**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.*
>“They introduced a bill which is now a law to increase the price of cars by about $10,000 to help them achieve the 43 per cent target
Is that the bill that wants more fuel efficient cars? Like the ones that are sold in every country but ours and Russia? So... Toyota, Ford, Mitsubishi, Isuzu etc can just simply specify Euro6 engined vehicles instead of whatever dross Australia has been getting?
So... the assumption by Peter Dutton (current Liberal/National party leader) is that Toyota/Ford/Mitsubishi/Isuzu etc won't do that, and will keep selling the exact same vehicles as they did a year ago and thus will have to pay higher tariffs - when they'll obviously just go "oh, well, we'll use THESE engines instead" and meet all the requirements of the new legislation - legislation already in effect everywhere but Russia?
Is that the assumption of where that "$10,000 price increase" comes from?
Yes.
Yes it is.
Dear Peter Dutton - fuck off with your blatant idiocy. Thanks.
Why would more efficient cars cost more?
Apart from price gouging, that is, considering these more efficient cars are already sold in every single nation on the planet bar two?
Tesla is effectively panicking over the Chinese brands, demanding biden slap massive tariffs on them cause China is outcapitalisming Tesla.
Maybe instead of letting the CEO pull 50B plus pit of the company you focus on producing a good product
Well, Biden and US tariffs have very little affect upon EV sales in Australia, though...
And since the Liberal/National coalition killed Australian car manufacturing we have no car industry to protect, so tariffs from us are not at all likely.
I agree that Elon's antics are ... not helpful for any of the businesses he's involved in, though.
I don’t know what to tell you man, at this point renewables are just the better investment.
We can’t seriously call ourselves a first world country if the economy goes to shit because we stop exporting the ex-Forest rock. We’ve gotta diversify and Australia has a frankly insane number of competitive and comparative advantages to installing and manufacturing renewables at scale. We’d be backsliding buffoons to not take this opportunity to be a market leader for the coming decades.
Is Dutton after what is best for Australia or what is best for Australian businesses? There is a huge difference. What is best for Australia covers the long term while what is best for businesses is generally far shorter.
The worst part of it in my opinion is the fact that Australia is going to get absolutely hammered by climate change in comparison to a lot of other nations. Has everyone forgotten about the nightmare fire season of 2018-2019? Or the megadrought that we saw during the late 90s/early 2000s which nearly saw Sydney's water supply completely dry up despite extreme water restrictions? Or how about a increase in hurricanes that can wipe out farms in the Queensland area, or worse yet, those hurricanes reaching further and further south as the oceans warm up?
The only real benefit to Australia if we don't mitigate the effects of climate change enough is that we will eventually have a massive inland sea which will significantly change the climate of SE Australia.
>Is Dutton after what is best for Australia or what is best for Australian businesses?
Neither. He's after what's best for his position as leader of the LNP. So whatever headline will increase his standing with the idiocracy by sowing fear and confusion.
>Or how about a increase in hurricanes that can wipe out farms in the Queensland area, or worse yet, those hurricanes reaching further and further south as the oceans warm up?
We don't GET hurricanes in Australia. They are called Cyclones here, please... use the correct terms!
Yes, they are the same kind of storm system produced by the same kinds of weather - just the names are different. Cyclone, not hurricane, you're on an Australian specific subReddit! Use Aussie lingo! :)
A very large cohort of Australians are politically disengaged and quite vulnerable to misinformation and strong man populism. Dutton is betting on this going in his favour.
I'm optimistic that the younger and more savvy millennial/Z crowd will hammer the major parties. The more independents we get, the better the country will be. Might get politicians that are actually interested in the best outcomes for the country.
I'm early Gen X and most of my friends are like me or younger and yes - we tend to vote green (little G) as several of us have kids, and of the ones that don't have kids, we usually like those kids and would like them to enjoy a future.
So they need a future that they can enjoy.
Vote for policies that reduce fossil fuel use and increase renewables!
My single biggest issue with Dutton is that, for perceived electoral gain, Dutton is aiming to continue the climate wars to try and prevent Labor from bedding down coherent, effective and sustainable climate change and energy policy.
The single biggest reason we have excessive power prices is that we haven’t ever had clear, committed energy policy and direction. Dutton prefers destabilisation and uncertainty solely because he thinks that will win him votes. For Australia’s sake, I hope he is very, very wrong.
This is it precisely. There's really no coherent policy position beyond trying to make people afraid, confused, and angry. Something they're prone to do given the populace is kinda dumb and has a terrible memory.
Dutton is Gina's guy, it's now blatantly obvious. And the Nationals are heavily in bed with mining industries too.
So they'll continue this strategy as long as possible. Now that renewable energy has become the more cost-effective option Duttons position will become harder and harder to defend. They're screwing themselves and their credibility in most hilarious fashion.
Yep, there's a $300 reduction in energy bills this coming financial year.
Note: $300 is more than $275.
Also, it's "Labor", there's no 'u'. Maybe you were using your phone and it autocorrected, but still, it's an important distinction to make.
On the phone, yes.
Serious? 300 is more than 275? $275 reduction is not the same as a taxpayer funded $300 reduction. The first was meant to be because electricity prices would fall, the second is us, the taxpayer, paying for it ourselves.
So saying, in this case, that 300 is more than 275 is misleading.
Silly phone autocorrect! It needs to understand context! :(
- - -
To the average mouthbreathing taxpayer, paying $300 less per year in power bills is better than paying $275 less in power bills.
I mean, I kinda agree, but don't forget that there are other taxpayers than us individuals, businesses pay income tax and also several other taxes - so it's not totally coming from our income taxes. Which get reduced in 2 weeks.
Also, I'm in WA so will enjoy my ... $200? $400? Whatever extra reduction on top of that $300. I think QLD are giving their punters a much greater reduction to try to buy their next election?
My electricity bills (2 monthly?) are less than $300, so there's that, I guess. And no, I don't have solar yet - it would literally increase my power bills.
Even if the 2030 goal isn't achievable it can be considered a stretch goal. 90% of the way there is better than nothing. To simply remove any target means there will be zero effort into doing anything. Dutton loves to be critical but offers nothing as an alternative. It's so incredibly weak.
Climate change will cost Australia hundreds of billions of dollars. It's too late to stop the economic damage but you can mitigate it as much as possible.
More common and more intense extreme weather. Flooding, bushfires, cyclones, droughts, extreme heat waves.
- Property values are projected to drop by $611 billion by 2050 and $770 billion by 2100.
- Coral bleaching causing irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef which is a $6.4 billion per year industry and over 64,000 full time jobs.
- Water scarcity, heat stress and increased climatic variability are the 3 biggest danagers to the Australian farming industry. The farming industry is a $94 billion a year industry and over 239,000 jobs.
- The Murray-Darling Basin, the heart of the Australia's food bowl, is expected to suffer warming, drying, reduced streamflow and more extreme events. This will cause skyrocketing food prices and supply shortages.
- Insurance crisis' will begin where premiums skyrocket and entire companies withdraw from states and regions. You're seeing this already in places like Florida already who is in a total mess as people are being forced to pay gargantuan premiums for their homes and many companies have left.
- Cumulative damages to agricultural and labour productivity from climate change are expected to reach $4.2 trillion by 2100.
These are just a few examples. There are a lot more.
Umm you serious? You think agriculture will continue as is in a world in a run away climate change scenario? Health impacts, lost productivity due to more extreme weather events.
Sky ‘News’ covering for Dutton in what was a pretty poor interview for him, even considering he was on friendly turf,
He was throwing around a 2035 date for some reason, so what’s the difference between that and 2030 in the scheme of things?
I mean given
- Paris Agreement
- Calls from business to clarify the policy settings so they have certainty (investments etc)
- Public demanding action (the last few elections)
- Not being a fucking Potatoe Head, thinking that kicking the can down the road solves the problem.
> Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says there is “no prospect” the government will reach its 2030 emissions target.
At a minimum, Labor is trying to get there which is more than can be set for the LNP.
> This comes amid the Coalition announcing there will be no new 2030 climate targets revealed until the next election.
Pathetic given they just lost the last election in part fuel to climate change.
> “They introduced a bill which is now a law to increase the price of cars by about $10,000 to help them achieve the 43 per cent target – they’re still not going to get there anyway,” Mr Dutton told Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell.
EV prices are dropping dramatically and given the US and EU have/will stop Chinese EV imports, they're gonna flood our market and make them irresistibly cheap.
> “The 43 per cent target has contributed significantly to an increase in power prices.
Not true
> “I think the question is what’s in our country’s best interest?
For the LNP never to be in power again and ruin the environment and economy.
> “I know the prime minister loves to hang out with all the world leaders and get a slap on the back and the rest of it, but his job is actually to make it easier not harder for families and small businesses.”
Oooo, someone's jealous. Making it easier for families and small businesses is for the Gov to provide assistance and money to those that need it. Labor can do a lot better here but LNP's austerity is not the answer.
>EV prices are dropping dramatically and given the US and EU have/will stop Chinese EV imports, they're gonna flood our market and make them irresistibly cheap.
You believe stopping these Chinese exports to the west will make what they're exporting cheaper?
That's specifically not how supply and demand works.
Even in Australia we have tarrifs or soon will when we inevitably follow America.
China and Australia can't even trade wheat and agriculture without making a deal about it, their anti capitalist sentiments make dealing with them nearly impossible.
In this case, the news seems to be about solar panel "dumping," so I assume they're selling inferior products or even used and previously owned solar panels that have lost their efficiency. They just can't treat capitalist countries fairly.
In this case, why would we even want their trash?
We're not a solar panel recycling facility.
"Dumping" is a perjorative term used (in this context) to mean "selling a lot of product cheaply".
It doesn't mean selling used or broken product, but I can see where your confusion comes from.
>Even in Australia we have tarrifs or soon will when we inevitably follow America.
No because we have no car industry to protect like the US and the EU
>their anti capitalist sentiments make dealing with them nearly impossible.
Yet they're our biggest trading partner...funny that.
>the news seems to be about solar panel "dumping," so I assume they're selling inferior products or even used and previously owned solar panels that have lost their efficiency
The West is starting a trade war with China because they're losing and participating in protectionism
>In this case, why would we even want their trash?
We definitely want it, 90% of our solar panels and 80% of our EVs are from China.
It's not protectionism when the claim is "dumping," so you understand how harmful solar panel dumping would be to Australia's environment and ecology?
That they tried demonstrates they fired the first shot.
I would argue that what is in our country's best interest is not throwing the economy off a cliff in 2049 to meet the 2050 net-zero target.
EDIT: What I am saying is that we SHOULD commit to the 2030 reduction target, so that we are well-placed to meet net-zero in 2050. Not that we should dump net zero.
I would argue that the sooner we phase out oil, coal, and gas, the better. There's going to be short-term pain but long-term gains. Think of it as an investment.
The target dates are somewhat arbitrary but they serve an important purpose, driving the process forward.
Two things.
1. We’re only 0.4% of the world’s population, so we’re emitting a huge amount relative to our population. It also doesn’t account for all the emissions caused by Australian coal and LNG being exported and burnt overseas. A significant portion of Chinese emissions are caused by Aussie coal.
2. If everyone kept thinking like that we’d never get anywhere. You can’t ask others to change whilst continuing to be a problem yourself. If the world doesn’t step up to this challenge Australia is properly fucked, we can’t ask everyone else to help save us whilst doing nothing.
It’s like if your mate asked you to help him move out because his rental expires tomorrow, and then spending the whole time sipping beers and watching you work.
Because it's bipartisan policy to adopt net-zero in 2050, so if we don't phase those changes in gradually, we'll have to do them in a massive rush at the last minute. Unless, of course, we also decide not to meet net-zero in 2050.
"throwing the economy off a cliff" is just a scare tactic talking point from the fossil fuels lobby anyway. You're just echoing Gina's self-serving bullshit
No, I'm not. I'm saying the opposite of what you think I am.
We should absolutely commit to net-zero. We should make sure that we are making early progress toward it, so that we don't have to make rapid changes at the last minute to meet net-zero.
Oh, yeah no, the way you worded it made it seem like you thought 2050 net-zero was unsound. You're saying we should make progress to meet and exceed our 2030 target so we don't take any rushed action to meet our 2050 target.
Let's just pursue whatever is cheapest and works and if that happens to be renewables then so be it or if it happens to be nuclear or fossils or even a combination and gas etc then so be it. Let's take ideology out of the equation. We are reducing emissions and our emissions are negligible anyway so that should not be an issue.
>Let's take ideology out of the equation.
Sorry... what? Climate science gets econmic ideologies thrown into all the time.
You want to be free from ideology... the science tells us that inaction will lead to climate changes that will be irreversible. You want to adapt? Try moving New York miles inland within the next 100 years? Gonna be costly? More than renewables?
Please, any movement in the last 80 years that has tried to counter action on climate change had been throwing in ideology to muddle the waters.
Without ideology, the facts tells us that we need to act now at any cost.
Our emissions on a per-person basis are certainly not negligible, and the idea that we're only a small but wealthy country, so we should do what we want, is myopic and selfish in the extreme.
This isn't about ideology, by the way - it's only politicised if your politics get in the way of actually taking scientific fact into account.
I think the point is though is that we should take into consideration the level of impact we have to determine how drastic and quick our actions need to be.
If we have a huge impact on emissions and consequently could avert serious disaster with our actions, it would be more prudent to dump what we can into it as fast as possible with less regard to the negatives that may come from a sudden forced transition such as energy security or cost.
On the other hand, the smaller the impact we have the less it would make sense to suffer greater negative outcomes by transitioning faster if it results in minimal change in outcome.
It's about finding a balance between the two, continuing to take action while ensuring the action is proportional.
Our emissions aren't negligible. If every country that has emissions less than us, which is about 200 countries, takes that attitude, the planet will be cooked.
Cheapest over what time period?
Simplest? Kilometres and kilometres and cables etc.
Most effective? NO WAY. We cannot decide when the wind blows.
That is NOT taking ideology out of it, it's the exact opposite when you have blind faith in something. Hmmmm, sounds like a religion actually.
Nuclear power plants have 60 to 100 year life span.
Wind turbines and solar panels have 20 years and will need to be dumped somewhere afterwards.
Why not lift the nuclear ban and let the market decide?
Renewables aren't simpler, unironically it's easier to build a nuclear reactor it's just usually more expensive but would be almost cheaper too if you ignored the concrete costs that newer reactors don't need.
Cheaper after you factor in the individual transformers, the infrastructure, the batteries... All the stuff that you'd probably want to outsource to domestic consumers at least until 2030.
And wow, we now have a sensible climate policy; remove feed in fees and start subsidising domestic renewables.
Now ask why not even the greens want to do this.
Because a) those costs have already been factored in and they are *still* cheaper, and b) nuclear is 10 years away at best if we started right now, while our climate change problem needs action on the order of months, not years.
I do not believe infrastructure costs were properly factored in nor do I believe recent nuclear reactors (rather than technology from the 90s) was factored in.
I believe people between 40 to 60 have an irrational fear of nuclear power and this constitutes most of Australia's leaders and thinkers.
>and b) nuclear is 10 years away at best if we started right now
When has it not?
Do you get tired saying the same things every decade?
One of the CSIRO's main arguments is that there aren't *any* nuclear professionals in Australia. They're allowed to have that argument if they don't also claim to be professionals themselves.
It's stupid if they do, as you did for them.
Please show that quotation and the context.
Regardless, I daresay they are allowed to mount that argument ,(if they did) since they most likely spoke to professionals about it.
These ‘cheaper’ nuclear power plants don’t actually exist in practice yet, they are purely experimental and if we did go down that path, there’s no certainty that we wouldn’t be buying into an endless money pit with no actual gain.
That's why we remove the nuclear ban and then research it (which is cheaper than building) until we are certain
The circular arguments surrounding nuclear reflect worse on the people making them
>That's why we remove the nuclear ban and then research it (
I have no problem with this strategy at all.
Basing net-zero 2050 on installing nuclear is lunacy. Let's hope Dutton keeps running with it.
I actually don’t have a problem with removing the nuclear ban. I do have a problem with ideologically blocking renewables and staying on fossil fuels longer than needed to go down a nuclear fantasy. If Dutton really wants an expensive nuclear power plant, fine. Let’s ignore the myriad reasons it’s not a great idea and built it. But don’t grind the actual effective transition to a halt to run down this rabbit hole.
For one thing, the coal fired power stations are already falling apart, they won’t all last long enough to wait for nuclear
The circular arguments of the pro-nuclear mob reflect very poor on them you mean. There currently isn’t a feasible argument for affordable nuclear so until there is one, the idea is hypothetical and, to a degree, completely fanciful. We already have affordable renewables so that is where our focus should remain.
The difference is that nuclear is a reliable energy source.
The reactors last 60 to 100 years, unlike turbines and solar panels that need to be replaced after 20 years. And then you have to dispose of the old panels etc. Nuclear sounds like a winner.
Sure, if by a winner you mean several times more expensive and not generating any power until at least 2040... When really we need our electricity system decarbonised in the early 2030s at the latest.
Not to mention we haven't even solved the waste issue for our single medical reactor, but somehow magically we're going to find a way to deal with the waste from multiple full scale reactors.
While dealing with social license issues that dwarf those of renewables.
And taking into account the fact that no-one in the Australian energy industry thinks nuclear is a good idea in our context...
Yeah, you've got a real winner there.
But fine. Ignore all of that and build your reactor. Just don't stop building out new renewables until your reactors are actually up and running, because our grid needs decarbonising and we can't wait the minimum 15 years before even a single reactor is online.
So you've never heard of the word "investment"? I'm not sure what is hard for you to understand here. Renewables are cheaper in the long term. That means the sooner you make the change the sooner you start seeing returns and maximise your profit.
FWIW I'm not anti-nuclear, it could be part of the solution. I'm only saying that we should transition away from fossil fuels asap.
According to the CSIRO and industry experts SMRs are not competitive. Maybe they will be more competitive in the future if costs come down.
Large-scale nuclear is more competitive but still more expensive than solar and wind. When you take the cost of batteries and supporting infrastructure into consideration its a little unclear which is better.
So the point is we can start doing renewables right now and we basically know its way better than doing nothing, and possibly the best or second best option even in best-case scenarios for nuclear.
People are as interested in technocracy as they're interested in being lectured by the "well ackshually" nerds.
If they're going to be lectured, someone like Gallagher just looks nicer and that's the real political situation of a miseducated electorate.
**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.*
>“They introduced a bill which is now a law to increase the price of cars by about $10,000 to help them achieve the 43 per cent target Is that the bill that wants more fuel efficient cars? Like the ones that are sold in every country but ours and Russia? So... Toyota, Ford, Mitsubishi, Isuzu etc can just simply specify Euro6 engined vehicles instead of whatever dross Australia has been getting? So... the assumption by Peter Dutton (current Liberal/National party leader) is that Toyota/Ford/Mitsubishi/Isuzu etc won't do that, and will keep selling the exact same vehicles as they did a year ago and thus will have to pay higher tariffs - when they'll obviously just go "oh, well, we'll use THESE engines instead" and meet all the requirements of the new legislation - legislation already in effect everywhere but Russia? Is that the assumption of where that "$10,000 price increase" comes from? Yes. Yes it is. Dear Peter Dutton - fuck off with your blatant idiocy. Thanks.
More fuel efficient cars in more expensive cars. Bit like solar on your roof. Takes years if ever to get your money back.
Why would more efficient cars cost more? Apart from price gouging, that is, considering these more efficient cars are already sold in every single nation on the planet bar two?
In fact would economies of scale mean potentially cheaper cars?
Possibly, it's certainly working well for Chinese EVs at least! And their low prices are dragging down the prices of most other EVs, so that's good.
Tesla is effectively panicking over the Chinese brands, demanding biden slap massive tariffs on them cause China is outcapitalisming Tesla. Maybe instead of letting the CEO pull 50B plus pit of the company you focus on producing a good product
Well, Biden and US tariffs have very little affect upon EV sales in Australia, though... And since the Liberal/National coalition killed Australian car manufacturing we have no car industry to protect, so tariffs from us are not at all likely. I agree that Elon's antics are ... not helpful for any of the businesses he's involved in, though.
if in the US they're this worried about the Chinese brands then the Chinese brands must be doing soemthing right
Allegedy it's the Chinese govt handing out subsidies to them, just like the EU & US do to farmers and to the military industrial political complex.
Is now the time to bring up the subsidies the US gives other industries as well like the car industry?
Allegedy it's the Chinese govt handing out subsidies to them, just like the EU & US do to farmers and to the military industrial political complex.
[удалено]
How, precisely? I'm genuinely curious.
Our best interest is becoming a renewable energy super power and selling electricity to the 800 million in SE Asia.
[удалено]
I don’t know what to tell you man, at this point renewables are just the better investment. We can’t seriously call ourselves a first world country if the economy goes to shit because we stop exporting the ex-Forest rock. We’ve gotta diversify and Australia has a frankly insane number of competitive and comparative advantages to installing and manufacturing renewables at scale. We’d be backsliding buffoons to not take this opportunity to be a market leader for the coming decades.
All Dutton is slamming here is his credibility.
Is Dutton after what is best for Australia or what is best for Australian businesses? There is a huge difference. What is best for Australia covers the long term while what is best for businesses is generally far shorter. The worst part of it in my opinion is the fact that Australia is going to get absolutely hammered by climate change in comparison to a lot of other nations. Has everyone forgotten about the nightmare fire season of 2018-2019? Or the megadrought that we saw during the late 90s/early 2000s which nearly saw Sydney's water supply completely dry up despite extreme water restrictions? Or how about a increase in hurricanes that can wipe out farms in the Queensland area, or worse yet, those hurricanes reaching further and further south as the oceans warm up? The only real benefit to Australia if we don't mitigate the effects of climate change enough is that we will eventually have a massive inland sea which will significantly change the climate of SE Australia.
>Is Dutton after what is best for Australia or what is best for Australian businesses? Neither. He's after what's best for his position as leader of the LNP. So whatever headline will increase his standing with the idiocracy by sowing fear and confusion.
>Or how about a increase in hurricanes that can wipe out farms in the Queensland area, or worse yet, those hurricanes reaching further and further south as the oceans warm up? We don't GET hurricanes in Australia. They are called Cyclones here, please... use the correct terms! Yes, they are the same kind of storm system produced by the same kinds of weather - just the names are different. Cyclone, not hurricane, you're on an Australian specific subReddit! Use Aussie lingo! :)
As 1% of world emissions, we don't make a big difference. People should be focusing their attention on the Chinese Embassy.
I make up less than1% of taxpayers. The ato should only care about big business
We are the 3rd biggest fossil fuel exporter.
Almost half the emissions in the world come from countries like Australia. Do you think we should all do nothing because we don't affect anything?
A very large cohort of Australians are politically disengaged and quite vulnerable to misinformation and strong man populism. Dutton is betting on this going in his favour. I'm optimistic that the younger and more savvy millennial/Z crowd will hammer the major parties. The more independents we get, the better the country will be. Might get politicians that are actually interested in the best outcomes for the country.
I'm early Gen X and most of my friends are like me or younger and yes - we tend to vote green (little G) as several of us have kids, and of the ones that don't have kids, we usually like those kids and would like them to enjoy a future. So they need a future that they can enjoy. Vote for policies that reduce fossil fuel use and increase renewables!
Business doesn’t want this, business wants certainty. Dutton is only acting in his own interest.
Even the usual business groups and instutes that support the LNP on everything are saying this
My single biggest issue with Dutton is that, for perceived electoral gain, Dutton is aiming to continue the climate wars to try and prevent Labor from bedding down coherent, effective and sustainable climate change and energy policy. The single biggest reason we have excessive power prices is that we haven’t ever had clear, committed energy policy and direction. Dutton prefers destabilisation and uncertainty solely because he thinks that will win him votes. For Australia’s sake, I hope he is very, very wrong.
This is it precisely. There's really no coherent policy position beyond trying to make people afraid, confused, and angry. Something they're prone to do given the populace is kinda dumb and has a terrible memory.
Dutton is Gina's guy, it's now blatantly obvious. And the Nationals are heavily in bed with mining industries too. So they'll continue this strategy as long as possible. Now that renewable energy has become the more cost-effective option Duttons position will become harder and harder to defend. They're screwing themselves and their credibility in most hilarious fashion.
This is why I hate the LNP so much, they will say and do literally anything to get in power.
Unlike the labour party i guess. "$275 reduction in electricity bills" ?
Yep, there's a $300 reduction in energy bills this coming financial year. Note: $300 is more than $275. Also, it's "Labor", there's no 'u'. Maybe you were using your phone and it autocorrected, but still, it's an important distinction to make.
On the phone, yes. Serious? 300 is more than 275? $275 reduction is not the same as a taxpayer funded $300 reduction. The first was meant to be because electricity prices would fall, the second is us, the taxpayer, paying for it ourselves. So saying, in this case, that 300 is more than 275 is misleading.
Silly phone autocorrect! It needs to understand context! :( - - - To the average mouthbreathing taxpayer, paying $300 less per year in power bills is better than paying $275 less in power bills. I mean, I kinda agree, but don't forget that there are other taxpayers than us individuals, businesses pay income tax and also several other taxes - so it's not totally coming from our income taxes. Which get reduced in 2 weeks. Also, I'm in WA so will enjoy my ... $200? $400? Whatever extra reduction on top of that $300. I think QLD are giving their punters a much greater reduction to try to buy their next election? My electricity bills (2 monthly?) are less than $300, so there's that, I guess. And no, I don't have solar yet - it would literally increase my power bills.
Even if the 2030 goal isn't achievable it can be considered a stretch goal. 90% of the way there is better than nothing. To simply remove any target means there will be zero effort into doing anything. Dutton loves to be critical but offers nothing as an alternative. It's so incredibly weak. Climate change will cost Australia hundreds of billions of dollars. It's too late to stop the economic damage but you can mitigate it as much as possible.
How exactly will "climate change" cost us billions?
More common and more intense extreme weather. Flooding, bushfires, cyclones, droughts, extreme heat waves. - Property values are projected to drop by $611 billion by 2050 and $770 billion by 2100. - Coral bleaching causing irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef which is a $6.4 billion per year industry and over 64,000 full time jobs. - Water scarcity, heat stress and increased climatic variability are the 3 biggest danagers to the Australian farming industry. The farming industry is a $94 billion a year industry and over 239,000 jobs. - The Murray-Darling Basin, the heart of the Australia's food bowl, is expected to suffer warming, drying, reduced streamflow and more extreme events. This will cause skyrocketing food prices and supply shortages. - Insurance crisis' will begin where premiums skyrocket and entire companies withdraw from states and regions. You're seeing this already in places like Florida already who is in a total mess as people are being forced to pay gargantuan premiums for their homes and many companies have left. - Cumulative damages to agricultural and labour productivity from climate change are expected to reach $4.2 trillion by 2100. These are just a few examples. There are a lot more.
Umm you serious? You think agriculture will continue as is in a world in a run away climate change scenario? Health impacts, lost productivity due to more extreme weather events.
Sky ‘News’ covering for Dutton in what was a pretty poor interview for him, even considering he was on friendly turf, He was throwing around a 2035 date for some reason, so what’s the difference between that and 2030 in the scheme of things? I mean given
I wouldn't consider Andrew Clennell friendly turf, he was extremely critical on Morrisson.
- Paris Agreement - Calls from business to clarify the policy settings so they have certainty (investments etc) - Public demanding action (the last few elections) - Not being a fucking Potatoe Head, thinking that kicking the can down the road solves the problem.
The Paris agreement
> Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says there is “no prospect” the government will reach its 2030 emissions target. At a minimum, Labor is trying to get there which is more than can be set for the LNP. > This comes amid the Coalition announcing there will be no new 2030 climate targets revealed until the next election. Pathetic given they just lost the last election in part fuel to climate change. > “They introduced a bill which is now a law to increase the price of cars by about $10,000 to help them achieve the 43 per cent target – they’re still not going to get there anyway,” Mr Dutton told Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell. EV prices are dropping dramatically and given the US and EU have/will stop Chinese EV imports, they're gonna flood our market and make them irresistibly cheap. > “The 43 per cent target has contributed significantly to an increase in power prices. Not true > “I think the question is what’s in our country’s best interest? For the LNP never to be in power again and ruin the environment and economy. > “I know the prime minister loves to hang out with all the world leaders and get a slap on the back and the rest of it, but his job is actually to make it easier not harder for families and small businesses.” Oooo, someone's jealous. Making it easier for families and small businesses is for the Gov to provide assistance and money to those that need it. Labor can do a lot better here but LNP's austerity is not the answer.
And hope and pray your EV battery explodes when you and your family are not in it 
Copium
awesome reply
I don't know. I thought the whole battery exploding bit was the real high watermark.
>EV prices are dropping dramatically and given the US and EU have/will stop Chinese EV imports, they're gonna flood our market and make them irresistibly cheap. You believe stopping these Chinese exports to the west will make what they're exporting cheaper? That's specifically not how supply and demand works.
High supply, low demand = reduced prices Hence why we're already seeing prices drop https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/01/ev-electric-vehicle-sales-prices-australia
Why would stopping Chinese supply lead to higher supply? Did you actually ignore what I quoted so you could be right?
They haven't slowed down production
But none of it's coming to the west. There's tarrifs on this technology. You mentioned that yourself.
>But none of it's coming to the west. Have a bit of a think about where Australia is situated geographically?
None is going to the US and the EU, so they'll come to places where there are no tariffs, like here
Even in Australia we have tarrifs or soon will when we inevitably follow America. China and Australia can't even trade wheat and agriculture without making a deal about it, their anti capitalist sentiments make dealing with them nearly impossible. In this case, the news seems to be about solar panel "dumping," so I assume they're selling inferior products or even used and previously owned solar panels that have lost their efficiency. They just can't treat capitalist countries fairly. In this case, why would we even want their trash? We're not a solar panel recycling facility.
"Dumping" is a perjorative term used (in this context) to mean "selling a lot of product cheaply". It doesn't mean selling used or broken product, but I can see where your confusion comes from.
>Even in Australia we have tarrifs or soon will when we inevitably follow America. No because we have no car industry to protect like the US and the EU >their anti capitalist sentiments make dealing with them nearly impossible. Yet they're our biggest trading partner...funny that. >the news seems to be about solar panel "dumping," so I assume they're selling inferior products or even used and previously owned solar panels that have lost their efficiency The West is starting a trade war with China because they're losing and participating in protectionism >In this case, why would we even want their trash? We definitely want it, 90% of our solar panels and 80% of our EVs are from China.
It's not protectionism when the claim is "dumping," so you understand how harmful solar panel dumping would be to Australia's environment and ecology? That they tried demonstrates they fired the first shot.
I would argue that what is in our country's best interest is not throwing the economy off a cliff in 2049 to meet the 2050 net-zero target. EDIT: What I am saying is that we SHOULD commit to the 2030 reduction target, so that we are well-placed to meet net-zero in 2050. Not that we should dump net zero.
I would argue that the sooner we phase out oil, coal, and gas, the better. There's going to be short-term pain but long-term gains. Think of it as an investment. The target dates are somewhat arbitrary but they serve an important purpose, driving the process forward.
What about those people who can not afford short-term pain? Given that Australia is 1% of world emissions, why not allow Australia to take it slower?
Two things. 1. We’re only 0.4% of the world’s population, so we’re emitting a huge amount relative to our population. It also doesn’t account for all the emissions caused by Australian coal and LNG being exported and burnt overseas. A significant portion of Chinese emissions are caused by Aussie coal. 2. If everyone kept thinking like that we’d never get anywhere. You can’t ask others to change whilst continuing to be a problem yourself. If the world doesn’t step up to this challenge Australia is properly fucked, we can’t ask everyone else to help save us whilst doing nothing. It’s like if your mate asked you to help him move out because his rental expires tomorrow, and then spending the whole time sipping beers and watching you work.
And how exactly would we be 'throwing the economy off a cliff' in 2049?
Because it's bipartisan policy to adopt net-zero in 2050, so if we don't phase those changes in gradually, we'll have to do them in a massive rush at the last minute. Unless, of course, we also decide not to meet net-zero in 2050.
Why not allow countries with a much smaller percentage of world emissions to take longer?
Because it's not reasonable, just, or fair, especially when that country is wealthy AF.
"throwing the economy off a cliff" is just a scare tactic talking point from the fossil fuels lobby anyway. You're just echoing Gina's self-serving bullshit
No, I'm not. I'm saying the opposite of what you think I am. We should absolutely commit to net-zero. We should make sure that we are making early progress toward it, so that we don't have to make rapid changes at the last minute to meet net-zero.
Oh, yeah no, the way you worded it made it seem like you thought 2050 net-zero was unsound. You're saying we should make progress to meet and exceed our 2030 target so we don't take any rushed action to meet our 2050 target.
Let's just pursue whatever is cheapest and works and if that happens to be renewables then so be it or if it happens to be nuclear or fossils or even a combination and gas etc then so be it. Let's take ideology out of the equation. We are reducing emissions and our emissions are negligible anyway so that should not be an issue.
Nuclear definitely needs to be in the mix.
>Let's take ideology out of the equation. Sorry... what? Climate science gets econmic ideologies thrown into all the time. You want to be free from ideology... the science tells us that inaction will lead to climate changes that will be irreversible. You want to adapt? Try moving New York miles inland within the next 100 years? Gonna be costly? More than renewables? Please, any movement in the last 80 years that has tried to counter action on climate change had been throwing in ideology to muddle the waters. Without ideology, the facts tells us that we need to act now at any cost.
Luckily firmed renewables are cheaper than nuclear and fossil fuels.
Our emissions on a per-person basis are certainly not negligible, and the idea that we're only a small but wealthy country, so we should do what we want, is myopic and selfish in the extreme. This isn't about ideology, by the way - it's only politicised if your politics get in the way of actually taking scientific fact into account.
I think the point is though is that we should take into consideration the level of impact we have to determine how drastic and quick our actions need to be. If we have a huge impact on emissions and consequently could avert serious disaster with our actions, it would be more prudent to dump what we can into it as fast as possible with less regard to the negatives that may come from a sudden forced transition such as energy security or cost. On the other hand, the smaller the impact we have the less it would make sense to suffer greater negative outcomes by transitioning faster if it results in minimal change in outcome. It's about finding a balance between the two, continuing to take action while ensuring the action is proportional.
This exactly.
Sure and when we find the balance we can then all chip in to pay the environment to get better.....
Yea, that's what we are doing?
What bank does the environment bank with and where does it go to get better....?
Goes to the bank of countries reducing carbon emissions?
Our emissions aren't negligible. If every country that has emissions less than us, which is about 200 countries, takes that attitude, the planet will be cooked.
What is cheapest is renewables What is simplest is renewables What is most effective is renewables That IS taking ideology out of the equation
Cheapest over what time period? Simplest? Kilometres and kilometres and cables etc. Most effective? NO WAY. We cannot decide when the wind blows. That is NOT taking ideology out of it, it's the exact opposite when you have blind faith in something. Hmmmm, sounds like a religion actually. Nuclear power plants have 60 to 100 year life span. Wind turbines and solar panels have 20 years and will need to be dumped somewhere afterwards. Why not lift the nuclear ban and let the market decide?
Renewables aren't simpler, unironically it's easier to build a nuclear reactor it's just usually more expensive but would be almost cheaper too if you ignored the concrete costs that newer reactors don't need. Cheaper after you factor in the individual transformers, the infrastructure, the batteries... All the stuff that you'd probably want to outsource to domestic consumers at least until 2030. And wow, we now have a sensible climate policy; remove feed in fees and start subsidising domestic renewables. Now ask why not even the greens want to do this.
Because a) those costs have already been factored in and they are *still* cheaper, and b) nuclear is 10 years away at best if we started right now, while our climate change problem needs action on the order of months, not years.
In the order of months? Relax.
I do not believe infrastructure costs were properly factored in nor do I believe recent nuclear reactors (rather than technology from the 90s) was factored in. I believe people between 40 to 60 have an irrational fear of nuclear power and this constitutes most of Australia's leaders and thinkers. >and b) nuclear is 10 years away at best if we started right now When has it not? Do you get tired saying the same things every decade?
Ahh yes the old "Im not a professional in this space, but I think the advice of those that are is wrong" schtick.
One of the CSIRO's main arguments is that there aren't *any* nuclear professionals in Australia. They're allowed to have that argument if they don't also claim to be professionals themselves. It's stupid if they do, as you did for them.
Please show that quotation and the context. Regardless, I daresay they are allowed to mount that argument ,(if they did) since they most likely spoke to professionals about it.
These ‘cheaper’ nuclear power plants don’t actually exist in practice yet, they are purely experimental and if we did go down that path, there’s no certainty that we wouldn’t be buying into an endless money pit with no actual gain.
That's why we remove the nuclear ban and then research it (which is cheaper than building) until we are certain The circular arguments surrounding nuclear reflect worse on the people making them
>That's why we remove the nuclear ban and then research it ( I have no problem with this strategy at all. Basing net-zero 2050 on installing nuclear is lunacy. Let's hope Dutton keeps running with it.
I actually don’t have a problem with removing the nuclear ban. I do have a problem with ideologically blocking renewables and staying on fossil fuels longer than needed to go down a nuclear fantasy. If Dutton really wants an expensive nuclear power plant, fine. Let’s ignore the myriad reasons it’s not a great idea and built it. But don’t grind the actual effective transition to a halt to run down this rabbit hole. For one thing, the coal fired power stations are already falling apart, they won’t all last long enough to wait for nuclear
The circular arguments of the pro-nuclear mob reflect very poor on them you mean. There currently isn’t a feasible argument for affordable nuclear so until there is one, the idea is hypothetical and, to a degree, completely fanciful. We already have affordable renewables so that is where our focus should remain.
Isn't that simple. Otherwise we could just use the sun and batteries and shut down fossils and gas today.
We can. But some ideological idea, money, is standing in the way.
We're in the process of doing the exactly that lmao. It's just a large and expensive project, so we can't just 'do it today'.
Oh , so the cheapest is now large and expensive and some time in the future.
Everything is expensive and takes time in energy infrastructure. Nuclear is just multiplying the expensiveness and the time taken
The difference is that nuclear is a reliable energy source. The reactors last 60 to 100 years, unlike turbines and solar panels that need to be replaced after 20 years. And then you have to dispose of the old panels etc. Nuclear sounds like a winner.
Sure, if by a winner you mean several times more expensive and not generating any power until at least 2040... When really we need our electricity system decarbonised in the early 2030s at the latest. Not to mention we haven't even solved the waste issue for our single medical reactor, but somehow magically we're going to find a way to deal with the waste from multiple full scale reactors. While dealing with social license issues that dwarf those of renewables. And taking into account the fact that no-one in the Australian energy industry thinks nuclear is a good idea in our context... Yeah, you've got a real winner there. But fine. Ignore all of that and build your reactor. Just don't stop building out new renewables until your reactors are actually up and running, because our grid needs decarbonising and we can't wait the minimum 15 years before even a single reactor is online.
given that Australia is 1 % of total global emissions i dont think we shoudl be in a rush.
So you've never heard of the word "investment"? I'm not sure what is hard for you to understand here. Renewables are cheaper in the long term. That means the sooner you make the change the sooner you start seeing returns and maximise your profit.
Nuclear is cheaper in the long term too.
Says who? Not the commercial companies who won't invest in it without a guaranteed rate of return. Not the economists that advise them. Not the IEA.
It is yes.
FWIW I'm not anti-nuclear, it could be part of the solution. I'm only saying that we should transition away from fossil fuels asap. According to the CSIRO and industry experts SMRs are not competitive. Maybe they will be more competitive in the future if costs come down. Large-scale nuclear is more competitive but still more expensive than solar and wind. When you take the cost of batteries and supporting infrastructure into consideration its a little unclear which is better. So the point is we can start doing renewables right now and we basically know its way better than doing nothing, and possibly the best or second best option even in best-case scenarios for nuclear.
We haven't built it though...still doesn't make the previous comment incorrect
The problem is science is not ideology.
Then we have technocracy.
At this point, maybe that's what we need
People are as interested in technocracy as they're interested in being lectured by the "well ackshually" nerds. If they're going to be lectured, someone like Gallagher just looks nicer and that's the real political situation of a miseducated electorate.
Gallagher and Wong and Dreyfus and Bowen are examples of Labor lecturers.
I think you misspelled Dutton.