Left: Adam Bandt. By Julian Meehan - adambandt.com, CC BY-SA 2.5, Link. Right: Official portrait of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. By Australian Government link

Aussie PM Faces Defeat on First Major Climate Bill

Essay by Eric Worrall

Still no ban on coal; The Green Party has vowed to oppose a weak “symbolic” climate bill which provides no roadmap for how the proposed emission cuts are to be achieved.

Greens slam Labor climate bill as government digs on 43 per cent ‘mandate’

By James Massola and Mike Foley
Updated July 14, 2022 — 7.06pmfirst published at 12.06pm

Labor’s signature climate change bill to slash emissions by 43 per cent is facing defeat in the Senate after the Greens delivered a scathing assessment of the draft legislation.

A leaked draft of the climate change bill obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age revealed the proposed legislation is largely symbolic because it will only enshrine an emissions target and oblige the federal government to make an annual progress report to parliament.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “if you’re going to legislate targets then they should be Dutton-proof and protect Australia’s targets against a future climate wrecking-government”.

“Aside from the weak 43 per cent target, we’re concerned it puts a legal ceiling on lifting the target, allows future climate-wrecking governments to announce lower targets, doesn’t seem to require the government to actually do anything to cut pollution and allows more coal and gas projects, which will put even this weak target out of reach,” he said.

“If this or a future government increases targets, as the Greens will push them to do, any targets enshrined in law should automatically lift too, but the draft bill keeps the legislated targets stuck at a low 43 per cent.”

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/leaked-climate-change-bill-enshrines-43-per-cent-emissions-cut-20220714-p5b1km.html

I agree with Greens leader Adam Bandt. If we are going to have a green leaning government which has promised to “end the climate wars”, a weak bill which stinks of climate hypocrisy is not a good start, especially when the government needs green support to pass the bill.

Obviously any attempt to hit net zero will be a dismal failure, but lets get the Aussie Brandon moment over and done with. This constant low level threat of tighter carbon restrictions, chronically expensive green tainted energy, and rampant climate hypocrisy is likely far more economically damaging than a short, sharp learning experience would be.

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
120 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 6:07 pm

Just a couple of points. First, Australia along with the rest of the southern hemisphere is already way beyond achieving net zero because of the fact that it is a carbon sink. Second, any piece of legislation can simply be repealed so Bandt’s idea that the legislation can never be undone is simply a fantasy.

commieBob
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 6:48 pm

When something is enshrined in the constitution, it can be darn hard to undo, depending on the judges.

On the other hand, the Roe v. Wade decision was eventually overturned by the US Supreme Court.

… Bandt’s idea that the legislation can never be undone is simply a fantasy.

The original Roe v. Wade decision was as close to sacrosanct as it gets. I realize the latest decision wasn’t quite the same as overturning legislation, but I do think it proves your point.

Willem Post
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 7:13 pm

Roe vs Wade was NOT enshrined in the US Constitution.
The reason it was overturned
A prior US Supreme Court had created a right, whereas no such right existed.

commieBob
Reply to  Willem Post
July 14, 2022 8:18 pm

The original Roe v. Wade decision was based on the constitution.

Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional.

link

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 9:00 pm

Bob, yes that was the faulty reasoning in the original decision. Remember that Supreme Court Justices are very skilled lawyers. They can essentially make a decision on a whim and justify it later.

commieBob
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 15, 2022 5:10 am

Exactly. Just because the judges say something is unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean it actually is permanently unconstitutional.

Anyway, my original point was to agree with you that:

… Bandt’s idea that the legislation can never be undone is simply a fantasy.

Even apparently entrenched law can be re-visited.

Willem post
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 6:13 am

IN A FREEDOM LOVING SOCIETY WITHE AN INDEPENDENT SCOTUS

rah
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 8:33 am

As it has been many times before. Kavanaugh even outlined several cases like that.

George
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 5:18 am

I suggest you read the Dobbs full opinion. You can find a link at the Washington Post or search for yourself. It is very detailed and covers the entire history of abortion in the USA and in common law. Also read the dissenting options and note which opinions have the strongest constitutional and legal arguments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/roe-wade-decision-pdf/

rah
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 8:30 am

Obviously you didn’t read the majority opinion in the decision. Kavanaugh artfully and fully addressed very point of why the decision of Roe v. Wade was wrong and why there was no protection for abortion in the Constitution.

R v W was legislation was from the bench.

Last edited 4 months ago by rah
Craig from Oz
Reply to  commieBob
July 17, 2022 7:09 am

No Bob.

You are mixing up what the constitution actually says with something that was interpreted based on the constitution.

Not the same thing.

Like an example?

Let us say that Stairman Dan decides he wants to start printing Dan Dollars as legal tender in Victoria.

Someone else goes – ‘Sorry, mate. Read Chapter 5 of the Constitution. Can’t do it’

And then, just to be stubborn, lawyers are brought in and they go ‘Yup, Chapter 5 Section 115. States not to coin money. On ya bike, Stairman.’

This is using the constitution to make a decision on Australian law.

This does not mean that ‘Dan Andrews is not allow to print Dan Dollars’ is now added to the constitution.

Alcheson
Reply to  Willem Post
July 16, 2022 7:10 pm

While I agree RvW was not enshrined in the US Constitution, what I or you think is not how it works or was set up to work. Supreme court judges exist in order to determine what is and is not covered in the constitution. If that was not the case then we wouldn’t need judges. For example, if five of nine judges were to say the ” pursuit of happiness” means RvW is covered, well guess what….

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 8:56 pm

The Australian Constitution is best described as a power sharing relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. The proposed legislation is not about enshrining anything in the constitution. That would require a national referendum which is something which is rarely passed.

Dennis
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 10:12 pm

It is important to consider the history, the colonisation resulting first in the establishment of the British Colony of New South Wales and New Zealand, and the others that followed.

The Colonial Governments decided to form the Commonwealth of Australia, the Federation of State Governments and State Parliaments, and to create a Federal Government or more correctly the Commonwealth of Australia Government and Parliament.

The areas of responsibility and powers of the State Governments are what impact most often on the daily lives of Australians.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Dennis
July 15, 2022 5:20 am

And here al along I though it was a prison run by the current inmates.

paul courtney
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
July 15, 2022 8:33 am

Mr. Bigfoot: I thought so, too, but the aussies seem to act less rationally than ordinary inmates.

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 9:15 pm

commieBob – you need to look at the Constitution. Nothing in it would apply to abortion.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  cpratt@telusplanet.net
July 14, 2022 9:57 pm

And if a matter doesn’t appear in the Constitution, then, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, it is a matter for the States to decide. The whole point of a Federal system in a Republic.

commieBob
Reply to  cpratt@telusplanet.net
July 15, 2022 5:21 am

The Constitution provides the “right to privacy” and the original judges decided that protected a person’s right to choose whether to have an abortion.
link

Willem post
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 6:24 am

That is one of the gratuitous errors of a prior SCOTUS

The “right to privacy” was never discussed by framers of the US Constitution, as also relating to abortion.

It was discussed relating to “unlawful search and seizure” by an overreaching, tyrannical government, as practiced by the FBI, an often out-of-control handmaiden of the US Department of Injustice

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 6:29 am

‘The Constitution provides the “right to privacy” and the original judges decided that protected a person’s right to choose whether to have an abortion.’

Rights in the US, per the Declaration, are deemed to be inalienable and to arise, not from government, but from a higher power (e.g., God, our Humanity, the Force, etc.). The Constitution was constructed to delegate only certain limited and enumerated powers from the States to the Federal government, with the balance remaining with the States and the People themselves.

Btw, if an FBI or IRS agent ever appears on your doorstep with a valid warrant, try telling him/her that you have a Constitutional right to privacy.

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 15, 2022 8:32 am

I’m pro-abortion, but the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade opened a whole can of worms. Almost anything could be justified under the right to privacy.

The right way to do it is to pass laws state-by-state that make it legal or illegal. In any event, it needs to be a law, not a judicial fiat. That is NOT in the purview of the SCOTUS as defined by the Constitution.

Drake
Reply to  ex-KaliforniaKook
July 15, 2022 11:03 am

The right to privacy under R vs W will require a PARENT”S health insurance to pay for a MINOR CHILD’S abortion, even though the parent was never consulted in the procedure.

BUT a dentist can’t work on the kids teeth without parental permission.

R vs W was a purely political ruling with no basis in law or the constitution, and that is clear since it did not give all children the power to do ANYTHING they wanted to do regarding their health.

NOW the left want the same “privacy” for children to get with teachers to perform “transgender” medical treatment without parental consent.

The overturning of R vs W happened at the last possible moment in US history to stop the leftist’s total overthrow of parental rights. They haven’t given up yet, and never will and this SCOTUS will need to continue overruling lower courts for years to stop the insanity being pushed by teacher’s unions and radical trans/multi-sexual campaigners.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 1:44 pm

Or right to rob a bank.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 1:38 pm

The green leader shows why these extreme socialist putches eventually fail. They are too impatient to wrought their dystopia. A smart tactician would accept the 43% handwave and set about cementing it in and drafting stuff… but, let them bring the government down. May more of the electorate will move away from the green scourge.

observa
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 8:42 pm

All the LibNats have to do is abstain from voting in the Senate announcing Labor took it to the election and although it’s highly problematic due to lack of economic technology Labor have the right to implement their fantasy. Sit back and let the Greens have at them.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  observa
July 14, 2022 9:01 pm

And when they want to undo the legislation next time they are in power?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 8:51 pm

It’s difficult to apply rational analysis to the greens.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 9:57 pm

And pointless?

mikee
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 11:18 pm

The cerebral challenged green nihilist luddites should be treated with extreme prejudice.

another ian
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 8:32 pm

FG

Otherwise we’d be solving any unemployment problem with the need for red flag bearers in front of cars

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 8:40 pm

Would Australia still be a carbon sink if you counted the CO2 emissions from coal mined in Australia that is burned elsewhere, mainly in Asia?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 8:50 pm

It all depends on how you measure such things.

LdB
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:03 pm

Depends if you include scope 3 emissions

Scope 1: direct emissions
Scope 2: indirect emissions – owned
Scope 3: indirect emissions – not owned

Last edited 4 months ago by LdB
Graham
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:41 pm

That is a very good question.
I am 100% sure that emissions from fossil fuel are counted in the country where it is used .
BUT the methane CO2 and nitrous oxide that is emitted to produce food that is exported from Australia and consumed in other countries is counted as Australian’s emissions .
The UNIPCC have got this completely wrong as they believe that the importers will pay more for the food .
This is absolute bunkum as many countries impose tarriffs on our food imports to protect their farmers from competition .
New Zealand farmers and growers export food to feed 6 times our population but we are going to be forced to pay levies/taxes on the methane and nitrous oxide emissions for all this food .
A very small proportion of people in other countries are willing to buy food that is carbon neutral ( which is a crock of shi!) as the shipping alone would use fossil fuel .
The only way that food can be called carbon neutral that is exported is by using offsets like counting CO2 that is absorbed somewhere by trees or scrub.
Finally these greens need to face up to what would happen if countries do reduce their use of fossil fuel or attempt to go carbon neutral .
It would very soon become a disaster as these people will not accept that the worlds population has quadrupled in the last 80 years and famines and food shortages which were common 80 years ago are not impacting any where the same percentage of the worlds population at present .
This could becoming to an end if the greens are allowed to restrict food production through restricting the use of fossil fuel .
There is no climate crisis .
There will never be a climate crisis .
BUT there could very soon be a food crisis .

harold
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2022 5:57 am

More CO2 emissions are always a good thing.

Reply to  harold
July 15, 2022 8:25 am

Definitely not true.
Fossil fuels burned without m0dern pollution controls pollute the air, offsetting any benefits of added CO2.

Vincent
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 14, 2022 8:52 pm

“Just a couple of points. First, Australia along with the rest of the southern hemisphere is already way beyond achieving net zero because of the fact that it is a carbon sink.”

That a good point. ‘Net Zero’ refers to achieving an overall balance between the CO2 emissions that are produced by human acitivity, and the CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere through natural processes and/or engineering projects such as ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’.

However, it’s not clear to me how one can accurately measure the amount of CO2 that is being removed from the atmosphere in a given area of land, such as Australia, through natural processes. I assume that the total amount of CO2 absorbed through natural processes will vary considerably because of changing weather patterns, such as droughts, floods, forest fires, and so on.

If one also takes into consideration the emissions from the coal and gas that Australia exports, then that changes the calculations significantly.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Vincent
July 14, 2022 9:17 pm

Thanks Vincent. Thinking about it the words net zero will probably morph into something which excludes natural processes. Politics is like that.

michel
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 15, 2022 1:43 am

As far as I can tell, Net Zero in the UK seems to mean totally eliminating all fossil fuel use for any purpose. Electrify everything, and then generate the electricity by wind and solar.

Most of the pronouncements about global emission reductions seem to involve the necessity to get emissions below something like 10 billion tons a year before something like 2040.

Neither one is going to happen.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  michel
July 16, 2022 6:30 am

Of course, their meaningless and false “emissions accounting” will ignore all the emissions that result from the production of electric cars, wind farms and solar farms.

Not that emissions mean ANYTHING in any event, because ZERO empirical evidence exists that shows CO2 to “drive” the Earth’s temperature.

Nut Zero is designed to turn most of humanity into slaves to the political classes and their uber wealthy enablers. The climate wouldn’t notice even if they did achieve it.

Last edited 4 months ago by AGW is Not Science
Herbert
Reply to  Vincent
July 15, 2022 12:45 am

Vincent,
At nasa.gov,NASA says,
“Using NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2)satellite, scientists developed a model of the behaviour of carbon (dioxide)in the atmosphere from September 1,2014 to August 31,2015.
Scientists can use models like this one to better understand and predict when carbon dioxide could be especially high or low, based on activity on the ground.”
Beside a spectrum of Carbon dioxide ranging from deep Blue to Red/ Orange there is a map of the world representing the CO2 across the globe showing the colour variations.
Interestingly all Australia seems a lovely deep blue.
It should be representative of the country’s carbon emissions including carbon sink offsets.
In an earlier thread on this topic of Australia as a net sink not net emitter, Peta from Newark displayed the satellite photo for August 2014 said to indicate the then status of Australia (as a net sink?) in deep blue.
Now NASA has 0CO-3 with the data said to be so opaque as to be indecipherable.
I would love to know what OCO- 2 and OCO-3 ultimately indicate for Australia.
The information provided by you, Richard Greene,Graham and Forrest Gardener is salient.
How are the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (Quarterly published),including LULUCF (land sinks), assessed?

Herbert
Reply to  Herbert
July 15, 2022 3:22 am

Of relevance to “net emitter or net sink”is the SMH story today-
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/hiding-in-plain-sight-scientists-discover-an-extra-76-000-hectares-of-mangroves-in-wa-20220712-p5b109.html.
“Mangrove forests are important carbon stores and nurseries for marine species and cover a thin strip of coastline in the north-west of Australia stretching some 4000 kilometres from Shark Bay to around the top of the Kimberley.
But despite the advent of satellite technology, the full extent of the remote and hard to access eco-systems has been underestimated for a myriad of reasons including massive10- metre tides obscuring tree tops in places like the King Sound at the top of Western Australia.”
Again how accurate are the figures for LULUCF (Land usage sinks)reported by the Department to the government and the UN FCCC in the Quarterly Greenhouse Gas Reports if areas like this are unknown or overlooked?

Ian McClintock
Reply to  Herbert
July 15, 2022 9:50 pm

Herbert asks: “How are the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (Quarterly published),including LULUCF (land sinks), assessed?”

The Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts are obligated to be assessed according to the rules as laid out by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), Australia being a signatory to this Agreement.

One of the glaring, inexcusable travesties imposed on signatories by these rules is the requirement to only take into account one side of the well established carbon cycle when it comes to calculating the emissions of greenhouse gasses from livestock, the emissions half.

In the case of livestock the major emission component of concern is methane (CH4). This results from methanogens in the gut that act to remove excess hydrogen from the gut by capturing it in the form of methane and expelling it. Methanogens are normal and common, including in humans.

The importance of this arises particularly when livestock have to eat low quality fodder, as they are frequently required to do under the normal, natural seasonal variations cycle.

The fermentation that occurs in the gut to process the fodder and obtain accessible nutrients from this for the animal, liberates hydrogen gas as a bye-product and an excess of this gas will correspondingly reduce the level of fermentation possible, limiting the nutrients being able to be extracted.

It is obvious that if this process of methane emission did not occur it would impact severely on the animal’s ability to survive under these harsh conditions.

This amazing ability is clearly the result of a crucial survival mechanism developed over many millions of years by the ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinian processes.

When methane is expelled into the atmosphere it is rapidly broken down into carbon dioxide, water vapour and a few other minor substances, by atmospheric NO radicles.

The problem arises when the UNFCCC rules do not provide for the calculation of the other side of the carbon cycle; – the carbon dioxide sequestered out of the atmosphere by the plants that the livestock ate.

To put this in perspective, for every tonne of methane emitted, 2.75t of carbon dioxide has previously been removed from the atmosphere by the photosynthesis plant growth process by those plants that the livestock ate.

If the full carbon cycle had been correctly taken into account, livestock would be found to be at least ‘carbon neutral’ or more likely slightly ‘carbon positive’. (Good CSIRO evidence available).

It is a scandal that this lack of scientific integrity exists, and an even bigger one that during the Howard Australian Government era they, together with the NZ Government of the day, requested the UNFCCC to correct this error, and the request was refused.

WHY?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ian McClintock
July 17, 2022 5:39 am

Because the anti-meat propaganda is another ‘arm’ of the ‘climate’ propaganda.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Herbert
July 16, 2022 6:35 am

What difference does it make?! “Emissions” are 96-97% ESTIMATES anyway, as are 100% of “sinks.”

And no matter what their “glorified guesswork” says, it’s MEANINGLESS TO THE CLIMATE ANYWAY.

commieBob
July 14, 2022 6:38 pm

Politics is the art of the possible.

The trick is to keep from giving voters a reason to hate you.

You have to look like you’re for CO2 reduction but you can’t cause the electorate too much pain. Making gasoline more expensive, for instance, is a bad move.

So, yes, politicians are basically hypocrites … unless they’re ideologues. Personally I would take a hypocrite over an ideologue any day of the week. They’re much less likely to cause great harm.

Willem Post
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 7:15 pm

The politicians have thrown in the towel and handed the government to the ideologues. who do not know their a…. from a hole in the ground.

commieBob
Reply to  Willem Post
July 14, 2022 8:27 pm

Canada’s Prime Minister (Trudeau Jr.) is actually an ideologue, and a stupid one at that. Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy can go on for hours about just how bad and dangerous Trudeau Jr. is. link

Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2022 8:26 am

Justin TrueDope

LdB
July 14, 2022 6:46 pm
Last edited 4 months ago by LdB
Tony Taylor
July 14, 2022 6:53 pm

The Greens are electorally safer passing nothing and whinging from the sidelines.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tony Taylor
July 14, 2022 8:52 pm

Exactly, the Greens’ demands for impossible emission targets perversely keep them in existence.

LdB
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 14, 2022 8:58 pm

They have made it an artform for years the only thing that changes is the nutcase at the helm.

Herbert
July 14, 2022 7:04 pm

Eric,
Adam Bandt is right on one point.
The Bill does not give a pathway to achieving 82% renewables by 2030 or 43% reduction in emissions by 2030 or ultimately Net Zero 250.
The UK Parliament legislated Net Zero 2050 in 2019.
In March this year, two UK Parliamentary Committees reported that the plan to achieve Net Zero is largely in doubt.
The House of Lords Industry and Regulation Committee’s Report stated the UK will miss net zero “without urgent action”.
As its Chairman Lord Radcliffe stated,”The Government has set ambitious targets for net zero including a carbon free power system by 2035; however there is no point planning a carbon free energy future if you haven’t got a clue how you will get there or how it will be paid for.”
In the House of Commons, The Parliamentary Accounts Committee concluded to the same effect that the Government has no clear plan for the pathway to Net Zero nor its funding.
In 2019 the UK Parliament legislated Net Zero 2050 on an assurance that the cost would be £1.4 trillion over 30 years.
That cost appears to be grossly understated.
Australia is in the same position with its Bill, but the “vibe” trumps realism for these virtue signallers.

observa
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 15, 2022 1:27 am

By Crikey they’re beginning to twig with the hypocrisy-
Europe puts its foot on the gas — then tells Africa to slow down (msn.com)

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  observa
July 17, 2022 5:56 am

Ugh lots of delusion in that article about “transitioning’ to non-viable wind and solar, and the “promise” (LMFAO)of hydrogen.

Graham
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 15, 2022 1:55 pm

I agree with you Eric,
There is no way to achieve net zero .
Net zero is the biggest lie that the greens have pushed .
It is time for elector’s to wake up and see were the dangerous green lies are taking them .
If there really is a crisis with rising CO2 levels greens would embrace nuclear energy as once the power plants are built they are carbon zero .
The reason that they do not advocate for nuclear is because the green movement started with the” ban the bombs” (nuclear ) ,and the fear that the world was doomed .
When the threat of nuclear annihilation receded the greens looked for a new cause to fight and climate change /global warming became their call to arms .
The world can never become Zero carbon with out nuclear power as energy is essential for 8 billion people to live comfortable lives with even the basics of food shelter , and clothing .
Net Zero ,New Zealand, NO Way

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Herbert
July 16, 2022 6:45 am

Where’s Josh when you need him?

“Well, minister, 3/4 of the population have starved to death, 4/5ths of the remaining population are in the process of doing so, the electric grid is down, and winter should take most of the rest by freezing them to death. But WE HAVE ACHIEVED NET ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS!”

“Excellent, Johnson! Call for a press conference so we can announce our success!”

RickWill
July 14, 2022 7:06 pm

more economically damaging than a short, sharp learning experience would be.

I have always been hopeful that Australia would learn from others. The reason for Sri Lanka’s economic demise has not had any press in Australia.

Even if Germany and the UK kill people this coming winter, I expect Australia will forge ahead with the insanity in the belief that Australia will do it better.

So they quicker and deeper the pain, the sooner and more enduring the recovery.

Green paranoia will guarantee Dutton’s future as PM for a long time.

Mr.
Reply to  RickWill
July 14, 2022 7:29 pm

All the world needs to learn from California what a HUGE problem they are facing by rushing headlong into rooftop solar –

https://www.foxnews.com/media/la-times-op-ed-warns-about-environmental-danger-solar-transition

Bottom line –

SOLAR PANELS ARE THE NEW ASBESTOS

RickWill
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 8:07 pm

Sadly, I have to agree that lights need to go out in Australia, probably repeatedly, before the reality of supplying on-demand electricity hits home.

Going off-grid is already an economic proposition for most mainland Australian suburban households. However it does not help those stuck in apartments or the big aluminium smelters that were lured to operate in Australia to use near zero marginal cost base load electricity that lowered the cost of electricity for everyone.

Simonsays
Reply to  RickWill
July 14, 2022 8:37 pm

Actually we did have the lights go out in the 1970s and rolling blackouts because successive NSW governments had failed to build any power stations. That forced the government to act and build the Hunter Valley power stations which are now end of life. History will need to repeat itself as people have forgotten its not much fun living by candlelight.

AndyHce
Reply to  Simonsays
July 14, 2022 10:03 pm

its not much fun living by candlelight

It is ok if you only have to do it once each year, on its special holiday.

lyn roberts
Reply to  Simonsays
July 15, 2022 5:06 pm

Husband will not be at home if our power goes out for any length of time he will be in the hospital as he is a heart failure patient with a pacemaker & de-fib and a cpap machine for when he forgets to breathe when asleep, he then de-fibs after his heart starts racing 200bpm due to lack of oxygen. How does the govt like paying for his ability to sleep safely and or providing us with a generator so we can have supply of power. Hospital admission I believe about $3500.00 and then $1500.00 a night therafter. Price of generator ????.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  lyn roberts
July 17, 2022 6:02 am

And then what if the hospital has no power, or their generators run out of fuel based on ‘green’ lunacy?

Bob Close
Reply to  Simonsays
July 17, 2022 6:57 am

Very well said guys!, Sceptics have tried for years to educate the politicians about the absurdities of AGW and related de-carbonisation energy policies. So now we will have to have blackouts to prove our case about the unreliable weather dependent technologies in vogue today. It’s crazy but this is where we are at, but we are not alone in this crisis, so they all must be as stupid as we are.

LdB
Reply to  RickWill
July 14, 2022 9:00 pm

Not Australia only the East Coast and South Australia some states and territories haven’t been that stupid.

Peter K
Reply to  RickWill
July 14, 2022 9:56 pm

This winter, The Australian Energy Market Operator, has already rang around asking large consumers, such mining companies to reduce their consumption between 5 and 8 pm to help drop the peak. Australia now has equal renewable energy name plate capacity with the total Coal and Gas generators. However Coal fired power stations still supply over 70% of the energy, once the sun has set. For Australia, renewable energy, 24/7 is many billions of tax dollars away yet.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Peter K
July 17, 2022 6:04 am

Renewables will never be able to supply 24/7 power, no matter how many billions they squander on them.

Therein lies the problem.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  RickWill
July 14, 2022 10:05 pm

We also need the lights to go out all across California – not just in the rural areas, punishing the “deniers” and protecting the virtue signalers in SF and Marin County. But California has already outlawed small ICE-engined devices, such as residential backup generators. So going off-grid isn’t an option.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 17, 2022 6:00 am

No clearly even that has no effect – look how quickly they rushed to defend wind power in Texas during the February 2021 blackouts, when wind was the domino that almost brought down the whole Texas grid.

Bob Close
Reply to  RickWill
July 17, 2022 6:50 am

Yes but Dutton and the Nationals need to say no to Net Zero now. Senator Canavan is the only politician with the guts to state the obvious about net zero and the other green fantasies. We need more people with his integrity and common sense in parliament. Maybe the One Nation people will back him in the senate, Senator Roberts has form in the climate debate, he at least has tried and got the Abbott/ Turnbull government to censor the CSIRO for their blatant climate alarmism.

Alexy Scherbakoff
July 14, 2022 7:36 pm

I’d be curious to see what the Greens idiot would write, instead of whining about what is proposed. Tell us what you would do if you had the power.

AndyHce
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
July 14, 2022 10:05 pm

Poi Pot?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  AndyHce
July 14, 2022 10:59 pm

Management 101:
Ignore someone who only comes to you with a complaint without having a solution for the problem.
Probably too difficult for his group to write draft legislation with a full costing.

Last edited 4 months ago by Alexy Scherbakoff
July 14, 2022 8:37 pm

“Obviously any attempt to hit net zero will be a dismal failure,”

Not true. Defining dismal failure as Nut Zero related blackouts:

A dismal failure of the Nut Zero project in Australia, Germany, UK, Texas, California, etc. may be the only thing that can stop Nut Zero elsewhere.

I hate to hope for a blackout event that will hurt some people, but it may be the last great hope to stop Nut Zero in the US and elsewhere.

Nut Zero is spending a huge amount of money and labor hours to make electric grids less reliable. While China, India, Russia and every undeveloped nation could not care less about Nut Zero, so CO2 levels will continue to rise.
The investment of money and labor hours in Nut Zero is not available for other things, that people want to IMPROVE their lives. Perhaps a better nuclear reactor, or a cure for cancer — the opportunity cost of Nut Zero is huge. No one knows how much Nut Zero might cost because plans are not sufficient for an accurate cost estimate, especially on the subject of needed battery capacity.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 17, 2022 6:09 am

The “needed battery capacity” would probably exhaust the known sources of the requisite raw materials to build it ONCE. And since you have to keep replacing it on short time scales, essentially impossible.

AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, of course, because atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically shown to “drive” anything.

Waza
July 14, 2022 9:09 pm

As an Australian I’m still not sure what the best way forward is.
Sadly I also think we need a public failure.

Some thoughts.
Australia has multiple layers of government, state, local and authorities.
I suspect it will be one of theses smaller organisations which will try and go all out green and then fail.
I hope its very public.

Currently we have various government authorities telling other authorities what to do, and these authorities just bending over and accepting.
Example drainage authority telling road authority to raise road or bridge above some future modelled sea level rise or storm flood level. This adds to cost of project where public ultimately pay.
This is relatively small but sooner or latter a big f u will occur

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Waza
July 15, 2022 1:23 am

Waza,
We already have failed examples like King Island, cannot support itself on renewables, has no plan for success because bit is all far too expensive.
The problem is, King Island is such a car failure that is so easy to extend to elsewhere in Australia, that it embarrasses planners into a state of stupur unable to talk about it. What a bunch of croks we have in Canberra.
Geoff S

cpratt@telusplanet.net
July 14, 2022 9:19 pm

One point everyone seems to miss is that CO2 levels are currently just above starvation levels of about 195 ppm. At about 460 ppm its still way below the 1900 ppm that has been recorded with no climate change resulting. In fact life flourished. The carbon that has been sequestered over the hundreds of millions of years NEEDS to be released otherwise the planet dies.

kybill
July 14, 2022 9:27 pm

To me all this sparing over what % etc. is unnecessary. I suggest the answer is to require that the next dollar spent on “green energy” should be in the form of back-up. Make the law that the windmill and solar panel producers guarantee 60% +/- availability. Make them install sufficient batteries to provide their own back-up. Somebody will have to cough up a cost estimate. I recall that Australia has a large battery pack – scale it up and let’s see the costs.

And offer them the option to use gas to be the backup.

Simonsays
Reply to  kybill
July 14, 2022 9:42 pm

Why 60%, it should be 24×7 100%.

Derg
Reply to  Simonsays
July 14, 2022 11:57 pm

This ^

Chris Hanley
Reply to  kybill
July 14, 2022 9:43 pm

Unfortunately customers still end up paying but it would expose the lie that wind and solar are cheaper than legacy generation, let alone free.

tygrus
Reply to  kybill
July 15, 2022 6:12 am

They need to include in the projects or have supply contracts with others to provide sufficient capacity to guarantee maybe 85% of their annual expected output (or whatever AEMO etc agree too before hand). The need to be prepared to store or curtail excess output.
These agreements maybe adjusted to better match the daily demand curves & expected generation per hour through the year.
For 30% of generation/supply may involve storage & supply losses of upto 30% (=9% of generation) while another 6% maybe expected curtailment or trading with others.

The unscheduled generators (& other limitations) and demand both fluctuate based on time periods. Changes by seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, seasons, years, decades. Eg. a single wind turbine might average 33% of capacity over a year, vary between 20% & 40% in a particular day, average between 10% & 60% in a particular week but also anywhere between 0% to 100% through the year. Spreading turbines over the states may squeeze those extremes into narrower ranges for more of the time (extremes can still occur).

Building extra generation capacity & storage costs more money when it’s used less compared to it’s size. Capacity for a random few days in the next 5 years is very costly because it sits idle >99% of the time. Even capacity for a several weeks each year is still several times the cost of baseload power but on the assumption it doesn’t happen often so this extra cost adds very little to the annual average cost. That’s until we had 18 months of reduced usage then getting back to normal followed by sudden increase in demand & sudden loss of spare capacity. The 18 months of reduced demand (very low prices) & other policy risks meant fossil fuel generators weren’t encouraged to invest & less incentive for RE generators (some increase but obviously not enough).

While most coal generators can be varied from 50% to 90% over 24hrs, gas can ramp from 0% to 100% over <2 hrs for CCGT and <30mins for OCGT (cost split between upfront, maintenance & fuel). The only option is to pay extra for wind turbines, solar PV & batteries to sit idle & wait to be needed (mostly upfront cost & fixed costs with very little dependant on usage). It costs a significant amount to start & run the gas peakers for short durations but then running costs are minimal when sitting cold.

There are many variables to predict demand, supply & calculate relative costs. The scenarios are more complex than the usual assumptions & averages in any gov/public report. It would be very easy to pay “consultants” (economists or climate scientists) $millions to run the sums & be drastically wrong in practice or ridiculed for over caution (despite needing it to cover extreme cases likely to happen in any decade). Nature laughs at us calculating & trusting averages, it responds with it’s usual chaos we can’t predict.

tygrus
Reply to  tygrus
July 15, 2022 6:38 am

Adding to my previous comment..

Local & international demand increased at the same time so input costs rose at the same time as the need for the more expensive peak capacity (not enough baseload power).
It wasn’t just an accident that demand rose above predictions. Forward planning of spare generation was based on previous months/years of lower demand. Weather can also fail to match predicted averages.

Full dams sound great for Snowy Hydro generation until the downstream farmers/properties are being risked with flooding from the lower dams overflowing from so much rain & hydro output (the water has to go somewhere if it can’t be pumped back up the hill). It was built on the old case of peak during the day for a few hours & a small amount of this pumped back overnight. Then it was needed for 2 to 3x the usual MWh per week with some peak records. https://opennem.org.au/facility/au/NEM/SNOWY1/?range=1y&interval=1w (but also look at shorter & longer periods to see context).

Last edited 4 months ago by tygrus
Dave Andrews
Reply to  kybill
July 15, 2022 7:54 am

Gas is often the only practicable backup for unreliables.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 17, 2022 7:31 am

The best system simply eliminates the unreliables.

Chris Hanley
July 14, 2022 9:29 pm

Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “if you’re going to legislate targets then they should be Dutton-proof and protect Australia’s targets against a future climate wrecking-government [sic]

I’ll go along with the last bit, the climate obsession has wrecked a few past governments.
The hypocrisy runs as deep as Norway’s, two of Australia’s most valuable exports are LNG and coal, living standards and governments’ survival depend on maintaining those exports, yet they are the very commodities that the current government wants to restrict locally and the Greens wish to eliminate.

Last edited 4 months ago by Chris Hanley
Dennis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 14, 2022 10:18 pm

And so did the IPCC at COP26 in Glasgow supported by Australia’s major allies the UK and the US at that Conference.

Australia refused to stop coal mining and export at COP26.

And also refused to increase the 2016 Paris Agreement on emissions reduction target for 2030. Net zero emissions by 2050 was not a commitment, Australia offered “an aspirational goal” based on development of new technology without damaging the economy.

The fact is that Australia also signed the IPCC Kyoto Agreement in 1997 and then exceeded the emissions target, being one of the few signatory nations that achieved the target. And now Australia is on track to at least achieve the Paris Agreement target.

When the history is considered Australia should not be under pressure to do more, and one example of why is that China increase their emissions every year by more than Australia’s total emissions each year. Australia being the source of just over one per cent of global emissions.

Last edited 4 months ago by Dennis
Dennis
July 14, 2022 10:06 pm

Surveys indicate that most Australians, if we have any interest in the politics of climate hoax, as compared to knowing that climate and weather are natural events, rate climate at or near the bottom of a long list of more important concerns, like cost of living, unreliable and increasingly expensive electricity and gas, standard of education in schools and universities and more.

Prime Minister Albanese knows that pushing climate politics is a road to electoral loss, as his predecessor discovered at the 2019 Federal Election and as the previous Federal Government discovered at the recent 2022 Federal Election.

I am waiting for Labor’s back flip on the closure of coal fired power stations, subsidising for extension of operation and planning for replacements.

RickWill
Reply to  Dennis
July 14, 2022 11:32 pm

Prime Minister Albanese knows that pushing climate politics is a road to electoral loss,

Albo has stated that he has a strong mandate for reducing carbon.

I can see a few of his ministers being struck by reality – why wasn’t I told about this! But likely after the lights go out.

One of the first real decisions will be to endorse or discard the dispatchable capacity payment. Without that, more coal power stations will close and there will be nothing to supply enough power when evening demand kicks in.

Rod Evans
July 14, 2022 11:42 pm

Never underestimate the ability of the Greens’ to win defeat from the jaws of victory….

Martin
July 15, 2022 12:29 am

Not really that tough a choice between a possible “future climate-wrecking government” vs an actual “present economy-wrecking and out of touch with reality” party.

Geoff Sherrington
July 15, 2022 1:33 am

The leftist new Australian government is listening to uninformed comments from greens who are sciences illiterate.
Why will they not listen to the many scientists who are well aware of the net zero topic but conclude that it will not, cannot work?
Science is often advanced by listening to objections, but these new guys in Canberra seem determined to avoid debate.
Two recent author groups need to be heard. Koutsoyannis on the direction of causality, temperature drives CO2 levels globally; and Happer et all on the near zero ability of CO2 to add warming to radiative processes because of saturation. Either group has shown that net zero is a dead duck.
Geoff S

observa
July 15, 2022 3:02 am

Those city Teals want to connect up lots of unreliables but they haven’t reckoned on the green tractor brigade-
Tractors take to the streets of Ballarat as farmers protest Western Renewables Link (msn.com)
Oh the irony for greenies wanting to replace large hub and spoke generation with their spaghetti and meatballs wet dream.

ThinkingScientist
July 15, 2022 3:23 am

A principle of democracy, and certainly the UK parliament, is that no legislation can be passed that cannot be undone by a future parliament and legislature. So the Greens saying:

“…protect Australia’s targets against a future climate wrecking-government”

is clearly undemocratic and authoritarian. Quelle surprise.

Dennis
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
July 16, 2022 10:43 pm

Green outside, red on the inside.

George
July 15, 2022 5:30 am

The last per review on CO2 and plant growth I read was published in over 10 years ago.
As I recall, the needs to be a minimum of about 200 ppm for plants to establish a survivable root system and plant do much better with even more CO2. So doubling the CO2 to over 400 ppm is not a big deal. Removing CO2 will reduce plant growth which will result in lower mammal populations. Maybe that’s the real agenda. Check on how well reducing nitrogen worked for Sri Lanka and the Netherlands. The remainder of the West will be in the same position soon. It past time to be fully awake to the fact that we need CO2 as well as nitrogen. WAKE UP OR STARVE.

toorightmate
July 15, 2022 6:34 am

Eric,
Could you please refrain from preparing articles about the Australian Prime Minister and/or the Australian Greens.
They are highly embarrassing to any self-respecting Aussie.

tgasloli
July 15, 2022 6:41 am

Maybe before they compose any climate bills the Australian parliament should take a look at SriLanka. Is this really how Australia wants end up?

ResourceGuy
July 15, 2022 6:47 am

How can you call it a failure when it was designed to go off the rails as a stalemate in the first place?

Dave Andrews
July 15, 2022 7:49 am

According to the World Coal Association a typical modern wind turbine requires 260 tonnes of steel made from 170 tonnes of coking coal. So the EROI of wind is even worse than you state.

In addition coal combustion products such as fly ash also play an important role in the production of the cement for the turbine towers and foundations (200 -450 kgs coal is needed to produce 1 tonne of cement).

HOJO
July 15, 2022 8:18 am

As i research or read most anything on line the words , climate change, somehow makes it way into the story. When and how did this narrative takeover become so polluted stream media. The brainwashing has been epic and how do you fight back against such a strong lie

Mike Lowe
Reply to  HOJO
July 15, 2022 1:47 pm

Agreed, but the tide seems to be slowly turning. We skeptics meanwhile should take every opportunity to express out views – isn’t that what the alarmists have been doing for decades?

ResourceGuy
July 15, 2022 8:28 am
July 15, 2022 8:29 am

How about Greene’s Law?
One windmill + no wind = no electricity
One bazillion windmills + no wind = no electricity

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2022 3:02 pm

Your logic is easier to follow than Mustang’s. He is concerned about getting maximum efficiency out of wind which is free (59.3% efficiency) which appears to be a non sequitur to this discussion, as without any wind energy capture device, the efficiency is zero.

But then he switches to EROI. That seems to be apples and oranges.
.
The discussion of how ICE simply wear out but do not fail catastrophically is foreign to my experience with engines. I have had piston rods puncture the block in three engines (motorcycle in college, diesel in semi I drove in college, and a friend’s engine in a new Toyota pickup about 30 years ago. Of course, few ICEs die catastrophically; but he presents no evidence that most wind turbines die catastrophically. The argument seems weird without such data.

Please understand that I would love to see evidence that wind turbines do not provide a net return on energy or capital invested. I made such a statement to a friend a few years ago, and he asked for supporting data. I have not been able to provide him with that, only that no one seems to invest in wind turbines without an underlying subsidy. That may just mean the return is too small for the investment otherwise.

Prove me right and I can get rid of the egg on my face. In the meantime, Betz’s Law has little or nothing to do with the argument IMHO.

Michael in Dublin
July 15, 2022 9:23 am

As soon as all these green activists prove in their own homes and lives they can eliminate all fossil fuels, anything produced by fossil fuels and the byproducts of oil, I will consider their demands.

IanE
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 15, 2022 11:51 am

Not me – but it would give me a good dose of schadenfreude.

Not Dan
July 15, 2022 1:28 pm

I attended an event at the National Press Club where Bandt was on stage speaking.
He is delusional. I had to endure such drivel from this leprechaun sized pee brain that I sat jaw agape at such stupidity he espoused.
This man?? is a blight on Australia. IMO, his best service to this country would be as a fertiliser, and then you would still have to wait a thousand years for the malfeasance of poison that courses through him to be eliminated from the ground.
It is a sad state of affairs that an electorate can be so ignorant to elect this ingenious bastard. This is what the shittiest state Premier and most unlivable city in Australia producers.

Dennis
Reply to  Not Dan
July 16, 2022 10:52 pm

The founder and leader of Greens in Australia was Dr Bob Brown, when he addressed the National Press Club for the last time before he retired he spoke about his dream being a world with no border control, freedom of movement for all people and a world parliament: one world government.

And later as a retired person living in the State of Tasmania he argued against construction of a wind turbine installation on nearby hills that overlooked his property.

A couple of decades ago a journalist interviewed a group of female tennis players at tennis courts in a Sydney Eastern Suburbs location, a high wealth area, and as a Federal Election was not far away he asked them who they intended to vote for, and most said the Greens. He asked for what reasons and was told it was mainly for protection of the environment. They became known as the doctor’s wives.

Kentlfc
July 15, 2022 4:36 pm

The last three Greens leaders have been absolutists…our way or the highway, zero compromise!
That could well save us from the madness!?!?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
July 15, 2022 7:42 pm

Agree with the sentiment. We need to feel the pain until the stupid burns enough.

ATheoK
July 16, 2022 4:34 am

Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “if you’re going to legislate targets then they should be Dutton-proof and protect Australia’s targets against a future climate wrecking-government”

A worry meant as ensuring government treats climate legislation as if a tyrannical despot is running the country.

i.e., not good government for voters or citizen independence.

%d bloggers like this: