- In short: The Coalition says Labor will fail to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reductions target but will damage Australian industry in trying.
- Recent projections indicate Australia is not on track for the 2030 target, but could get close if existing policies are implemented as promised.
- What next? The Coalition is focusing on gas and nuclear power, which the Australian Conservation Foundation describes as a “fantasy which Australia does not need”.
Slightly more coverage: SBS: Why Peter Dutton’s plan to ditch the Paris Agreement is being labelled a ‘disaster’
So they don’t want to get into government.
They won’t have a path to 76 seats if they can’t win back the Teal seats. Seems like they’ve given up on that, and they are trying to rally their right wing base in QLD just to keep hold of that region.
I sometimes wonder if more Liberal electorates might move to Teals? They can look at track record in other Teal seats now.
Meh, but I guess that would require knowledgeable, interested voters, instead of watching
Yell at theSky News lol
I’m having NBN flashbacks… Labor has a good plan that’s getting implemented, Liberals propose a terrible plan that has the potential to undo all of the good that’s underway… And next minute we’re on FTTN / implementing nuclear.
and in 10 years time after wasting billions they will say nuclear isn’t feasible and it’s time to ramp up coal and gas.
all by design
after wasting billions
after channeling billions to their mates
FTFY
That’s such a 1950’s mentality, nuclear energy is the future!
It cost $500m to build RAC arena in Perth, construction of a nuclear power station will cost 10’s of billions, and we’d need more than 1. Who is going to run it? We don’t have trained nuclear technicians so we’d have to headhunt them from overseas in the short term until we can train local people.
Given we don’t have a nuclear power history, we’d be better to invest all that money in renewables. We have the land mass for solar farms, we have the coast line for wind and wave energy generation and there is no waste that lasts for 50,000 years that we have to store somewhere.
It just seems dumb at this point. Nuclear energy is so incredibly expensive compared to the alternatives. Most countries are moving away from it due to it being commercially unviable. And yet here we are with the NLP acting like it’s the best thing since sliced bread.
I know they see it as their duty to push the opposite of whatever Labor’s doing but they don’t seem to care that it’s just a bad idea.
This. It isn’t supposed to succeed, it’s supposed to drag on for decades eating up all the money that could have built renewables.
@zurohki *funnel all that money to their friends.
deleted by creator
To have any chnave we have to engage in demand destruction. There are NO solutions involving growing the economy, we’ll fuck around trying though and make it much worse
It doesnt have to mean a shitty life, it does.mean a differnt life eg no car and cycle and PT means no car costs, denser quieter cities, large houses banned, small really well insulated homes only, less deaths from car polluton etc. We need to ban flying, close airports etc
All we’re doing now is greenwashed nonsense and blah blah blah. At mimum we should be building no more roads and only funding e trains and e bus lanes etc
We’ve barley started with planned withdrawal from coast lines.
We either crash the economy (preferably equitably) or we collapse civilisation, were out of choices, we have left it to long. Neither the ALP nor the LNO are up to the task but that’s on voters supporting those assholes.
Probably simple, whilst incredibly difficult. We can begin with removing
by-productsandside effectsand every last synonym of the two from our vocabulary.Coal and gas energy comes with green house gases which we conveniently called side effects and ignored. Only those side effects have grown exponentially to haunt us.
Nuclear energy comes with the question of nuclear waste.
No idea about what solar panels and wind turbines come with.
Every energy generation endeavour is an all or none, take it or leave it deal. Unless our culture accepts this, incredibly difficult.
Incredibly difficult because every listed business is required by law to grow at all costs and deliver profits and growths to the shareholders. Who has the backbone to put a strict speed limit on profits and growths? How do we police the speeds of business growths? Or how and where do we start?
More incredibly difficult because of sustained campaigns such as
individual carbon footprintwith backing from some of the deepest pockets.While on the topic of side effects and by products, another huge elephant in the room is the agriculture industry. I think we can leave it for another discussion.
Remove all targets and withdraw from all agreements:
“We are on track, and comply with all of our commitments”
Dutton’s mates will make absolute bank offa nuclear.
