Climate Skeptic Aussie Senator Matt Canavan. By Pellowe Talk - link, CC BY 3.0, link

Aussie Election Ruling Coalition Carbon Net Zero Split?

Essay by Eric Worrall

As Australia approaches a tight May 21 federal election, the countryside based junior ruling coalition partners, the Nationals, appear on the verge of walking away from their net zero 2050 commitment.

Coalition climate split emerges as Nationals Senator labels net-zero goal ‘dead’

By Jorge Branco
7:04am Apr 27, 2022

The Coalition appears to be splitting on climate change, with Nationals Senator Matt Canavan describing 2050 net-zero targets as “all sort of dead” just hours after Prime Minister Scott Morrison was forced to defend his government’s “absolute” commitment to it.

Labor seized on the former minister and outspoken fossil fuel champion’s comments on Tuesday as a “huge development”, coming the day after Queensland Nationals candidate Colin Boyce described the target as a “flexible plan” that “leaves us wiggle room”.

Both Mr Boyce and Senator Canavan pointed to the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and particularly the dramatic impacts on oil and gas supply to Europe, as evidence of a lack of commitment to the target.

“The net zero thing is all sort of dead anyway,” he told the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing on Tuesday.

“I mean, (United Kingdom Prime Minister) Boris Johnson’s said he’s pausing the net-zero commitment, Germany’s building coal and gas infrastructure, Italy’s reopening coal-fired power plants, it’s all over. 

“I mean, it’s all over bar the shouting here.”

Read more:

Senator Canavan is right when he describes Net Zero as dead in Europe, at least until the Ukraine crisis is resolved.

But Australia has largely been shielded from the energy crisis in Europe, and the gasoline price and inflation crisis in the USA – our white hot commodities boom has kept our currency strong enough so voters in Australia haven’t felt gasoline and electricity price pain to the same extent as other countries. So Australian voters haven’t caught up with the new reality in Europe and the USA.

The ruling federal incumbents, the Australian Coalition, are composed of the Liberal Party and the National Party. To add to the fun, in the state of Queensland the Liberals and Nationals merged into one party, the LNP. Senator Canavan is LNP, but he sits with the federal National Party as a senator.

Despite the name, the Liberals in Australia claim to be a centre right party – “Liberal” has a slightly different meaning in Australia.

National Party supporters are mostly Christian conservative rural voters, who are deeply concerned about mining jobs, coal jobs and fuel prices. The Liberal Party’s support base is more urban.

Like greens in the USA, green voters in Australia tend to cluster in big cities, as far from actual contact with nature as they can manage. Support for the ruling coalition has stagnated in recent years, so senior Liberals, like Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, have been sucking up to inner city green voters in a desperate attempt to cling on to their parliamentary seats.

Until recently the Nationals were fairly climate skeptic, but under pressure from Liberals who were afraid of losing their inner city seats, the Nationals caved and announced support for Net Zero late last year.

But this pandering to greens doesn’t sit well with National Party rural voters, who are deeply concerned about rising energy costs and mining jobs. Polling suggests a lot of voters might be on the verge of defecting to minor parties with a strong climate skeptic agenda, such as One Nation. On the other side of the coin, the Green Party might be on the verge of making strong gains in inner city electorates.

If the Coalition had stuck to their principles and made a solid case for fossil fuel, energy exports, and affordable energy, they would have stood a chance of replicating climate skeptic Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s landslide election success in 2013. The Liberals might have lost some of their more useless inner city politicians, but voters generally like evidence that their politicians have principles, even if they don’t fully agree with them.

Instead the coalition went all in trying to please everyone, backflipping on climate policy to follow the latest opinion polls, and are now being torn apart by opposing demands from different groups of supporters.

The only reason the Coalition has any chance is the opposition Labor leader blundered badly in an interview, and inadvertently revealed he has a weak understanding of economics – a big issue for an electorate worried about a possible imminent economic downturn.

So it is anyone’s guess who will run Australia, after the May 21st election.

4.9 10 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 26, 2022 10:33 pm

The Nationals were bought off with funding in return for supporting the Liberals on Nett Zero.

Nationals MPs have agreed to sign up to a net zero emissions target by 2050, despite the opposition of leader Barnaby Joyce, in exchange for a regional transition package and an extra cabinet position.

Folded like a cheap suit once extra baubles were on the table.
Of course the Liberlals are in peril from the climate focussed independents in their well off core urban seats. With the preference voting scheme used in Australia and compulsory voting will lead to liberals losing seats, the Nationals keeping theirs and Morrison and Joyce out of office

Interested Observer
Reply to  Duker
April 27, 2022 6:56 am

The Liberals policy should be: China First.

Reduce Emissions – China First
Replacing Reliable Energy with “Renewable Energy” – China First
Stop Violating Human Rights – China First
Being a Good Neighbour – China First

Too many politicians in Australia want to simp for the CCP. Call the CCP and their lackeys out for their gross hypocrisy. Get foreign interference out of Australian politics – China First.

Reply to  Interested Observer
April 27, 2022 7:29 am

According to The Australian, “Labor’s deputy leader Richard Marles praised China’s record on human rights, credited Xi Jinping with being an ‘impressive, inspirational President’ and said Australia should stay out of contested disputes in the South China Sea.”

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Interested Observer
April 27, 2022 4:40 pm

Meanwhile China is in the process of taking over the Solomons, while everyone concentrates on Ukraine ― Russia.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Interested Observer
April 27, 2022 6:39 pm

Well the ALP policy is China First… Openly, to the extent the CCP has endorsed them as suitable leaders for future Australia.

Interested Observer
Reply to  Craig from Oz
April 28, 2022 1:30 am

The ALP loves the taste of Commie buttholes and continues to express its fervent desire to lick them at every opportunity.

Alexy Scherbakoff
April 26, 2022 10:35 pm

Minor parties first and greens last

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
April 26, 2022 11:50 pm

Beware the independents most are closet greenies funded by climate200 and getup. One Nation and liberal democrats are the only ones I would trust with a sensible climate policy.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
April 27, 2022 1:56 am

That is how I will be voting and in Queensland I’m not much worried about closet greenies in the minor parties.

April 26, 2022 11:04 pm

Labor will form government off the back of preference votes from independents and minor parties in more than half the parliamentary seats.

And then the Labor party will owe so many favors that will be called in, the voters heads will spin.

Popcorn will become scarcer than big macs for the entire next parliamentary circus.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Mr.
April 26, 2022 11:19 pm

People make their own preferences rather than use ‘how to vote’ cards.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
April 27, 2022 2:58 am

You and I would make our own preferences Alexy but most people don’t. Most people will follow the how to vote cards.

Reply to  RexAlan
April 27, 2022 3:53 am

OK, a yank here, what is a “how to vote” card and who, exactly, puts them out?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  2hotel9
April 27, 2022 4:42 am
The candidate gives out a how-to-vote card with their preference they want you to vote. There is no reason to vote the way your preferred candidate wants you to vote. Most voters don’t have a clue about politics and just vote the way their preferred party wants them to vote. Deals and politics.
The astute tend to look at all the candidates and make their own choice/order on the ballot.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
April 27, 2022 4:56 am

Ah, so much like mailers sent out by candidates here, got it. Thought perhaps it was a document put out by government office of some sort. Thanks!

Craig from Oz
Reply to  2hotel9
April 27, 2022 10:25 pm

There is also the ‘How to Vote’ card by the AEC (Aust Electoral Commission (or words to that effect)) that is meant to instruct people on their rights and requirements as a voter.

Simple stuff like putting numbers in the boxes, not an X or letters or emojis. NUMBERS. Start at 1 for your favourite and go up filling in all the boxes without repeating.

Simple stuff.

And, as someone who has been a party scrutineer at both State and Federal levels, people still farce that basic process up.


The ‘How To…’ cards given out by the candidates are also a bit of a farce.

Firstly they are all stuck up inside the individual voting booths anyway, so you really don’t need to take one from the people outside the polling station.

Second – it is not that hard. You SHOULD by election day have worked out who you want to vote for based on the lies… policies put out by the party. Then you find that person on the Green form (or the party they represent) and put a 1 in their box. Not that hard. Then fill in the rest of the boxes leaving no box empty and do not repeat any numbers. Not that hard.

Third – Australia used 2PP (actually 2 candidate preferred, but the differences are subtle and usually not important). What that means in practical terms is if you are top two then your preferences DO NOT MATTER.

2PP means the winner needs to get 50% + one vote to win. If they get that out of the primary votes then well done, nothing else to do. If all the primary votes (ie the votes where they gave you ‘1’) are counted and there is not 50% +1 result for anyone they take the person currently last and redistribute those votes based on the preferences given.

They then check to see if there is a 50% +1 winner, and if not go to the second last person and redistribute those votes.

Put bluntly preferences are for the losers. If you are top two you are being given preference votes, not redistributing them to other people.

So, if you are top two it doesn’t really matter who you give your preferences to on the how to vote card, because you are never going to give them out.

If you are 3rd or lower then yes, you are not going to win so the preference does matter, BUT – and this is the important bit – the actually voter is still allowed to fill in the card anyway he or she wants.

The last bit and the part that very few people seem to understand is that under Australian law you are NOT required to vote.

You are required to take part in the election process, but NO ONE is checking to see if you posted a legal vote. Once your name is crossed off the list to say you took part, you are free to go home again.

(conditions apply. You can’t remove the voting form they hand you from the polling area and stuff like that, but if you take your blank form and put it blatantly into box no one can stop or punish you for it.)

Taking part is compulsory.

Logging a formal vote is not.

If you honestly think they all suck you can vote informal.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
April 27, 2022 11:11 pm

The safest way if a voter does not want Labor in power but is not satisfied with the Coalition is to vote [1] for a candidate they prefer, probably a minor party candidate but realising no minor party can form government, and [2] for a Liberal or National candidate.

Do not play the preferential voting lottery of trickle down preference votes unless you know how it works.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
April 28, 2022 4:05 am

Ah, sort of a mini civics lesson, not advocating for any particular candidate or issue. That makes sense. We should be doing that more here, for far too long our public education system has been turning out people who have no clue how our electoral system works, making them very easily manipulated.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
April 28, 2022 9:14 am

Thanks for this Craig, well explained.
Just one thing you also needed to clarify though –
“informal voting” does not mean turning up in a singlet, shorts & thongs.

Which is what one of my 18 year old 1st time voter neighbour thought it meant.

Lawrence Ayres
Reply to  2hotel9
April 28, 2022 9:36 pm

One major difference is that only one question is on the ballot. There will be two ballot papers, one for the House of Representatives and one for the Senate. The House ballot lists the candidates and you number the squares in pencil from one through however many candidates there are. On the Senate paper there are maybe 100 plus contenders for six spots for a half senate election and you either vote for a group or you pick your six. There are no other elections at this time for mayors or governors such as you do. The ballots are counted by hand and there are always enough scrutineers to challenge any dubious vote so the results are basically fraud resistant. The one thing most conservatives would like to see introduced is voter ID. Naturally the left don’t want it. Last Federal election there were 18000 duplicate votes where some voted more than once. If an electorate can be won by a few hundred votes double voting can make the difference. BTW electorates are usually about 100000 voters each and sometimes a win is less than 1% or 1000 votes.

Reply to  Lawrence Ayres
April 29, 2022 4:35 am

Thanks for these responses, trying to sort out how elections work in other countries is a bit difficult when only sources of info are “news media” who continually obfuscate and out right lie about what is going on.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
April 27, 2022 8:31 pm

Having worked on more than a few election days I can categorically say that most people follow how to vote cards.

Reply to  Dean
April 27, 2022 11:12 pm

Same in my experience, and noting that selecting preferences independently is for most voters a minefield.

Reply to  Mr.
April 27, 2022 11:08 pm

In 2010 Labor promised there would be no carbon tax if they were re-elected to government. They lost the election and had to form an alliance minority government with the Greens and others.

Soon afterwards Labor announced the carbon tax on electricity bills of 10% and quietly at the same time added a renewable energy surcharge to electricity bills also of 10%.

Unless voters are very careful or prefer Labor Australia could end up with many problems as the Greens again influence, maybe Climate200 Teal Independent “Party” also with influence, in a minority alliance government again.

Mr is right, so many favours called in that the voter’s heads will spin, as they did when Labor was in power 2007 to 2013.

April 26, 2022 11:29 pm

Quite simply, the Liberal Party (once Conservatives) have deserted their voter base.

If they don’t win, we will all know why….. but will they admit it. !

Unfortunately Australia is in for a world of Biden-like incompetence and deliberate hurt over the next few year if Labor/Green win.

Reply to  b.nice
April 27, 2022 11:14 pm

Disagree, not entirely, but the Liberal Party as former PM Howard once commented is a “broad church” meaning of factions. The Liberal In Name Only LINO left are centre left meaning much the same as Labor centre left, as compared to Labor and Greens on the far left.

There are factions in all of the parties and even the Greens.

April 26, 2022 11:36 pm

It’s so tight that rumours are abounding that Labor and Liberal will consider giving preferences to each other, just to stop the minor parties gaining any ground in the lower house. This kind of deal is not coming from a position of strength. Topher Field has obligingly given anyone who cares a count-the-marbles guide to preferential voting which eliminates the dross at the top and gives minor freedom parties a real chance at some say in our future. The Uniparty is under threat, no doubt. How much of this has filtered down to suburban mums and retirees who still believe that tv news is the last word on truth, who knows.

Reply to  Ozwitch
April 27, 2022 2:25 am

I’ve been amused by the flood of anti-independent reports on Sky News – it does sound like they are worried.

Reply to  DaveW
April 27, 2022 11:20 pm

For very good reasons, a group of candidates working together and backed by Climate200 masquerading as Independents hoping to fool voters, mainly pushing climate change and related renewable investments and others based on climate hoax.

They are wealthy investors attempting to gain influence in Parliament to stop decisions that adversely impact on their financial interests, example the Coalition in 2019 setting an end date for RET and subsidies at 2030, changes to company laws to force greater competition between electricity supply companies that effectively favour power stations which is one of the reasons why Labor plans a new carbon tax on coal mining and burning, on gas, etc., to favour wind and solar.

Reply to  Dennis
April 28, 2022 3:00 pm

I fail to understand how the Australian Electoral Commission AEC allows the Climate 200 candidates aka Simon Holmes a Court candidates – to list as “Independents” ??? – It looks to me that by any measure – eg seriously massive funding 90% from one source “Simon Holmes a Court” and similarity of policies “Climate 200” policies – these fake Independents should have been told by the AEC – sorry gals n guys but you are a PARTY !!
And the obvious party name is “Climate 200 Party” or the “Simon Holmes a Court Party”

Reply to  Ozwitch
April 27, 2022 11:15 pm

That “rumour” is one of the oldest election diversions, mind games.

Reply to  Ozwitch
May 1, 2022 5:55 pm

Vote the majors last!

April 26, 2022 11:48 pm

The only party who have not drunk the climate change kool aid is One Nation. All others are varying shades of green. One Nation can’t control the lower house but would be great if they held the balance of power.

Reply to  Simon
April 27, 2022 3:00 am

I agree!

Reply to  Simon
April 27, 2022 3:38 pm

Actually Pauline Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, just blew it totally this morning. Sad.

Reply to  Graeme#4
April 27, 2022 11:22 pm

I have always said that Pauline makes good headlines that make good sense more often than not, but ask for details and she often struggles to respond.

She also loses the plot when pushed hard.

Bob Close
Reply to  Simon
May 9, 2022 2:53 pm

ON Senator Roberts has done his best to inform the parliament about the deceit by the CSIRO and BoM on climate issues in his several inquiries during 2015-16, he knows that the Net zero emissions policies are a cruel mistake for the world and particularly Australia.
He is now being followed by AGW skeptic Senator Canavan also from Queensland, who has come out and said what a crock of shit the NZE really is in the light of the absolute non compliance for the UN alarmist climate policies by China, India Russia etc, plus the recent backsliding on their stupid climate commitments by EU nations due to the real energy crisis there caused by the Ukraine invasion.
The Morrison government in their scientific ignorance on climate and their infamous pandering to the Greenie vote has finally lost us conservative voters, and may lose the Nationals too if the don’t wake up and repudiate the NZE garbage. They will lose some inner city Liberal wets, supporters the despicable traitor Turnbull, but that’s a bonus as far as we are concerned.
Australians must soon wake up to the global climate scam with its intendant unreliable renewable energy polices, we must stop putting our children through the climate wringer where fear of their future is a dominant culture, shame on you climate alarmists!

Ian McClintock
April 26, 2022 11:50 pm

Good on Matt Canavan, a rare politician who has the guts to stand up to his craven, lily-livered political compatriots on this crucial, far-reaching issue.

As a rural Australian, entirely dependent on the climate, I some years ago took the unusual step of investigating the underlying science of anthropogenic global warming, as it was then called, for myself.

Influences on our climate turn out to be incredibly complex, interrelated and interdependent, far far removed from the highly simplistic prognostications of the IPCC and its supporters.

Their claims about carbon dioxide (CO2) being the principle driver of our climate cannot be substantiated and are readily disproven when even a basic understanding of how greenhouse gasses actually operate in our atmosphere is obtained.

  • Water vapour is unquestionably the dominant greenhouse gas, active at over 80% of the entire infrared spectrum where emissions of thermal radiation from Earth occur.
  • Carbon dioxide is effectively only active as a spike centred on the 14.9 micron wavelength.
  • This wavelength is also partially occupied by water vapour, limiting its effectiveness.
  • The major emissions of IR radiation occur in a wide ‘radiation window’ at the peak of the emission spectrum (centred around 10 microns), where they are substantially unaffected by any of the greenhouse gasses.
  • As the atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gasses increase, their effectiveness in slowing radiation to outer space decreases exponentially until they saturate the spectrum.
  • This progressively places a natural limit on their capacity to further warm the planet.
  • The great majority of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from a range of natural sources, terrestrial and oceanic.
  • e.g. as the Oceans slowly warm during an interglacial period, they must therefore emit substantial quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, as laid out by ‘Henry’s Law’.
  • These completely overwhelm any futile attempts by man to achieve ‘net/zero carbon’.
  • Temperature always rises before carbon dioxide increases, not the other way round.

There is a lot more that can be said, however this is sufficient to support the statement that “anyone, regardless, making claims based on what the IPCC claims, simply is ignorant of the relevant science.”

Or worse, they have other agenda’s.

Reply to  Ian McClintock
April 27, 2022 12:57 am
  • The great majority of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from a range of natural sources, terrestrial and oceanic.

Is this true?

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 1:19 am

Of course it is

Reply to  fretslider
April 27, 2022 4:25 am

Actually it’s complete baloney.

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 5:31 am

Sadly (for you) and amusingly (for the rest of us) it is quite, quite correct. The continued increase in CO2 from the Mauna Loa data, despite any and all changes that have been made to anthropogenic emissions over the years, seem to indicate this quite clearly. You could shut down every single source of anthropogenic CO2 overnight and keep it shut down but the rate of increase of CO2 would carry on the same.
You’re a poor deluded fool following a faded, tired and dilapidated circus from town to town in the hope of seeing a bit of magic.
Wake up and see reality for the first time in years, Loydo; it’ll do you good.

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 8:27 am

Actually it’s complete baloney.

Citations, please.

Reply to  ihfan
April 28, 2022 12:52 am

Humans have emitted 2Gt of CO2, the atmosphere’s CO2 mass has increased by 1Gt over the same period with the other 1Gt entering sinks, mostly the ocean. Yes thats right, the ocean is a net sink not a net source. You don’t need a citation you need math.

comment image

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 12:45 pm

“it’s complete baloney”

An apt description of basically every post you make..

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 4:49 am

And my single handed mission … I am pretty sure my carbon footprint has gone up 500%.

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 7:44 am

Why does it matter?

CO2 is but one possible miniscule influence in the dynamics of what makes climate(s) tick.

As Ian writes here – the CO2 attribution conjecture is SIMPLISTIC.

Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2022 12:44 pm

” Is this true?


April 26, 2022 11:56 pm

You’re not allowed to fart in public and say the emperor has no clothes on in polite society. You’re supposed to ooh and aah and agree what fine net zero clothes the emperor has on today and then….
I say look over there…egads we’re running out of sand!
UN warns of looming sand crisis as global consumption triples (

another ian
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 27, 2022 12:30 am

A theory?


“Why Is Latin America still Poor”

I guess The WEF et al think the west has got to where they can enforce the Spanish model then?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 27, 2022 6:32 am

Goddam ayrabs messing with a chap’s Rover. Just as they’re about to get their comeuppance with net zero oily stuff the blighters are sitting on peaking sand. Where the blazes is another Lawrence when you need him?

Reply to  observa
April 27, 2022 10:28 pm

I had some clients who alerted me to this sand crisis about 5 years ago.

Just like oil ain’t oil, sand with the desirable construction qualities is completely different to the vast quantities of sand only suitable for beach construction activities undertaken by youngsters.

The amounts of construction grade sand required to build the huge number of cities to house people relocating from rural areas in Asia and Africa are colossal. Many countries in Asia have quaranteened construction sand for domestic use. Its so insane that some countries are importing suitable sandstone rock and crushing it to meet demand for the right quality sand.

April 27, 2022 1:17 am

The big political question in the UK happens to be ‘does Angela Rayner (Labour) do a Sharon Stone to put Boris Johnson off his debating stride’?

I wouldn’t put it past her!

The Grauniad tells us: Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan has declared net zero by 2050 “all over bar the shouting”

I wish we could say the same

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 27, 2022 2:24 am

Not enough to scrap green levies, though

Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
April 27, 2022 5:33 am

Vested interests – how many Tories have got money riding on the subsidy farms?

Geoffrey Williams
April 27, 2022 1:37 am

The rural voters in Aus will reward the Nationals for standing up to the net zero crap . .

Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
April 27, 2022 3:03 am

I hope so!

Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
April 27, 2022 11:23 pm

We will in the majority.

April 27, 2022 1:46 am

I’m tempted to way ‘Well done’
Eco zealots strike again! Protestors using a modified fire extinguisher douse government department in orange PAINT in ‘Stop Burning Trees‘ protest against Drax biomass power station The firm received £893million in 2021 – equivalent to adding £11.60 a year to every household’s fuel bill – for burning renewable biomass pellets instead of fossil fuels. 
Drax Power Station, Britain’s biggest carbon emitter, burnt the equivalent of 29 million trees in 2021 as critics warned wood-burning is not ‘truly renewable’ because of time it takes for trees to regrow. 

April 27, 2022 2:22 am

I suggest everyone put Green at the bottom and then Labor and then Coalition and fill in the rest with whatever independent parties you trust the most (and I don’t mean Clive) – or even the perpetual ‘independents’ that run in every election. If the polls are right and support for the major parties is only about a third of the electorate each, then this strategy could result in some MPs who could hold whatever party forms government to pro-Australia policies.

With George Christensen joining One Nation, I have no problem ranking their candidates first. I never have before, but I do trust George and Pauline was never as bad as the media claimed. I wonder what is up with One Australia? It isn’t on the official register of parties.

Anyway, the major parties have betrayed us so many times, and I mean on real conservation issues as well as infrastructure and energy, that we just cannot continue to let them pretend they are different – they are both owned by the same oligarchs and they don’t give a damn about koalas or our energy bills.

April 27, 2022 7:23 am

“Liberal” is actually now a good word for centre-right parties, as those to the left are so illiberal that the word fascist applies.

Mickey Reno
April 27, 2022 9:13 pm

Liberals conservatives, say NO to net zero, NO to intermittent, unreliable, expensive energy and say YES to cheap, reliable fuel and electricity powered by coal, oil and gas. Say NO to indoctrinating school children to be afraid of the sky. Say Australia is DONE with the IPCC, DONE with the Paris accords, and DONE funding research into climate catastrophism Sell it in exactly those terms during your campaigns. You’ll win in a landslide.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 27, 2022 11:26 pm

In an uncomplicated political world you would be absolutely right.

But politics and voter’s perceptions are always in politician’s minds, first and foremost.

And the international politics of climate hoax is extremely complicated with today Australia’s two major allies leaning on the Coalition Government here to support UN IPCC nonsense, even though the politics of energy crisis are rising in importance.

April 27, 2022 11:03 pm

I like Senator Matt Canavan, he makes sense and with net zero emissions I support him but at the same time I am well aware of the international politics prevailing. At COP26 the Prime Minister and Cabinet had no choice but to appear to cooperate at least part way, our main allies UK and US were applying pressure in support of UN demands.

Australia was required by the UN to ban coal mining and to increase Paris Agreement emissions target and target date changed from 2030 to 2025. The PM refused to cooperate and some other member nations supported Australia’s decision. For net zero emissions Australia would not formally commit by signing an agreement, instead declaring “an aspirational goal” to achieve net zero by 2050 if new technology can be developed and without damaging the economy of Australia.

In my opinion the Coalition is upsetting their own supporters and gaining few votes from the other side where climate change has a cult following, like a Church of Climate Change. However, the other decision factors include international diplomatic and trade considerations including not breaking from our allies. With about a 2 per cent share of global economy and a tiny 26 million population Australia must tread carefully. And already since COP26 the UN is again threatening to declare the Great Barrier Reef to be endangered, a tourism adverse impact potential and therefore damaging for the Queensland and National economy.

April 28, 2022 6:08 am
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights