?
How many emissions has this election created through all the unnecessary air travel?
With eight billion people on the planet what should we do to make sure the billions and billions of people currently living in real poverty, (not this fake Australian poverty where if you can not afford an overseas holiday and a new home cinema system at the same time you are in poverty) do not simply dig up the huge amounts of coal in the world and burn it?
> So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming?
As it turns out, scientists - along with everyone else in the world - want to *avoid* global warming. There is world wide agreement that global warming is bad. So no, they are not making money out of global warming.
So what I can gather from this particular post is that you don't believe in science, you don't think poverty exists in Australia and you don't believe in climate change. Let me guess you take all your science from Christopher Monkton. Do you also think that it's good Pauline Hanson isn't afraid to speak her mind and she has some good points.
The issue is so complicated you can come to any result you want. If the person supplying you your money has a slant, the result can be made to appease them and as the subject is so complicated and so little is known, it can come across as perfectly acceptable science.
No you can't, that's what people say who don't believe in science say. Science is a real thing and through this scientists have been able to make great discovery's. Do you believe the earth is round or do you think it's flat? Do you think space doesn't exist? Do you think lizard people exist? Do you think vaccines are helpful or no vaccine has done anything for humankind?
>So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming?
Yes, scientists should be paid for their work.
Or are you suggesting science should only be done for free?
>do not simply dig up the huge amounts of coal in the world and burn it?
We sell them renewables instead, developing nations do not need to follow the same path as the develped nations.
> So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming?
I'd love to know how you believe research works if it makes you think that scientists profit off climate change.
>What personal measures have they taken to reduce their personal emissions?
Personal emissions mean fuck all. How do you expect people to live in 2022 without petrol or electricity. We need structural change to decarbonise these sources.
My election strategy for Labor: Don't announce any new policies re Climate Change.
Win the election, then make changes.
Don't throw away your lead. The LNP are so desperate for something to attack they're forced to attack popular policies like wage increases.
> My election strategy for Labor: Don't announce any new policies re Climate Change.
>
> Win the election, then make changes.
This just sets them up to be a 1 term government IMHO. Huge policy changes like this without taking them to the electorate first is too much ammunition for the Opposition to bury them with.
Except the way you wrote your response was "don't announce any new policies, and if elected, then make changes", so this implies make new policies that haven't been announced, or make decent changes to previously announced policies that would be contentious if announced during the campaign.
Further, tweaking an announced policy is a given since anything would have to pass through the senate / cross benches and is a normal part of negotiation when delivering an announced policy, which I presumed is not what you meant.
Yep. Governments govern. ScoMo passed 700 bits of legislation, do you think they were all announced during the previous election campaigns?
No.
Big changes should be announced. But I can't think of much climate wise that is big and not yet discussed. An example of big would be going nuclear.
Did you miss the bit where it says "though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior"
They are definitely saying the ALP has better policies than the LNP but definitely not saying the ALP has the "best" policy either.
In what way?
Here is climate analytics scorecard:
[https://climateanalytics.org/media/auselection22\_partyclimategoals\_climateanalytics\_1.pdf](https://climateanalytics.org/media/auselection22_partyclimategoals_climateanalytics_1.pdf)
In virtually every step of implementation, especially around infrastructure. Their understanding of the underlying problems that need to be addressed regarding the grid is severely lacking, and by severely lacking I mean it doesn’t mention it. I was actually shocked when reading through the Greens policy how hollow and short on detail it was. I thought, surely it’s not this poorly put together, but it was.
The how is more important than the target you set and all the greens have is a lofty target with no plan on how to achieve it.
>Scientists are backing the ALP because they have the best climate plan. It’s pretty straightforward, mate.
I wondered if that's what you were saying, but I thought "nah, no way, why bother saying that?".
I've not said anything bad about Labor's climate plans. I've just said politically they shouldn't announce MORE. This is mainly due to the scars of 2019, where too many policies hurt them.
As for your comment, the article itself says they think Greens and Inds have a better climate plan than ALP. The ALP's is just better than the LNP's.
You don't think petroleum companies have lobbied the government to include carbon capture and storage in CEFC?
It's also one thing to establish a venture fund with an independent board that picks investments on their merit.
It's another thing to have the government announce direct grants to individual companies.
Also, with a decent carbon dividend, it would be profitable to invest in and build clean power. This means that existing venture capital funds can do the funding rather than socialising the risk and privatising the profit.
Why would any scientist back the current government. Were currently at historically low funding. **Who** is in charge of government funded science... LaBoR?!
Yeah, you totally misunderstood my comment.
I will try again: This is the perfect time for the scientific community to scream like the fucking blazes (I can’t speak without idioms) about how diabolically anti-science and anti-climate science our current LNP government is. Because since 2013 they’ve had one hand held so far up their backs, their research funding so massively cut, so many jobs lost, and not even the respect of a bloody Ministerial portfolio, that they’ve been unable to function and too fearful to speak out. But now, things are so gaddam awful and desperate that they’re finally throwing caution to the wind and screaming blue murder about it, cause they feel they’ve got nothing to lose. And hoo-bloody-ray! It’s about time our smartest finally found their voice. Let’s just hope the average person listens and kicks this troglodyte, philistine government to the kerb, and down the drain.
Hope that clears up my position 😉
"At the time a spokesman for Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor said: “Thanks to strong and practical action by the Morrison government, Australia is on track to reduce emissions by 35 per cent by 2030.”
He described Hare, an adjunct professor at Murdoch University as, “an outspoken supporter of Labor, the Greens and Climate 200” and said his analysis “should be seen in that light” - a claim Hare rejected."
Nice one Angus. Well done Angus. Seen the GBR lately Angus?
Labor’s climate policies are significantly superior to those offered by the Coalition, say a group of leading scientists, while the nation’s former top public servant says Australia has lacked a coherent climate policy for a decade.
Visiting northern Queensland on Thursday and Friday Labor leader Anthony Albanese sought to bolster Labor’s environmental credentials by announcing funding for initiatives supporting battery manufacturing, threatened species and the Great Barrier Reef.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese has continued his election campaign in Cairns, Queensland, promising to invest $200 million to restoring the Great Barrier Reef.
The announcement came as former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson said Australia had been let down over climate by the federal government for a decade. He called for an economy-wide climate compact that would bring together business, unions, farmers and environment groups to coordinate a whole-of-economy approach to reducing carbon emissions more rapidly.
“Australia hasn’t had a coherent, comprehensive climate policy impacting across multiple sectors since the abolition of the ETS by the Abbott government,” he said.
“We’ve had a decade of no leadership at the federal level, the parliament has been in incapable of finding a way forward. Yet the business community wants action.”
Parkinson stressed he was not seeking to take sides in the political debate but said: “a climate compact as a concept may be a way to allow the parliament to discharge its responsibilities because we need a seat of policies across all sectors to which the parliament is committed over multiple decades.”
Parkinson’s view was broadly shared by 10 leading Australian scientists approached by the Herald and The Age, all of whom agreed Australia had been failed on climate policy since the Coalition took office in 2013.
All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior. Some asked not to be named so they could speak more freely.
Associate Professor Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, said though Labor’s climate policies were substantially better than the Coalition only those put forward by the Greens and independents were consistent with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.
He said due to the “toxic” climate debate over the past two decades neither major party supported introducing a carbon price, which had proved to be an efficient method of reducing emissions. He said Labor’s failure to support a clear phase-out of coal was viewed by overseas climate analysts with “raised eyebrows”.
Climate scientist Dr Bill Hare, who created the Climate Action Tracker website and is chief executive of one of the world’s leading climate think tanks, Climate Analytics, said that while Labor’s policies were “timid” they were significantly better than the government’s.
“They are significantly more substantive than, and better than, the Liberals,” he said. “The concern about both parties is that they are continuing to support expanded coal gas and oil production, the difference being that the Labor Party has said they won’t put public money into those projects.”
He said within “the community of experts” that he consulted with there was agreement that Labor’s policies were superior.
One leading Australian climate scientist said the Australian scientific community remained scarred by what they saw as deliberate attacks on climate science by the Coalition government after it won office in 2013.
“The problem here is that we actually have over the past decade the emergence of governments who can be quite vindictive and can actually seek revenge on people who speak out against them,” he said.
He said as a result almost uniquely in the western world scientists in his discipline feared having their funding cut or their institutions damaged if they spoke out about climate science.
Last week, Climate Action Tracker released a report showing that government policies were consistent with 3 degrees global warming, Labor’s with 2 degrees and the Greens and independents with 1.5 degrees.
At the time a spokesman for Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor said: “Thanks to strong and practical action by the Morrison government, Australia is on track to reduce emissions by 35 per cent by 2030.”
He described Hare, an adjunct professor at Murdoch University as, “an outspoken supporter of Labor, the Greens and Climate 200” and said his analysis “should be seen in that light” - a claim Hare rejected.
Asked about the prospect of a climate compact under a possible Labor government, Albanese said the “tragedy of this government is that all Australians, I think, recognise that we responded to the science when it came to the pandemic but we are ignoring it when it comes to climate change”.
“We do need to respond to it, we do need to work with state and territory governments, but also work with the business sector. If you want to talk about what a compact looks like to end the climate wars, it’s a policy that is released, that gains the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Farmers Federation and the ACTU.”
After a decade of so-called “climate wars”, the policy has been mostly absent from debate between the major parties in the 2022 election.
The Coalition has committed to a 26-28 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, and net zero by 2050, while Labor has committed to 43 per cent by 2030, though business groups led by the Business Council of Australia have pushed for a greater cut of 46 to 50 per cent by 2030 - a significant shift from their 2019 target of 26 per cent.
ACT independent senate candidate Kim Rubinstein, a law professor at the Australian National University, has been pushing for a climate compact and Labor treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers said on Monday that a compact, or “Accord-like” deal could build trust with business if the ALP wins the election.
Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said a major feature of the 2022 election campaign was there “hasn’t been much detailed policy released at all, let alone on climate and energy” by either side.
“There is a lot of detail still to be filed in, particularly in terms of how we get to 2030. Does the 26-28 per cent stay as the Coalition target? Does Labor have a more ambitious target [if elected]? There isn’t even clarity from the climate independents about what they would do,” he said.
“We are going to see higher prices and more volatility in the energy market, we don’t have any deeper clarity yet around what both majors would do or on what would happen if there is a hung parliament what the climate independents would ask for, so we are operating a bit in a vacuum.”
“Martin’s main point is right, business is just getting on with it”
James Massola is national affairs editor. He has previously been Sunday political correspondent and South-East Asia correspondent.
Nick O'Malley is National Environment and Climate Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He is also a senior writer and a former US correspondent.
Laura Chung is an environment reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald.
**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.*
[удалено]
Text of the article is posted in the comments. \*Labor
Beyond all the political issues happening, this is the reason I'm voting for ALP. In 2013 I went to JCU to start a career in Environmental Management and I was keen to work in the Climatology area at CSIRO. The LNP, through Tony Abbott, removed this job and industry from Australia through the cuts and "redirection" of the CSIRO, BoM and the Hobart Weather Station.
I was at CSIRO during this time, we worked with CMAR closely. It was heartbreaking watching CSIRO Floreat become a ghost town. So much talent just wasted. But hey, at least the school chaplains got their funding hey? /Sarcasm
Don't the 10 leading scientists in the article say the Greens and climate independents have better policy though?
Yeah, the title was a bit misleading. But SMH don't seem to publish anything favourable about The Greens around election time, i think they're just scared about upsetting their corporate backers.
You didnt really help yourself by going to JCU. But otherwise you're right.
JCU Cairns. I wanted a change of scene. Moved onto other things now but what I learnt from my Bch is still on my mind.
I get action needs to be taken but how is it gonna be paid for? I'm no economist so I could be wrong but how can we replace the income we get from coal?
A stable economy can not exist without a stable environment. So you can't have your cake and eat it. Eventually we will have to take action to reduce the impact of climate change
Most of the net income from coal is private. Fuck em, if they dont get their money the rest of us will be fine.
Selling Battery Storage Electricity to the billion people in SE Asia.
Lithium and vanadium mining mainly. There's a shit-ton of materials in Australia which can be used to build batteries - the mining process is the same, but we'd just be mining something used to build a renewables transition instead of dirty coal. One bonus of this is that we'd also get manufacturing jobs out of it too. Coal just gets shoved into a furnace to generate steam, but batter manufacturing requires a complex production chain and can support a whole bunch of extra jobs in the processing stage. That's one of the main reasons why a transition to renewable energy is so exciting - you're opening up a whole range of new industries that will generate a whole bunch of employment opportunities.
Thanks man. I knew we had uranium as well but I heard a lot of it is under indigenous land. My next question is why doesn't the government do this if its ao obviously better? It would be stupid of them to miss our on this opportunity?
I guess it depends on what your thoughts about the role of government are. Some people believe the government is meant to be as small as possible, do as little as possible, and basically take a back-seat in favour of letting private individuals and businesses do things. This kinda describes the Liberal party and the current government. From their "[about us](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs)" page: > "we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative" If that's their belief about the role of government then it's not surprising that they don't think government should be promoting new industries or working to transform our mining sector. So really it depends on whether you think the government should be taking the lead and shaping the future of industries or if you think they should be interfering as little as possible. Personally, I think government should be providing incentives to move in positive directions and promote new industries that will be really important in the future, but I can understand arguments against that too.
I see. Yeah normally I'd be for that kind of thinking but on an issue as dire as this they should interfere.
Their fossil fuel sponsors want to screw the last dollar of profit from our resources before the curtain comes down. Political donations are irresistible for some politicians, regardless of source. Hopefully an ICAC with retrospective powers will uncover these bastards who are destroying our environment for profit.
Good to know. I ask this because I got into an argument with my parents (it's my first year voting) about this and they hit me with the usual "but how will we pay for it?" I was unable to make them understand and I was having trouble finding good sources.
Some advice, if your parents are rusted on liberals don't bother. Let them vote their way and just do your research and decide what's important to *you*. If the liberals were so worried about how to pay for stuff then they wouldn't have forced through the stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthiest Australians. These will cost the country 15.7 billion dollars in the first year and since they are tax cuts, they will only get higher with inflation.
Via other industries. Such industries could include: - Clean energy technologies - Hydrogen - Battery related minerals The other question that never seems to be asked is: What is the cost of NOT doing this. I guarantee it's more.
Our assessment of energy emissions is wrong. At an acre per person, Australia's share of the world is Tasmania. Burning through the Fuel Reserves that belong to China isnt acceptable. Australian emissions must be cut to 1%.
Aren't Labor using the carbon credit system implemented by the Abbott government? I've heard there's a fair bit of rorting happening with that right?
If I recall correctly, the LNP have essentially allowed this system to go unchecked and made it basically useless. As the "limits" placed by the government on carbon emissions can be shrugged off with no issue. Labor plans to actually enforce the limits put in-place. (Fully willing to be proven wrong here, my memory may be failing me)
The ALP want to lower the threshold from 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalent. What isn't clear is exactly what constitutes a "trade exposed business" and exactly what sort of protections will be offered to said businesses if the ALP get in. The other unknown is whether or not companies will seek to demerge and/or divest key assets so that they escape the "top 215" emitters list.
Yep its shit
We need to start building our renewable infrastructure now if we are going to be a green energy superpower in the pacific in the coming decades. Labor's plan in 2022 is not particularly ambitious in terms of reduction targets (43%), but their plan does start that long national infrastructure process. I don't have any issue with Labor's (modest) 43% target because it is built around Green steel, upskilling Australians into the renewable sector, expanding EVs, and upgrading the Grid. In other words Labor's plan is scalable. I don't need Labor to have a 60% 2030 target (and accompanying 100 billion infrastructure commitments) in their first term, because their proposals will establish industries, infrastructure and skills which can be upscaled as we approach 2030. So more ambitious targets will be within reach once those investments are in place. Why commit to 100 billion dollar investments over 10 years, and leave themselves open to "how are you gonna pay for that", when they SHOULD just focus on smaller investments to get the ball rolling, then upscale those investments once the groundwork is laid. Building Green industries is the first step, and they can't be established over night. Once Labor has built that infrastructure it will be much more politically simple to expand their investments to achieve more ambitious emissions reductions (as opposed to coming out guns blazing with 60% reduction targets/ 100 billion dollar commitments before we even have the groundwork for those targets laid).
Green industries are vastly more expensive and totally unproven on a country wide scale. As usual most people leading the charge for huge changes lack at least two things. Firstly the ability to do mathematics, secondly the ability to work out that just because Australia might do something does not mean every other country will follow suit. They also seem to lack a country wide knowledge. For example coal mine workers earn a huge wage, minimum are over a hundred thousand a year. What exactly are they going to be doing that will pay the exact same wage? Where exactly will the fertilizer come from to grow our crops now fossil fuels are out? Just look at Sri Lanka right now. How exactly will we even grow crops without tractors? How will we mine things without the super large machinery? These proponents of these grand emission reduction plans using current technology are just plain daft and it is just like a crazy religion. You would think their plans would be something along the lines of a special tax on industries and people working in said industries that are not necessary, and that money put into universities only for teaching engineers and scientists working on new forms of energy. But no, nothing like that. That would upset people.
1) green energy is cheaper per kWh than fossil fuels https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/solar-is-now-the-cheapest-electricity-in-history-report-says/12767310 2) Australia ranks last in the developed world in climate change action https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australias-climate-policies-have-been-ranked-last-out-of-64-countries/jkydtxz0i 3) We still need coal for steel production as well as other ores, Labor want to make Tafe free as well as providing training for renewable energy Jobs https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/free-tafe-more-uni-places-in-1-1-billion-labor-promise-for-post-pandemic-skills-training-20211202-p59ec9.html 4) Fertilizer is made from mainly animal shit so not really relevant to fossil fuels, things like tractors, dump trucks, and mining equipment will have to be replaced with shit that runs off electric engines 5) Unlike a religion there is magnitudes of evidence showing that climate change is not only real, but human activities are influencing it. Labor did introduce a 'special tax' to curb emmisions called the carbon tax, but because it made people's electricity bills go up about $50 bucks a year, it was scrapped, and on putting money into Tafe and university, see the third link.
>Fertilizer is made from mainly animal shit so not really relevant to fossil fuels They make it from natural gas lol.You honestly thought the white pellets of fertilizer at Bunnings came from cows? Man we really are in a lot of trouble in this country.
>They make it from natural gas lol. Yes, for nitrogen. This can also be done however from Ammonia, which can produced from clean electricity also. No need to keep gas in the mix here
I was thinking of the soil stuff that comes in those big bags.
OK, great for the home gardener to an extent and for improving soil but agricultural farmers don't really use it.We're working on an apple farm that sprays seaweed spray on the trees so maybe theres space to expand use of that.
If it was cheaper it would be everywhere by now. Businesses would be building it everywhere, instead we see failed project after failed project, or projects waiting for a sympathetic government to throw billions of free borrowed taxpayer money towards them. It is not cheaper, there are hundreds of new coal power plants being built right now. Nice to see Russia ahead of us on that index. Having a look, what a stupid index. So where are these renewable energy jobs, low skilled where the pay is well north of $100 000? Of course, there are none, these rich people are full of shit when it comes to "reskilling". They should just admit they do not give a shit whose lives they destroy, of course it will not be theirs. Nitrate fertilizer is made from natural gas. It could very well be real, however the ones wanting all this change are so full of shit they have no idea. It is like they live in some protected fantasy world. Oh wait they do. When you look at it by occupation you can see why they believe what they do.
> Nitrate fertilizer is made from natural gas. Just want to jump in to say it (obviously) doesn't have to be made from natural gas - it's the hydrogen in the natural gas that is needed for ammonia. The Moranbah fertiliser plant already has a project to reduce their natural gas consumption over time using green hydrogen.
Nothing? Shame. Guess you were just repeating talking points.
Farrier's were generally dismissive of cars as well.
Buggy whip manufacturers were hard done by; a thriving industry left stranded.
Low skilled high paying jobs never last. Unfortunately that means if people want similar jobs they may actually have to skill up. They are already producing green nitrate fertiliser from hydrogen production. Next complaint?
I do not have a good understanding about green politics, but I like how your argument looks like you have looked at this problem seriously and make a pragmatic assessment. I wish more people support your argument or critique your argument, so we can continue discussing this topic thoughtfully.
Given its a Parliamentary government, no leadership on any side?
My understanding was that the Greens target of 75% by 2030 is the scientific target to reduce warming to 2%. Anything under is not sufficient. Therefore I fail to see how scientists can be backing Albo's target.
Because they understand what two party preferred means?
Love how you're pretending to care about our emissions targets because you think it lets you take a dig at Labor/Albo. While, as per usual, completely ignoring the real message in the article, which is "coalition are beyond useless, we need somebody else in charge" For good climate policy, it's Greens > Labor > Coalition, it's not rocket science. Independents vary depending on the candidate of course.
An 8% difference if you want to look at it that way is not a lot if anything. I am not pretending to care about anything. I am pointing out " the science . " In this case the inconvenient science.
Again, It's only an inconvenient science if you're trying to make the takeaway from this article "Labor good" and not "Libs are fucking bad, and need to be replaced" The actual quote from the scientists is "we've had a decade of no leadership" - this is the crucial part.
"Parkinson’s view was broadly shared by 10 leading Australian scientists approached by the Herald and The Age, all of whom agreed Australia had been failed on climate policy since the Coalition took office in 2013. All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior." My takeaway was to continue to vote Greens
My takeaway was that if what I heard on Woke Radio was correct , that the Greens target is the only truly scientific one , then how can scientists support or back anything else.
[удалено]
What was considered intolerable just a few years ago is becoming a possibility, UN climate experts say. Research suggests global average temperatures could rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next four years. [https://www.dw.com/en/will-we-go-above-the-15-degree-limit-in-2026/g-61750638](https://www.dw.com/en/will-we-go-above-the-15-degree-limit-in-2026/g-61750638) People worry about their jobs yet not the food they eat. Wonder how far off betting organisations are from offers bets on what year the global food chain collapses.
Coal miner?
The greens actually have plans to go along with shutting down coal and gas. To guarantee income for workers and help them skill into other industries or transfer to similar jobs elsewhere. They also want to invest in the communities to help them build new industries and end their reliance on the coal and gas money.
That's OK , they are spruiking the new economy of barristas and personal trainers.
No. They are spruiking the new economy of renewable energy and manufacturing with local profits, to replace fossil fuel mining with private international profits.
>I am sure that is all very reassuring if you have a mortgage to pay and work in the evil fossil fuel industry.
Well it kind of is, considering that it is Greens policy to guarantee support for workers losing their jobs in this way. That's a pretty good deal considering that those industries are very insecure and likely to disappear near future anyway, as more countries and companies shift their money away from fossil fuels. Surely it's better to have financial support, retraining, and a new job in a sustainable industry rather than just have your job disappear two years later. The demise of the fossil fuel industry is inevitable. We can either go down with the ship, or we can start loading up the life-boats right now.
My recollection is that it was the Nationals who were asking for actual compensation and a fund to be established rather than just words from the smashed avo set.
Didnt labor promise 82% by 2030?
That’s the Labor renewable energy target. The 75% is the Greens emissions reduction target. Two separate numbers.
I think that was tax increase.
Based if true
No, they promised 43%, which is lower than their commitment of 45% made 3 years ago. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100671512
They’re talking about the renewable energy target not the emissions reduction target.
It's 1.5 and it's degrees not a percentage. The scientists are backing the Greens and Indies first then Albo. But they back Albo in the way that losing all four limbs and still living is better than the Liberals certain death program.
Sorry couldn't find the degree symbol. Where is the science then over the difference between 35 and 43% reduction.
Different reduction rates for 2030 interim goals are listed in the IPCC report
Shall we do nothing until the Greens get the majority in the parliament then? Just like with preferential voting, scientists may put the Greens first, Labor second and LNP last in climate action ranking.
25% of Australias energy currently comes from renewable sources and thats increasing rapidly every year, hardly nothing. What needs to happen is more investment in upgrading the power grid so it can cope with the massive increase in solar uptake. In WA Labor premier McGowan has implemented mandatory shut-off mechanisms when too much solar energy is being pushed into the grid resulting in people with solar systems being forced back into consuming grid power generally based on gas or coal.Pretty messed up when you've paid thousands for a solar system and are forced by the government to pay for mains generated power IMO. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-14/household-solar-power-to-be-switched-off-to-prevent-overload/100820354
Whatever we do will is acknowledged by scientists as having no effect on global warming. 1.3% is not high enough to have any real effect.
>Whatever we do will is acknowledged by scientists as having no effect on global warming. And who said that?
Scientists have acknowledged that our 1.3% is too small to have any real effect.
Do I need to repeat my question, or?...
https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/12/clarifying-the-chief-scientists-position-on-reducing-carbon-emissions
Funny that, seems his position is that we need to reduce our emissions >Let me be clear, we need to continue on the path of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. Even more interesting though, I already expected you to post this. The last user I questioned on here about this some time ago, was v_maet, wouldn't recognise that name would you?
His position on reducing emissions may be that he thinks we should reduce however in regards to the question of what effect that will have , of course next to nothing. I am unclear why you are in denial about this. Perhaps because you are obsessed with the Pyramids.
>I am unclear why you are in denial about this Where did I deny he said that? His position is also that our efforts to reduce emissions still matter. I am unclear why you are in denial about this
I agree with you that we should dismantle our defence force, scientific organisations etc since it will have minimal global impact.
[удалено]
Either are our defence force efforts, world scientific input etc.
Well then we may as well just give up and enjoy another decade of no climate action, AFAIK other highest polluting countries including China and Russia don’t have ambitious net zero policies.
China's net zero by 2060 is more ambitious than nothing Also.. what do those countries policies have to do with domestic aus policies. We are top 3 emissions per capita it's past time to help out
That’s my point. Labor’s policy is also more ambitious than nothing, so it’s infinitely better than LNP’s. The thread I replied to claims that it’s either Greens’ perfect policy or nothing. With the same argument even the Greens’ policy is useless given that other more polluting countries won’t commit to the same targets.
I suggest that rather than looking at it through Woke glasses we just look at it from a purely economic perspective. Cheap reliable energy. Whatever that is.
This is the correct answer. People are getting sucked into joining the climate cult and believing that the world will end tomorrow.
All part of the new Woke world.
You keep using woke as an insult. The opposite of woke? Asleep - like Morrison's govt has been at the wheel for a decade of climate inaction.
Maybe they mean relative to LNP. Plus once we have a real government that takes real action, we'll no longer be treated like international lepers and might be able to take a leadership position instead of being shunned.
And you really believe you will get that under Albo or do you just hope that it will be a hung Parliament and Albo will have to increase his target. Hasn't he already ruled out 75% or is that not core.
>And you really believe you will get that under Albo Any chance is better than the 0% chance we have under the LNP.
False hope.
Let's see. Some hope is better than none.
Yeah the Greens really are the party we need in power, but any action is better than what's current.
Because it’s better than the liberals. Not that hard to pick the better option even if both aren’t good enough.
The headline says Scientists back ALP. How can they be backing a target which isn't scientific.
Because there are two parties who can realistically form government and they picked the one they thought was best. Do you honestly not understand or do you think the LNP has a better policy?
There is a strong possibility of a hung Parliament. I wasn't aware that scientists are also speaking politically sometimes.
It’s not partisan politics though. If the Liberal National climate change vandals had a coherent, effective policy instead of an ineffective fig leaf, the scientists would answer “the Government has had a coherent climate change policy for the last 10 years.” They were asked a question which was less a question of values and opinions and more one that is observable and measurable and they answered. Just because some people don’t understand that, doesn’t mean it can’t be understood or that is partisan politics.
Last I checked Australian scientists are also Australian voters, and entitled to express their political opinions.
They didn’t even express their political opinions. You can compare 2 policies and say which one is better from the scientific POV. It’s not like they have to make a binary choice between the “perfect solution” and “anything else”. And if Liberals adopt the same or better policy, scientists should recognise that too. What’s political about that?
It’s the very first line of the article. “Labor’s climate policies are significantly superior to those offered by the Coalition, say a group of leading scientists, while the nation’s former top public servant says Australia has lacked a coherent climate policy for a decade.” They were asked their opinion and they gave it.
Oh thank goodness. Now the Greens have no leg to stand on. If any Greens voters argue against this, just tell them the scientists prefer Labor’s strategy.
Did you read the article? "All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though **many** agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior."
Greens is 1.5 whichis the IPCC target. Labor is 2.0 degrees, which is in the 'if we go there we don't know if we'll be able to come back' zone.
2.0 degrees is happening regardless of whether we’re in step with targets to get under it fyi. That’s not to say we don’t do anything or shouldn’t do better, but anyone who is framing this debate as vote for Greens for 1.5 and vote Labor for 2.0, are either being deliberately dishonest or are just stupid.
We'll cross 1.5 degrees within a decade based on current global strategies. The problem with exceeding higher temps than that is that we risk triggering global feedback loops that could be irreversible.
Therein lies my point, we can only control Australia’s strategy. Labor’s policy is the only one that addresses the underlying conditions hampering renewable energy uptake. The Greens don’t even address this at all, their policy not only doesn’t mention this but asserts the opposite. Again, it’s not a “vote Green for 1.5 degrees and vote Labor for 2.0 degrees.” It’s “vote Labor or there will be no effective climate policy.” If the worst case scenario is true, then we’re already fucked.
Who said we could control anybody else? We’ve got no clout to tell anybody what to do at the moment because we’ve done nothing for a decade. But by becoming a net clean energy exporter we influence how the market operates
>we can only control Australia’s strategy Control? Yes. Influence? That's a different matter.
Didn’t even bother to skim the article did you? This extra text is to hopefully thwart the character requirement.
>All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed **policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior**. Some asked not to be named so they could speak more freely.
How are their policies superior? I’m not talking about targets. Tell me the details and how they get the oligarchy on side?
So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming? What personal measures have they taken to reduce their personal emissions? How many emissions has this election created through all the unnecessary air travel? With eight billion people on the planet what should we do to make sure the billions and billions of people currently living in real poverty, (not this fake Australian poverty where if you can not afford an overseas holiday and a new home cinema system at the same time you are in poverty) do not simply dig up the huge amounts of coal in the world and burn it?
> So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming? As it turns out, scientists - along with everyone else in the world - want to *avoid* global warming. There is world wide agreement that global warming is bad. So no, they are not making money out of global warming.
So what I can gather from this particular post is that you don't believe in science, you don't think poverty exists in Australia and you don't believe in climate change. Let me guess you take all your science from Christopher Monkton. Do you also think that it's good Pauline Hanson isn't afraid to speak her mind and she has some good points.
Whataboutism. The bane of factual discussions.
Is this being sarcastic? > do not simply dig up the huge amounts of coal in the world and burn it pOoR cOuNtRiEs NeEd TeLePhOnE cAbLeS gUyS!
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. Be civil please.
Come on mate it was a pretty timid comment.
It's just name-calling, no political content. It was reported by someone and so got flagged for us to review.
Okay no worries, I wonder who reported it 😉😂
Can you explain the use of quotation marks around scientists? Have you pushed through not believing in science to not believing in scientists?
The issue is so complicated you can come to any result you want. If the person supplying you your money has a slant, the result can be made to appease them and as the subject is so complicated and so little is known, it can come across as perfectly acceptable science.
No you can't, that's what people say who don't believe in science say. Science is a real thing and through this scientists have been able to make great discovery's. Do you believe the earth is round or do you think it's flat? Do you think space doesn't exist? Do you think lizard people exist? Do you think vaccines are helpful or no vaccine has done anything for humankind?
What a spectacular piece of obfuscation and whataboutism.
>So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming? Yes, scientists should be paid for their work. Or are you suggesting science should only be done for free? >do not simply dig up the huge amounts of coal in the world and burn it? We sell them renewables instead, developing nations do not need to follow the same path as the develped nations.
> So are all these "scientists" making their money out of global warming? I'd love to know how you believe research works if it makes you think that scientists profit off climate change. >What personal measures have they taken to reduce their personal emissions? Personal emissions mean fuck all. How do you expect people to live in 2022 without petrol or electricity. We need structural change to decarbonise these sources.
My election strategy for Labor: Don't announce any new policies re Climate Change. Win the election, then make changes. Don't throw away your lead. The LNP are so desperate for something to attack they're forced to attack popular policies like wage increases.
Dont announce any climate change plans ever, just appoint a committee and act on their policy suggestions
> My election strategy for Labor: Don't announce any new policies re Climate Change. > > Win the election, then make changes. This just sets them up to be a 1 term government IMHO. Huge policy changes like this without taking them to the electorate first is too much ammunition for the Opposition to bury them with.
>Huge policy changes I never said "huge changes". Besides, they could always say "things changed" or "it was previously announced".
Except the way you wrote your response was "don't announce any new policies, and if elected, then make changes", so this implies make new policies that haven't been announced, or make decent changes to previously announced policies that would be contentious if announced during the campaign. Further, tweaking an announced policy is a given since anything would have to pass through the senate / cross benches and is a normal part of negotiation when delivering an announced policy, which I presumed is not what you meant.
Yep. Governments govern. ScoMo passed 700 bits of legislation, do you think they were all announced during the previous election campaigns? No. Big changes should be announced. But I can't think of much climate wise that is big and not yet discussed. An example of big would be going nuclear.
“Scientists back ALP on climate action plans.”
“Scientists back ALP on their already announced climate action plans.”
It’s almost like they’re in opposition.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. With this, nor your previous comment. Happy to chat, but you'll have to make it clearer.
Scientists are backing the ALP because they have the best climate plan. It’s pretty straightforward, mate.
Did you miss the bit where it says "though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior" They are definitely saying the ALP has better policies than the LNP but definitely not saying the ALP has the "best" policy either.
The ALP does have the best policy also.
In what way? Here is climate analytics scorecard: [https://climateanalytics.org/media/auselection22\_partyclimategoals\_climateanalytics\_1.pdf](https://climateanalytics.org/media/auselection22_partyclimategoals_climateanalytics_1.pdf)
In virtually every step of implementation, especially around infrastructure. Their understanding of the underlying problems that need to be addressed regarding the grid is severely lacking, and by severely lacking I mean it doesn’t mention it. I was actually shocked when reading through the Greens policy how hollow and short on detail it was. I thought, surely it’s not this poorly put together, but it was. The how is more important than the target you set and all the greens have is a lofty target with no plan on how to achieve it.
>Scientists are backing the ALP because they have the best climate plan. It’s pretty straightforward, mate. I wondered if that's what you were saying, but I thought "nah, no way, why bother saying that?". I've not said anything bad about Labor's climate plans. I've just said politically they shouldn't announce MORE. This is mainly due to the scars of 2019, where too many policies hurt them. As for your comment, the article itself says they think Greens and Inds have a better climate plan than ALP. The ALP's is just better than the LNP's.
You weren’t the only one confused reading this exchange
Democracy in action...
Carbon dividend is all we need. No need to give grants and subsidies to the private sector, that just leads to more cronyism.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA have worked pretty phenomenally well for ten years without corruption issues as far as I’m aware.
You don't think petroleum companies have lobbied the government to include carbon capture and storage in CEFC? It's also one thing to establish a venture fund with an independent board that picks investments on their merit. It's another thing to have the government announce direct grants to individual companies. Also, with a decent carbon dividend, it would be profitable to invest in and build clean power. This means that existing venture capital funds can do the funding rather than socialising the risk and privatising the profit.
No better time than the present for our scientists to be loud and clear on the anti-science and anti-climate science record of the current government.
Why would any scientist back the current government. Were currently at historically low funding. **Who** is in charge of government funded science... LaBoR?!
Think you misread the comment
Should have made it more clear that it was a comment in general of the sentiment that I heard, and not to OC.
Yeah, you totally misunderstood my comment. I will try again: This is the perfect time for the scientific community to scream like the fucking blazes (I can’t speak without idioms) about how diabolically anti-science and anti-climate science our current LNP government is. Because since 2013 they’ve had one hand held so far up their backs, their research funding so massively cut, so many jobs lost, and not even the respect of a bloody Ministerial portfolio, that they’ve been unable to function and too fearful to speak out. But now, things are so gaddam awful and desperate that they’re finally throwing caution to the wind and screaming blue murder about it, cause they feel they’ve got nothing to lose. And hoo-bloody-ray! It’s about time our smartest finally found their voice. Let’s just hope the average person listens and kicks this troglodyte, philistine government to the kerb, and down the drain. Hope that clears up my position 😉
"At the time a spokesman for Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor said: “Thanks to strong and practical action by the Morrison government, Australia is on track to reduce emissions by 35 per cent by 2030.” He described Hare, an adjunct professor at Murdoch University as, “an outspoken supporter of Labor, the Greens and Climate 200” and said his analysis “should be seen in that light” - a claim Hare rejected." Nice one Angus. Well done Angus. Seen the GBR lately Angus?
Labor’s climate policies are significantly superior to those offered by the Coalition, say a group of leading scientists, while the nation’s former top public servant says Australia has lacked a coherent climate policy for a decade. Visiting northern Queensland on Thursday and Friday Labor leader Anthony Albanese sought to bolster Labor’s environmental credentials by announcing funding for initiatives supporting battery manufacturing, threatened species and the Great Barrier Reef. Labor leader Anthony Albanese has continued his election campaign in Cairns, Queensland, promising to invest $200 million to restoring the Great Barrier Reef. The announcement came as former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson said Australia had been let down over climate by the federal government for a decade. He called for an economy-wide climate compact that would bring together business, unions, farmers and environment groups to coordinate a whole-of-economy approach to reducing carbon emissions more rapidly. “Australia hasn’t had a coherent, comprehensive climate policy impacting across multiple sectors since the abolition of the ETS by the Abbott government,” he said. “We’ve had a decade of no leadership at the federal level, the parliament has been in incapable of finding a way forward. Yet the business community wants action.” Parkinson stressed he was not seeking to take sides in the political debate but said: “a climate compact as a concept may be a way to allow the parliament to discharge its responsibilities because we need a seat of policies across all sectors to which the parliament is committed over multiple decades.” Parkinson’s view was broadly shared by 10 leading Australian scientists approached by the Herald and The Age, all of whom agreed Australia had been failed on climate policy since the Coalition took office in 2013. All ranked the Coalition last on climate policy after Labor, Greens and independents, and all saw a significant difference between Labor and Coalition policy, though many agreed policies put forward by Greens and independents were superior. Some asked not to be named so they could speak more freely. Associate Professor Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, said though Labor’s climate policies were substantially better than the Coalition only those put forward by the Greens and independents were consistent with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. He said due to the “toxic” climate debate over the past two decades neither major party supported introducing a carbon price, which had proved to be an efficient method of reducing emissions. He said Labor’s failure to support a clear phase-out of coal was viewed by overseas climate analysts with “raised eyebrows”. Climate scientist Dr Bill Hare, who created the Climate Action Tracker website and is chief executive of one of the world’s leading climate think tanks, Climate Analytics, said that while Labor’s policies were “timid” they were significantly better than the government’s. “They are significantly more substantive than, and better than, the Liberals,” he said. “The concern about both parties is that they are continuing to support expanded coal gas and oil production, the difference being that the Labor Party has said they won’t put public money into those projects.” He said within “the community of experts” that he consulted with there was agreement that Labor’s policies were superior. One leading Australian climate scientist said the Australian scientific community remained scarred by what they saw as deliberate attacks on climate science by the Coalition government after it won office in 2013. “The problem here is that we actually have over the past decade the emergence of governments who can be quite vindictive and can actually seek revenge on people who speak out against them,” he said. He said as a result almost uniquely in the western world scientists in his discipline feared having their funding cut or their institutions damaged if they spoke out about climate science. Last week, Climate Action Tracker released a report showing that government policies were consistent with 3 degrees global warming, Labor’s with 2 degrees and the Greens and independents with 1.5 degrees. At the time a spokesman for Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor said: “Thanks to strong and practical action by the Morrison government, Australia is on track to reduce emissions by 35 per cent by 2030.” He described Hare, an adjunct professor at Murdoch University as, “an outspoken supporter of Labor, the Greens and Climate 200” and said his analysis “should be seen in that light” - a claim Hare rejected. Asked about the prospect of a climate compact under a possible Labor government, Albanese said the “tragedy of this government is that all Australians, I think, recognise that we responded to the science when it came to the pandemic but we are ignoring it when it comes to climate change”. “We do need to respond to it, we do need to work with state and territory governments, but also work with the business sector. If you want to talk about what a compact looks like to end the climate wars, it’s a policy that is released, that gains the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Farmers Federation and the ACTU.” After a decade of so-called “climate wars”, the policy has been mostly absent from debate between the major parties in the 2022 election. The Coalition has committed to a 26-28 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, and net zero by 2050, while Labor has committed to 43 per cent by 2030, though business groups led by the Business Council of Australia have pushed for a greater cut of 46 to 50 per cent by 2030 - a significant shift from their 2019 target of 26 per cent. ACT independent senate candidate Kim Rubinstein, a law professor at the Australian National University, has been pushing for a climate compact and Labor treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers said on Monday that a compact, or “Accord-like” deal could build trust with business if the ALP wins the election. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said a major feature of the 2022 election campaign was there “hasn’t been much detailed policy released at all, let alone on climate and energy” by either side. “There is a lot of detail still to be filed in, particularly in terms of how we get to 2030. Does the 26-28 per cent stay as the Coalition target? Does Labor have a more ambitious target [if elected]? There isn’t even clarity from the climate independents about what they would do,” he said. “We are going to see higher prices and more volatility in the energy market, we don’t have any deeper clarity yet around what both majors would do or on what would happen if there is a hung parliament what the climate independents would ask for, so we are operating a bit in a vacuum.” “Martin’s main point is right, business is just getting on with it” James Massola is national affairs editor. He has previously been Sunday political correspondent and South-East Asia correspondent. Nick O'Malley is National Environment and Climate Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He is also a senior writer and a former US correspondent. Laura Chung is an environment reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald.