“I’ll have my energy policy done by tomorrow, sir. There’s no need to give me a detention.”
“Look, you promised to have it done by 2014 and I’m still yet to see any more than a rough draft.”
“That’s because Tony ate our homework and I had to start again.”
“But that was years ago.”
“Yes, but then I was too upset until Scotty said that I just had to say that I was going to do it and then I could just ignore and hope that nobody asked…”
Someone on the radio announced that the Liberals are hoping to finalise a policy on net zero by 2050. This is rather ambiguous but I did presume that it meant that they hope to finalise a policy about net zero in 2050 in the near future, rather than assuming that they hope to have their policy on net zero finalised by 2050…
Although given their inability to actually come up with an energy policy in ten years of government…
No, that’s unfair. They came up with dozens of policies. It was just that they felt it necessary to tweak them and abandon them and then change leaders in the hope that people might think that they were a completely different party…
Ah yes, the soap opera of energy policy!
While I refer to it as a soap opera, those in the media are unlikely to do so because they’re avid watchers, eagerly awaiting the next instalment, and encouraging the public to wait with bated breath for the next cliff-hanger of will they or won’t they agree, and will it or won’t lead to a spill and will the Liberals and Nationals stay together if the Liberals make a commitment now that the Nationals have told us that their verbal commitment wasn’t worth the paper it was written on…
Yes, they all committed to net zero and now the Liberals are wondering whether to uncommit now that the Nationals have uncommitted… This does seem to be a very loose interpretation of the word “commit”.
I saw a poll the other day which said that we should abandon net zero because 81% of people wanted cheap, reliable power…
It sort of begs the question: How many answered no to that and did they answer that they wanted more expensive power or more unreliable power?
Whatever, I must say that one should never trust polls or research done when the people paying for it have an agenda. This is true whichever side of politics you support. I mean can you imagine the Labor party commissioning a poll and then coming out and saying that we’ve discovered that nobody actually supports our latest policy but a significant number will still vote for us because they don’t trust any of the other parties to govern without stuffing things up completely. Or the latest incarnation of Palmer’s Party announcing that their research has shown that even their most ardent supporters think that Babet is an idiot. Or the tobacco industry announcing that their research has found that smoking is even more harmful than…
Anyway, you get the point.
So when the Nationals tell us that their research has told them that coal is actually the cheapest form of power, we’re left wondering why any of them still support nuclear.
Of course when I say “their research”, I don’t mean that the Nationals actually did their own research (a phrase which is a loaded term, these days!). They commissioned the completely independent Page Research Centre. And by completely independent I mean that they aren’t part of the National Party and the fact that two of their board members include John Anderson, the ex-leader of the Nationals, and Christine Ferguson, who proudly boasts that she’s spent 25 years working for the Nats has in no way affected their research.
I wish to make that clear because the Page Research Centre were very upset with the ABC that tried make a big deal out of the fact that some of their research came from Coal Australia. The other 160 references weren’t Coal Australia and the ABC didn’t mention all of them, which was misleading…
In fact, in the interests of fairness, I probably should retract what I said about people only publishing the research that suits them, in case the Nationals are upset by this and feel that I am doubting that idea that net zero is a bad idea when the research they commissioned says it is.
But enough about the Nationals who, after all, are the junior partner in the Coalition and will undoubtedly fall into line once the Liberals set the agenda by making some sort of decision, one way or another, and showing the sort of strong leadership that we’ve come to expect from Brendan, Malcolm, Tony, Malcolm (again), Scott, Peter, Sussan and all those who are ignoring policy because they see themselves as leaders, not followers.
I think we can all have confidence that once the Liberals commit to a position on net zero, it’ll be a vote winner, whatever that position is, because, let’s be honest here, it’ll be hard for them to lose any more votes!
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
That chap in the headline photo, can’t remember his name, but he’s my hero,so inspirational,and I heard that his mother still packs his play lunch.What a close knit, fair dinkum, Aussie family,just like the Libs and the Nats.
And John Anderson?…he makes Angus Taylor look honest.
I doubt any one can have confidence in either the Liberal or the Nationals, thya have now both become fringe parties.
Australia needs an outgoing, forthright political agenda, we need to know where we are going and why.
Based on available information, we should be going down the nuclear path, we should be mining, value adding and waste storing here.. In fact Australia should be controlling the nuclear industry.
… we should abandon net zero because 81% of people wanted cheap, reliable power …
Renewables are already cheaper than other options, and only require suitable storage to be at least as reliable. Dumping net zero makes no sense if cost is a major factor.
leefe, if “Renewables are already cheaper than other options” why are people paying more for their electricity?
jonangel:
I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the concept of “profiteering” but it has a lot to do with today’s cost-of-living issues, and itm occurs in every single facet of our economy.
jonangel
Australia’s “Solar Sharer” program, starting in July 2026, will require energy retailers to offer at least three hours of free renewable energy daily to households with a smart meter (in my area of Qld where energy distribution remains in public hands, smart meters are currently being installed at no upfront cost). This zero-cost period will occur during the midday hours from 11am to 2pm when solar generation is at its peak and will initially be available in New South Wales, South-East Queensland, and South Australia.
This is the future of electricity generation and distribution in Australia and if you can gear your daily consumption, it will bring down costs but as leefe notes, we have to watch out for profiteering as many of the distributors are opposing this move.
All this nonsense about the Nationals and Liberals dropping their net zero policy is media posturing: it’s not actually a policy to do anything. From what I’m reading we are in the fortunate position in Australia of generating more wind and solar energy in this country than we need, the challenge is managing this bounty for our own use.
That’s not to say that we can’t export surplus solar energy as Sun Cable plans to export to Singapore via the 4,300 km Australia-Asia PowerLink undersea cable. The project includes a massive solar farm the NT, battery storage, and an undersea cable to transmit up to 2 GW of power, potentially meeting 10–15% of Singapore’s electricity needs.
We need to stop listening to the fossil fuel lobby and focus and what is actually happening with renewables in this country and around the world.
Terry, thank you for the info and yes I am aware of the “smart meters”, mine was replace two weeks ago. Regarding the “three free hours” they are in the middle of the day, the children will be at school and parents in most cases will be working, so much for the free period.
The simple fact is our world will never be free of fossil fuels and electricity will only increase in price for the foreseeable future.
This mad rush to install a renewable energy infrastructure will do more harm to the environment than good.
jonangel
Thanks for that.
I agree that the three free hours does not address peak consumption but as I read it, with battery integrity improving constantly, we will see households storing the free power plus of course gearing our domestic consumption – we have a Rheem hot-water storage tank which currently heats on ‘off peak’ power but could easily be adapted to the solar sharer free power as can washing machines and dishwashers etc – the point being that overall costs will reduce.
I also agree that coal and gas will have an ongoing, if diminishing role and in the medium to long term there may be a role for nuclear once we have addressed the significant cost overruns and project delays and the ongoing challenge of radioactive waste management.
Sadly, Leefe, as much as you can is the rule and there is no shame in bragging about despicable profits.
Spot on Terence, as usual you words scream ‘truth’.
ps
Jonangel, ‘never’ for finite material can only be right if we go before it does? Wow!’more harm than good’ have you not see a coal mine? Do you not remember the ‘smog’? Do you not accept the power of global warming or its ‘closeness’?
If by “finite material” you mean fossil fuels? Yes, I think we’ll go first.
Regarding coal mines, I’ve been down a couple.
As for smog, I spent some time in the North and Midlands in the’69’s.
As for your last question, I accept the concept of ‘global warming” but I blame GROWTH, not fossil fuels.
Jonangel, coo increases global temperature, al la Ms Foote we emit coo to get energy. There are billions of people without our standards of power who deserve access to energy if they get gas, oil and coal the reserves wont last. If we rich keep hoarding without renewables for the rest of the world, we will have to kill each other sooner or later.
wam, I agree, I have posted over many years that 1st world countries should be working to lift 3rd world countries to our or close to standards. I also believe renewables have a place, but humanity will never be free of fossil fuels and pursuing “net zero” is bullshit.