In this pivotal moment in our history, the necessity for clear, evidence-based writing has reached unprecedented urgency. The year 2024 has heralded a significant transformation, marked by a disconcerting rise in politically motivated right-wing aggression that threatens the very fabric of democratic society. Central to this coordinated disinformation campaign is a distressing crisis that undermines the core principles of democracy itself. As public trust in politicians and vital institutions erodes alarmingly, citizens grapple with an increasing sense of scepticism and disillusionment.
The rise of populism weaves an intricate thread into an already chaotic tapestry, intensifying the turmoil that pervades our society. A relentless wave of misinformation and disinformation inundates traditional media outlets and modern digital platforms, creating an almost overwhelming deluge of false narratives. This unending cycle of outrage and divisiveness fosters a dangerous atmosphere where deception survives and thrives, often morphing into accepted beliefs. As individuals navigate this chaotic landscape, they frequently find themselves ensnared, readily embracing misleading information without the careful examination it warrants.
This blind acceptance distorts their understanding of reality and undermines the foundations of truth and the stability of our democratic institutions. The rise of populism weaves an intricate thread into an already chaotic tapestry, intensifying the turmoil that pervades our society. A relentless wave of misinformation and disinformation inundates traditional media outlets and modern digital platforms, creating an almost overwhelming deluge of false narratives.
This unending cycle of outrage and divisiveness fosters a dangerous atmosphere where deception survives and thrives, often morphing into accepted beliefs. As individuals navigate this chaotic landscape, they frequently find themselves ensnared, readily embracing misleading information without the careful examination it warrants. This blind acceptance distorts their understanding of reality and undermines the foundations of truth and the stability of our democratic institutions.
Words that make you think
For Peter Dutton’s Energy Policy to be effective and achieve its intended goals, there is an underlying assumption that his political party will maintain its grip on power for an extended period, perhaps even as long as necessary, for the policy to take root and flourish. Allow me to clarify this point further.
If the Liberal National Party (LNP) were to secure victory in the upcoming election and show minimal progress over two terms – a highly plausible outcome given the intricate challenges involved – the Australian Labor Party would likely reclaim power in the subsequent election cycle. This scenario would ultimately result in Labor reimplementing its comprehensive renewable energy policy. Thus, the legacy of the LNP in the fight against climate change would amount to a disappointing 16 years of climate denial marked by resistance and stagnation on this critical issue.
Before I proceed, I must provide a disclaimer: “Bias” refers to any thought or action that unfairly discriminates against or preferentially supports one individual, concept, or group compared to another.
“It is an opinion that, in the absence of objectivity, is discriminatory and unbalanced. Its foundation is untruth and therefore cannot be impartial.”
That said, the reader can be the best person to judge my bias.
Let’s start with the reaction to Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy
1 “This is a plan which will underpin the economic success of our country for the next century,” Peter Dutton
2 “We can’t afford to let Dutton’s reckless, radioactive agenda shape the conversation about our energy future.” Get Up
3 “Never mind that the Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a fantasy – it doesn’t even claim to reduce power bills.” Adam Morten
4 “We have to make the decisions that are in our country’s best interests, and it takes the strength of the Coalition to be able to do that because we’re better economic managers.” Peter Dutton
5 “We’ve seen our standard of living collapse in front of us. Right at the heart of that is the complete failure of this government to deliver on their promises on energy.” Angus Taylor
6 “A legacy for our nation that ensures that we have the standard of living that we have today.” David Littleproud
7 “I’m trying to understand: the Coalition claims it would keep coal power stations open until nuclear plants start operating.
However, the seven nuclear plants are to be located on the sites of seven coal power stations.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor are nuclear power plants.” Dr Craig Emerson tweeted.
8 “No one has the foggiest idea of what it will cost to develop nuclear in Australia,” Mountain said. “So many things in the production, distribution and consumption of electricity are changing quickly, and many factors that affect costs and implementation are simply unknown.” Bruce Mountain, Head of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre
9 “Labor aims to boost electric vehicle adoption and invest in the green economy. The Coalition’s plan also reaches net zero but anticipates higher emissions from petrol vehicles and gas heating, overlooking their costs. Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien labels this “realistic,” yet it suggests nuclear is over $100 billion cheaper. Ultimately, the Coalition’s approach could elevate emissions and jeopardise Australia’s climate commitments. “Additionally, it would mean twenty more years of digging the dirt.” John Lord.
10 “Dutton’s nuclear plan is a dangerous con job. It’s a cover-up for more coal, and it’s a threat to people’s safety.
Remember Chernobyl. Remember Fukushima.
Nuclear is not safe. Coal and gas are not secure. Clean energy is the only safe future.” Adam Bandt.
11 “Any government, irrespective of its political ideology, that chooses to unveil significant policy announcements on Christmas Eve, seemingly with the aim of sowing confusion among the public, clearly demonstrates a profound lack of confidence in the legitimacy of that policy. Furthermore, the decision to exclusively share this information with select allies, such as Rupert Murdoch, is utterly appalling. This situation is further compounded by the fact that a political party traditionally champions free market principles has now resorted to adopting socialist monetary theories to finance its ambitious nuclear agenda.” John Lord
12 “Creating real jobs and wage growth instead of a ‘nuclear fantasy’ will convince Australians to hand Labor a second term, as the Treasurer reveals he is preparing to deliver a budget in March ahead of the federal election.” Jim Chalmers, The Australian, (Paywalled)
13 “The taxpayer cost would likely be much larger under the Coalition’s plan than under Labor’s. That’s because the Coalition’s nuclear plants would be owned, and presumably paid for in full, by the government.” Tom Crowley, ABC
14 “But the Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien nuclear plan is a horror show we may have to live and breathe. After so many years, the Coalition is still playing culture wars on the most fundamental issues of our time – and all at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.” Giles Parkinson
15 “The opposition’s plan is up against, for example, the recently released GenCost report prepared by the CSIRO. This gave a thumbs down to the nuclear option in cost terms. The opposition attempted to cast doubt on the CSIRO’s expertise, but that is unlikely to fly.” Who would you believe? Michele Grattan, The Conversation.
16 “Grattan Institute energy guru Tony Woods – described the Coalition’s assumptions as “heroic” and in defiance of international experience and reality.” Tony Woods.
18 “Mr Minns said NSW would continue to prioritise investment into renewable energy, which aims to create at least 12 gigawatts of renewable energy and two gigawatts of long-duration storage by 2030.” Tom Crowley, News.com
19 “The taxpayer cost would likely be much more significant under the Coalition’s plan than Labor’s. That’s because the Coalition’s nuclear plants would be owned and presumably paid for in full by the government (Our money), John Lord.
20 “It’s taken so long that the CSIRO has had time to conduct not one but two of its annual “GenCost” reports demonstrating what even the layperson can work out from the overseas experience of nuclear power: it’s massively more expensive than renewables, particularly the mythical “small modular reactors” that Dutton claims will be up and running by the mid-2030s.Now here we are, a few days out from Christmas, with Dutton revealing his costings at 11 am on a Friday.” Bernard Keane, Crickey.
21 “@Peter_DuttonMP’s taxpayer-funded, state-owned nuclear plan would bring to a screeching halt all the private sector collaborative investment in our renewables transition. Quentin Dempster tweeted.
22 “It’s easy to come up with the answer you want when you base your modelling on rubbery assumptions.” Nicki Hurley, The Guardian.
23 “The Coalition reveals the cost of its nuclear power plant – but the devil is in the missing detail.” The Conversation.
24 “Regional people want to know what their future holds. We need to give them a better vision for life than working at a nuclear power plant.” Laura Tingle.
One thing is clear. We are not comparing apples with apples. One scheme is up and running and doing its job. The other is nothing but an LNP plan, or thought bubble. You be the judge. Welcome to 2025. We are not genuinely comparing similar entities. On the one hand, we have a scheme that is not only operational but also successfully fulfilling its intended objectives and providing tangible benefits. In contrast, the other scheme remains a proposal from the Liberal National Party – a thought bubble that has yet to materialise into any concrete action or policy. As we stand on the threshold of 2025, the decision is yours to assess and judge the effectiveness of these two distinctly different approaches.
My search found that for and against nuclear power to be at the ratio I present.
My thought for the day
It is a pity that fact in journalism cannot be made compulsory and decency legislated.
PS: Have an outstanding 2025 in every aspect.
Also by John Lord: Prelude to an election: Voters beware (Part 1)
Further reading: Here there be dragons
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Tactically the coalition announced details of its (nuclear) energy policy a week before Christmas, at a time when our remaining critical media resources on which we rely for information and probing enquiry, had all but shut down for an extended Christmas break : that of course was the strategy of the LNP to avoid scrutiny.
I had naively expected that the coalition policy would have been discussed and dissected by our media outlets, relying on informed scientific enquiry and probing economic analysis. But we got nothing, even the ABC’s Q&A had shut shop for the holiday season.
This is just what Dutton wanted, he hopes for an election before May and to slither into office with a half-baked energy policy that has no depth or scientific rigour.
This looks to me like another AUKUS, dreamed up by a Liberal prime minister, adopted as policy by a weak opposition leaving an uninformed electorate to pick up the bill.
The not so amusing sickness in the Dutton O’Brien sketch is that it is for its patrons in media derived profiteering and the minerals groups that profit from old disgraced technology of excessive pollution through carbon burning, the oil and gas industries. My grandchildren and yours deserve better, in honesty, plannng, changing. Fumes are killing our planet and its liveability, not that a Great Dill like the ageing Murdoch knows or cares. If something worked, keep it forever, like superstition, slavery, conquest, capital punishment, even sexually transmitted diseases “to keep population down.” Let the past engorge us, ruining the future, but keeping up appearances.
It’s also the time when media outlets can run PR global campaign themes eg. the FT (generally very good) since just before Xmas had articles questioning anything renewables or non fossil fuels (general axis media PR obsesses over ie. fossil fuels – immigration).
Another example was The Guardian Oz in their rural section running articles denigrating renewables near country towns, based on sentiments and negative anecdotes of urban immigrants to country town (com)plaining…. house/land values maybe impacted…..
How media does not work anymore, especially locally…..posted onto BlueSky by a Canadian who had consulted with the ALP
‘Australian political analysis is rarely informed by global trends. Nothing that is happening to the Labor or Liberal electoral coalitions is happening in vacuum in Australia. We aren’t that unique as much as it makes our pundits feel comfortable to pretend we are.
Osmond Chiu
What I really noticed is it felt shorn of any wider global context other than a fleeting reference to the UK election, esp as party system fragmentation & housing being a huge issue are not isolated to Australia. It didn’t grapple w/ whether #auspol is just catching up to the rest of the globe’
Symptoms of selected issues or policy areas spun via media and influencers then polled for content, influence, ‘horse race calling’, dog whistling and conditioning the electorate to think they are informed; right up to when an outlier pops up and people are then speechless or look blank without a ‘script’…. even media types become speechless….
It should be “Krazius Madmanis”
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/elon-musk-changes-his-name-on-x-to-kekius-maximus-heres-why-he-did-it-and-what-it-means/articleshow/116859325.cms?from=mdr
Now the fat oaf is joining in with the lunacy:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/clive-palmer-applies-to-trademark-teal-and-clive-and-pauline-party-20250102-p5l1n7.html
2025 can only get more crazy and twisted as time goes on.
Fat chance.