Call to Prime Minister Scott Morrison – Time to stop pretending that you have a climate policy
Prime minister, you need a credible climate policy. It’s too dangerous to keep pretending you have one, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/22/prime-minister-its-too-dangerous-to-keep-pretending-you-need-a-credible-climate-policy Lenore Taylor Scott Morrison’s press conference on the Australian fires was just more talking points and spin. The country needs more than words
@lenoretaylor, Sun 22 Dec 2019
Scott Morrison says this is not a time for division, or partisanship, or point scoring. He says we should unite in response to the current crisis. That’s certainly true. We have been. But prime minister, this is also time to stop pretending. Talking about Australia’s woefully inadequate climate policy at this time is not partisan, it is essential. And, with respect, the same same old talking points you rolled out on your return from Hawaii just don’t cut it any more. As you acknowledged, we are facing Christmas with dread. The immediate losses – of loved people, homes, safety, breathable air, passable highways upon which to drive to holiday, blue summer sky – those are deeply unsettling and sad. But the realisation that this is how Christmas may often be for our children, not carefree like the long summers we remember, but orange-skyed, fearful, choking and desperate – that is dreadful in the truest sense of the word. As you said, we are all grateful for the firefighters’ selfless efforts, but you’re right, we need to ask whether we can really expect this from them year after year, and those questions become more urgent if we face up to the fact that this is now the way things are going to be more often. You ignored the desperate, and as it turns out prescient, warnings from the former fire and emergency chiefs in the lead-up to this season. Your acting prime minister, just this weekend, again dismissed those experts because they had been funded by the Climate Council. Surely it is now time to put those political talking points aside and start to listen. We know global heating is fuelling this unprecedented fire emergency; we’ve been warned this would happen for decades. We know it is also contributing to the drought. Not directly causing, but certainly exacerbating. Surely it is time for your government to face these facts, instead of reciting Dorothea Mackellar or diverting blame to self-combusting manure or falsely claiming “greens” are somehow to blame by preventing hazard reduction burning. They haven’t, just for the record, and those former fire chiefs you refused to meet actually had some advice about hazard reduction burns, had you chosen to listen. That requires something more than just agreeing there is a link between global heating and fires, as you now have done. This isn’t about an adjustment to your language, it requires an adjustment to your policy, it requires a credible policy, the kind of policy we know could benefit us economically, that business is begging you to enact so that they can invest. And we know that would mean we could fight for effective international action rather than continue to act as a hindrance. We know we can’t solve the heating that is exacerbating this crisis on our own, so please don’t insult our intelligence again with that “1.3% of global emissions” argument like you did at the start of this fire season. Given the consequences we are suffering, we should be doing everything we can, and we know that we are not. You’ve just kept pretending. We’ve watched your Coalition immobilised by its climate denialist faction for more than a decade, destroying repeated political efforts to do something. We watched it dispense with Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister to avoid implementing a policy that was supported by industry and green groups alike. We watched you, prime minister, hold up a coal-industry supplied lump-of-coal prop in the parliament and urge us all not to fear it, but then go to the election with a policy that was little more than a sham, enough to appease the electorate’s concerns but with fine print that didn’t promise to do anything much to reduce domestic emissions, and that didn’t offer any explanation of how you would do the things you did promise, like reduce vehicle emissions. We’ve watched our domestic emissions continue to rise, or flatline because of the terrible impact of the drought, according to the latest accounts. We’ve watched Angus Taylor act against reaching an agreement at the most recent climate talks in Madrid, by insisting – against howls of international protest – that Australia be allowed to continue using an accounting trick to meet our emission reduction obligations. Days later, there he was again, interviewed against the orange backdrop of his own burning electorate, still mouthing the same discredited talking points about Australia “meeting and beating” its emission reduction target by the use of that loophole. You just used the same line yourself. It’s too close now, too terrifyingly dangerous and loud in the fire regions, too unendurably long in the regions parched by drought, to keep pretending like this. We need to know how you’re going to transition our economy. We understand that’s a complicated long-term process, so don’t treat us like idiots, as your deputy did on Saturday with the straw-man argument that those concerned about climate change are asking for all coalmining to cease tomorrow and risking the lights going out. Katharine Murphy spelled out your political choices in her final column for the year –you could once again try to damp down our fears and hope the backlash from this summer of fires will ease when the skies do eventually clear, or you could change policy course. On your return from holidays you seemed to choose the former, which is a tragedy, because there really is no more time to waste. We are past the point where the absence of credible policy can be papered over with talking points and spin. Your predecessor knows it, your former departmental head knows it, business, unions and farmers know it, scientists and environmentalists have known it for decades. You asked us all to be kind to one another, and we certainly should be. One kind thing you could do now is to finally stop pretending.
|
|
Scott Morrison’s brand damaged by silly cover-up of his Hawaii holiday
Prime Minister Scott Morrison pulls pin on Hawaii family holiday, but the damage is already done, ABC , By political editor Andrew Probyn , 20 Dec 19, Australia’s marketing expert Prime Minister has just had his first major product recall.Scott Morrison’s brand has been damaged, as he wings his way back to Australia from Hawaii, a trifle shop-soiled and humiliated.
And all because Morrison and his office thought they could engineer silence on a family holiday.
As so often in politics, it’s the cover-up that gets you.
No-one begrudges the fellow going on holiday with his wife and lovely girls who have probably seen less of their dad this year than any in their short lives.
And he’s undoubtedly knackered from a hectic year in which he pulled off a miracle election win…….
There was no official public note issued of his absence and when one Press Gallery journalist inquired with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office as to whether Michael McCormack was Acting PM, the journalist was referred back to the PM’s Office.
And when a couple of journos asked the PMO to confirm the boss was in Hawaii, they were told this was incorrect.
Here’s a tip for the PM’s minders: don’t compound a fudge with a fib……
Morrison is actually lucky more pressure hasn’t been appliedMorrison can be grateful that Anthony Albanese has been very measured this week. Albanese has visited members of the Rural Fire Service, making breakfast for volunteers, but has constrained his commentary……
It is now very clear that the Coalition must recalibrate its climate and energy policies.
Amid the smoke haze, the community horror and angst, this is a point of real clarity.
Morrison’s attempt last week to reassure Sydneysiders concerned by the incessant bushfire haze, by asserting he’d seen it all before, didn’t cut it. Nor does it now…..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/andrew-probyn-analysis-scott-morrison-hawaii-holiday/11817356
Students’climate protest outside Scott Morrison’s residence. Greens MP arrested
‘Time politicians did something’: Greens MP among arrested at Kirribilli climate rally, Students rallied outside Scott Morrison’s Sydney prime ministerial residence to demand action on climate change. SBS News, BY TYRON BUTSON, 20 Dec 19, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge was among 10 people arrested by police outside Sydney’s Kirribilli House as they demanded the prime minister take action on climate change.
Demonstrators rallied outside Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s official Sydney residence on Thursday, protesting the PM’s overseas holidays as unprecedented bushfires burn across the state.
Some protesters had vowed to camp out on site until the PM returned from holidays until they were confronted by police on Thursday afternoon.
Mr Shoebridge, a NSW Upper House Greens MP, was among those protesters charged with failing to move on. He took aim at Mr Morrison, saying it was high time politicians left parliament to join the community demanding climate action.
Mr Shoebridge, who alleges he was trying to comply with police directives to move on when he was arrested, will face Manly Local Court on 16 January. ….
Some of the demonstrates were clad in Hawaiian shirts, while others carried placards asking “ScoMo where the bloody hell are ya?” and “When do our firefighters get a holiday?”…. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/TIME-POLITICIANS-DID-SOMETHING-GREENS-MP-AMONG-ARRESTED-AT-KIRRIBILLI-CLIMATE-RALLY
Flaws in the Senate Committee’s nuclear report
Parliamentary Committee Supports Nuclear – But Only If Everyone Is Into It , Solar Quotes, December 19, 2019 by Ronald Brakels “……..The Parliamentary Nuclear Committee used 214 pages to come to the wrong conclusion. But arriving at the right conclusion can’t be easy if you have no ability to smell bullshit in your own research.
One Solar Panel Does Not Cause 0.8 Tonnes Of CO2 Emissions
Take a look at this table included in the report, taken from a publication that advocates nuclear power:
Casually looking at that you might think CO2 emissions for both nuclear energy and solar PV are pretty low. But if we stop for one minute and use basic mathematical ability that’s available to anyone who doesn’t have to take their socks off to count to 20, then we can see that a Parliamentary committee saw fit to include a table in an official report that gives ridiculous results.
Looking at their minimum figure for Solar PV (Utility scale), I see they are claiming a large solar farm will result in at least 18 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour generated. While generating electricity from PV doesn’t result in any emissions, they are involved in the manufacture of solar panels, so they aren’t completely emissions-free. However, they are a lot bloody closer to emission free than this table suggests.
These days a typical standard sized solar panel is around 300 watts. In a solar farm in Australia on a fixed mount it will generate around 12,300 kilowatt-hours over 25 years. This means they are saying the solar panel will result in a minimum of 222 kilograms of CO2 emissions. If we use their maximum figure it will result in 2.22 tonnes of CO2, all for a panel that weighs about 18 kilograms. So they are saying manufacturing and installing one solar panel results in emissions equal to burning 80-800 or more kilograms of coal.
Jinko Solar, the world’s largest solar panel manufacturer, has a figure from 2017 of just 2.19 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour generated by a solar farm. As this has been decreasing year by year it will be even lower now. However, this is just for the solar panel and doesn’t include emissions from the construction of its ground mount or inverter, so I’ll double it to 4.4 grams. This means the actual emissions per kilowatt-hour are probably less than the best figure on the table and more than 40 times less than the worst figure. Even if we triple the Jinko figure it still comes to less than their median emissions for nuclear energy and less than 4% of their maximum figure for PV.
It’s clear the committee had no ability to detect figures that were bullshit — or they simply didn’t care.
Renewable Energy Increases The Cost Of Nuclear
Here is section 1.50 of the report:

I note the committee has failed to understand the economics of nuclear power if they think it works well with solar and wind energy. This is because if a nuclear power station produces half the energy its capable of, it almost doubles the cost of that energy. This is due to nuclear fuel being very cheap1 per kilowatt-hour, so very little money is saved by ramping down, while nearly all other costs remain the same.
This means nuclear power, which is already too expensive when operated in the most economical way — almost continuously at full normal power — becomes even more expensive when used in a grid with a significant amount of solar energy and/or wind power capacity. Australia already has more than enough to adversely affect the economics of nuclear energy and, even if we approve and build a nuclear power station in one quarter the average time it has taken overseas this century, things will be much worse for its economics by the time it’s complete….. https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/
Australia’s big problem – P.M. Scott Morrison’s lack of leadership
“…….Scott Morrison’s holiday is not the problem, his lack of leadership on the bushfires is
The prime minister’s badly timed holiday has become a source of anger but while the reaction is valid it’s the wrong thing to focus on, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor, @murpharoo, Wed 18 Dec 2019 Let’s talk about Scott Morrison’s holiday. The prime minister is on holidays, presently, while the country is still burning.
Morrison’s ill-judged holiday has become a thing, a totem, a social media event. It somehow epitomises everything that’s wrong with this bloke. As well as failing to show up at a critical time, leaving the running of the country to Michael McCormack, who struggles to run his own mulish political party, let alone anything else, Morrison is a hypocrite because he once blasted Christine Nixon for eating dinner during a bushfire…..
I think it might actually be a productive thing if Morrison stops moving for five minutes, stops trying to be the self-appointed hero of the hour. If he stops moving, then he might think more often. I think the country would benefit if Morrison thought more often, more deeply, about more things. We really do need him to think, rather than just maintain the constant barrage of humblebrag and marketing. If there’s been any lessons from the back half of this year, I think that’s the lesson. …..
What I give a shit about is we have a government, led by him, which is, in many different ways, failing to rise to the challenges of our time.
They. Are. Failing.
I get very impatient about that.
I get very worried about that.
People are angry about Morrison’s mini-break because it symbolises the lack of leadership he has shown on the bushfires; the lack of principled leadership Australia showed last week in Madrid on climate change and the Coalition’s indefensible record on climate at home; the lack of velocity in the government’s response to Australia’s stuttering economy, which was underscored by the latest midyear economic forecast, which had downgrades as far as the eye could see.
The Morrison holiday has accumulated public outrage because it symbolises absence: a prime minister missing in action on important things. A prime minister too regularly substituting rhetoric for action. A prime minister apparently too pleased with himself to understand that people need more from government than they are getting.
I totally get it.
But I’m not fussed about the holiday. What I care about, what I am minutely focused on, and will go on being minutely focused on, is what this bloke does when he gets home. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/18/scott-morrisons-holiday-is-not-the-problem-his-lack-of-leadership-on-the-bushfires-is
Smaller Nuclear Power Is Not Cheaper Nuclear Power
Parliamentary Committee Supports Nuclear – But Only If Everyone Is Into It , Solar Quotes, December 19, 2019 by Ronald Brakels “……..Smaller Is Not Cheaper
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are suggested in the report as a way of making nuclear power economically viable. The problem with this is they cost more per kilowatt than large ones. This fact should not be a surprise to anyone. The engineers who designed the large nuclear reactors in the world today are not idiots who are currently slapping their foreheads, saying, “I’m so stupid! If only I had thought of making them smaller instead of bigger!” Modern reactors are very large to keep their cost per kilowatt down. Going small has the opposite effect.
That small reactors are not cheap is made obvious by the fact Britain, which has the longest history of nuclear power generation of any country, decided to power their new aircraft carriers with kerosene and diesel rather than small nuclear reactors because of they are so expensive. This is despite the alternative being expensive oil products rather than much cheaper solar and wind energy.
An advantage given for SMRs is they will supposedly suffer from fewer cost overruns. But that sales pitch is not enough to make nuclear energy economically attractive — pay for a more expensive product so you’ll have less of a chance of unpleasant surprise expenses down the line.2…… https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/
Australian Parliamentary Committee Want Money Wasted On More Nuclear Reports
Parliamentary Committee Supports Nuclear – But Only If Everyone Is Into It , Solar Quotes, December 19, 2019 by Ronald Brakels “….They Want Money Wasted On More Reports
The report suggests we get people to write another report on how much nuclear power will cost here:
But I have a different suggestion. A much cheaper one. We just wait for another country to build and operate a nuclear power plant at a low enough cost that would be competitive in Australia. Then we can look into it.
Better yet, to make sure they aren’t exaggerating how cheap their nuclear power is, we say:
“Hey, budget nuclear energy guys, how would you like to build a nuclear power station in Australia? We give you nothing, but you get the market price for whatever electricity you sell.”
If they say, “nyet” or “bu shi” or “piss off” then we can suspect it’s not as cheap as they’re making it out to be.
If they say, “yes” then we can talk about how they’ll be required to insure it for a reasonable amount based on the costs of nuclear accidents that have occurred in the past. While nuclear power is very safe, there must have been at least one or two minor little upsets.
Everyone Has To Love Nuclear Energy
The report says that social acceptance of nuclear power is necessary for it to go ahead. So it’s not going to go ahead because that’s not going to happen. Nuclear energy has turned out to be an economic disaster overseas, we have much cheaper alternatives, and now that I think about it there have been one or two major nuclear accidents overseas that have left a bad impression.
There was a problem with a nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan. The Japanese Government estimated the cost at around $270 billion dollars. As our government is currently willing to spend around $4.5 million to save an Australian life through public health and safety measures, if we lost that amount of money it would represent around 60,000 Australian lives that potentially could have been saved with it.
Since nuclear power — at the costs we see overseas — is only going to increase electricity bills, and we have far cheaper ways to reduce emissions that are quicker to deploy, and because Australians aren’t in love with a very very small chance of a nuclear accident that has a very high cost, there will never be acceptance for nuclear power in this country. Not in its current form. But be sure to let me know when a DeLorean compatible Mr Fusion becomes available.
I’m guessing the entire section on social acceptance is only in the report so when nuclear power doesn’t get built, its supporters can say, “It’s the fault of normal Australians for not believing in the nuclear economic viability fairy hard enough”, rather than admit they themselves were wrong.
The Moratorium Means Nothing
Currently there is a moratorium on nuclear power in Australia. This means you’re not allowed to build it without special permission from the government. Well, guess what? In this country you are never going to be allowed to build a nuclear reactor without permission from the government. That’s just the way it is. I know it’s a terrible infringement of our right to build nuclear reactors in our backyards and squash courts. But on the other hand, it does support our right not to live next door to someone who’s building a nuclear reactor in their backyard, so I could go either way on this one.
The report suggests scrapping the moratorium or partially lifting it. I’m not sure what partially lifting it means. Maybe you have to ask for permission but you don’t have to say pretty please or maybe it just means they won’t be too worried if you have an eye patch, a cool scar, and introduce yourself as “The Jackal”.
Because the moratorium doesn’t really mean anything, there may not be any harm in lifting it and shutting up a few idiots who think the only reason nuclear power isn’t currently under construction in this country is because the government hasn’t muttered the magic words, “The moratorium is lifted!” So they may as well say moratorium leviosa and be done with it.
It’s not as if nuclear power is going to be built in this country one way or the other. Supporters will soon discover no one’s lining up to build reactors even with our current high wholesale electricity prices. The only way they will get built is with very substantial subsidies and the government is too busy trying to keep coal power afloat while Australia burns to waste its energy subsidising nuclear. https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/
Liberal-Party-dominated committee recommends removing Australia’s ban on nuclear power
The Energy Minister says there are no plans to lift the moratorium, and any lifting has to be bipartisan. Labor wrote a dissenting report so there seems to be no chance of bipartisanship.
|
|
Parliamentary committee recommends lifting ban on modern nuclear power technology The Advertiser,14 Dec 19
Stopping short of a full go-ahead, the government-dominated committee called for more economic and scientific analysis…… However, Labor members of the committee said the economics did not stack up and it would be “irrational” to pursue nuclear power. “There is simply no case for wasting time and resources on a technology that is literally the slowest, most expensive, most dangerous, and least flexible form of new power generation,” committee deputy chair Josh Wilson and fellow Labor members said in a dissenting report. Labor and independent Zali Steggall both called for a national energy policy but the recommendation was struck down. “A national energy policy is an essential prerequisite to the consideration of lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy,” she said. Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor, who initiated the inquiry, said the Government would take its time to consider the report. “The Government has no plans to lift the longstanding moratorium on nuclear energy,” he said. “Any changes … would need bipartisan support and broad community acceptance.” The committee, which received more than 300 submissions and held hearings around the country, made three broad recommendations. Firstly, it called for a holistic, strategic approach that would learn from international partners, identify opportunities, build bipartisanship and put “the community at the centre”. Secondly, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation should be tasked with categorising nuclear into old and new technology — so-called Generation III+ and beyond which have in-built safety features. The Productivity Commission should look at economics and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency at safety, waste, skills and governance. In addition an unspecified expert body should “educate and inform Australians”. Thirdly, the Federal Parliament should lift the ban on Generation III+ and beyond, conditional on the recommended scientific assessments. Finally, with state and territory government, the Commonwealth should commit to any approval only after “the prior informed consent of local impacted communities”. |
|
In fealty to the global nuclear industry, the Liberals line up the nuclear dump site, amendments to law, deepwater port
1. Kimba = ‘Napandee’ to be announced by Canavan as the National radioactive Suppository in January;
2. Very shortly, ANSTO & ARPANSA will say that they
cannot implement the recommendations from the nuclear energy select committee unless the Environment Conservation & Biodiversity Act is amended ~ so the Libs will attempt to cripple that legislation. Once they achieve that, then
3. This deep water port connected by rail to Kimba will allow not only the shipment of Australian, but also the
importation of international waste……
Through connection to the national rail and road network, Cape Hardy will become an internationally significant intermodal hub for agriculture, mining, and energy investment that can drive the region’s economy into the next century.
https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/mccormack/media-release/25-million-support-cape-hardy-port-precinct?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news
While ignorant tunnel-visioned politicians kowtow to irrigators, the Murray River system faces death
Water wars: will politics destroy the Murray-Darling Basin plan – and the river system itself?
Drought is not the only threat to the river system: the plan to save it is in doubt as states spar over the best way forward, Guardian, Anne Davies
The basin states – Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia – as well as the federal government, are due to meet on Tuesday in Brisbane amid threats from the NSW Nationals that it will walk away from the plan unless major changes are made.
“We simply can no longer stand by the Murray-Darling Basin plan in its current form, the plan needs to work for us, not against us,” NSW Nationals’ leader John Barilaro warned last week.
“NSW is being crippled by the worst drought on record and our future is at risk. The plan should be flexible, adaptive and needs to produce good environmental outcomes for this state.”
NSW has already flagged that it will be asking to be relieved of its remaining contributions towards the environmental water target – it has committed to saving a further 450GL – while Victoria is balking at meeting its commitments as well.
There have also been calls from various ministers to end environmental flows during the drought and to instead allocate more water for agriculture. In particular is unhappiness from NSW at the amount of water stored in the lower lakes in South Australia. That will be fiercely resisted by SA. Continue reading
Albanese attacks Coalition’s nuclear ‘fantasy’ as Greens say report should ‘alarm all Australians’
Albanese attacks Coalition’s nuclear ‘fantasy’ as Greens say report should ‘alarm all Australians’,https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/14/albanese-attacks-coalitions-nuclear-fantasy-as-greens-say-report-should-alarm-all-australians Government-dominated committee calls for partial lifting of nuclear ban and for greater work on nuclear technology, Australian Associated Press
Sat 14 Dec 2019 The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has described the call from Coalition MPs to lift a longstanding ban on nuclear energy as “fantasy”.
A 230-page report released on Friday by the chairman of the parliament’s energy committee and Liberal MP Ted O’Brien said nuclear energy should be considered as part of Australia’s future energy mix.
The government-dominated committee called for further work on nuclear technology and the partial lifting of the current moratorium on nuclear energy to allow for “new and emerging nuclear technologies”.
O’Brien said nuclear energy would also complement the government’s climate policy.
“If we’re serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can’t simply ignore this zero-emissions base-load technology,” he said.
A dissenting report by Labor MPs said there was no economic case for pursuing nuclear energy and safety issues had not been addressed.
Nuclear power has never overcome the dangers that we have seen played out around the world time after time,” Albanese told reporters on Friday after finishing off his week-long trip to Queensland.
“This is a fantasy from the government in order to avoid the real decisions that are needed of having a national energy policy that drives down emissions, drives down prices, and creates jobs.”
The inquiry, sought by the energy minister, Angus Taylor, received more than 300 submissions.
The Greens’ nuclear power spokesman, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the committee’s report should “alarm all Australians”.
She said the report opens the door to nuclear power stations and subsequent waste dumps here in Australia.
“This is absurd at best and dangerous at worst,” she said in a statement.
Is the Minister Against the Environment, Angus Taylor, really bad at arithmetic, or just a liar?
|
The Minister for the Environment and Energy, Angus Taylor, seems to have a problem with numbers, whether it’s the Sydney City Council’s travel budget or what year Naomi Wolf was at Oxford. His latest figure fiddling though is much bigger and more serious than either of those embarrassments. And it’s possibly more absurd. At the COP25 climate summit in Madrid last week, Mr Taylor was pushing the government line that Australia would meet and exceed its Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 – “in a canter”, according to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. But all the while, Mr Taylor had a graph from his department showing the claim was, shall we politely say, “false”. Without much fanfare, the Department of Environment and Energy earlier this month published its annual emissions projections. At the core of the report is the accompanying graph of Australia’s emissions of millions of tonnes of CO2-equivalent from 1990 projected out to 2030. Blind Freddy can see the government’s forecast reduction from nearly 600Mt in 2005 to 511Mt in 2030 does not represent 26 per cent. It’s actually less than 15 per cent. But with Mr Taylor’s talent for figure fiddling, the sun rises in the west, bears no longer defecate in the woods, and somehow less than 15 per cent is turned into more than 26 per cent. Because he says so. Blind Freddy can see the government’s forecast reduction from nearly 600Mt in 2005 to 511Mt in 2030 does not represent 26 per cent. It’s actually less than 15 per cent. But with Mr Taylor’s talent for figure fiddling, the sun rises in the west, bears no longer defecate in the woods, and somehow less than 15 per cent is turned into more than 26 per cent. Because he says so.\The government attempts this particular distortion of reality by claiming “carry-over credits” from overachieving in the previous Kyoto agreement reached in 1997. (That ‘overachievement’ was totted up primarily in LULUCF – “land use, land use change and forestry” – an area particularly prone to creative accounting as it involves such things as promising not to clear bush at some stage in the future.) How inconvenient that the government’s graph, including buying some for LULUCF, goes back to 1990 and shows our emissions reduction from then, or from the 611Mt peak in 2006, is still less than 15 per cent. [graph on original] The government’s claim is an international joke. What’s worse is that the Madrid meeting was supposed to be about moving the needle on from the Paris agreement. Salient nations were supposed to be able to feel the heat, smell the smoke, see the glaciers melt and therefore work to achieve more than Paris. Instead, Mr Taylor led Australia as one of the recalcitrant countries sabotaging that reasonable aim. And claiming black was white, or at least that coal isn’t a problem, wasn’t the Environment Minister’s only fiddle. He also declared that Australia is backing an unprecedented wave of clean energy investment. Well, yes – and no. Australia is enjoying a surge in clean energy generation investment this year, but then it falls away quite rapidly, as shown in another graph, this time by the construction industry analysts at Macromonitor. [graph on original] Macromonitor reckons the next clean energy investment boom doesn’t kick in until the middle of the decade when the need for storage – pumped hydro, batteries – is more acute. … https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2019/12/16/angus-taylor-emmissions-numbers/ |
|
Scott Morrison, comfy in his Morrison bubble, trashes Environment Department
Morrison torches Environment Department, Independent Australia, By Stephen Saunders | 15 December 2019, For a time, Arts and Environment were in the same federal department. Both functions have taken a hit, in Scott Morrison’s Christmas departmental reshuffle.
Australia’s first federal Environment Department debuted 1971. The function has carried forward to this day, under varying departmental banners. Since 1993, “Environment” (or “Sustainability, Environment”) has always been the leading item in a departmental title.
Not any more. “Busting” congestion, blindsiding the public service, Morrison has reversed recent history. The Environment function of the previous Environment and Energy Department goes into the Agriculture Department. It’s never been parked there before. The Industry Department mops up most of Energy and Climate.
Apparent wins there, for fossil fuels and land conversion. And never mind the fire and smoke. Brand-new Environment chief David Fredericks has been recycled as Industry chief…….
With endless growth running the show, the Department has won battles and lost wars. Our first State of the Environment report surfaced in 1986. When you decode the polite language of the scientific committees, successive reports reveal steady decline up to 2016.
It’s simplistic to say, but the Department has prospered more under Labor……
In his [Morrison’s] inflated opinion, ministers can always be relied on to “set the policy direction” correctly. As they surround themselves with increasingly docile public service chiefs.
On top of all this, he cashiers the Environment Department. And puts Energy and Climate under Industry. His religion and ideology seem to be clobbering reason and science.
Labor’s bulldog adherence to Big Coal and Big Australia undermines their credibility to oppose environmental overreach. Still, Morrison’s arrogance might come back to bite him.
Over its first 30 or 40 years, the Federal Environment Department attracted a keen cadre of officials, whose commitment and knowledge could be turned to disparate environmental issues at short political notice. They had notable successes and signal failures. But their relationships with ministers held more nuance than the feudal deference that Morrison now demands.
You can’t throw the switch, to recharge independent and vigorous environment policy advice at a moment’s notice. Rationally speaking, we need those skills, more than ever.
Weather, rain and fire are visibly different, within our own short lifetimes. Environment and growth problems have never been more obvious. The environment has returned to the public consciousness bigtime.
The “bubble” isn’t around Canberra. It’s around Morrison himself. Sure, the weakened Environment and Climate bureaus will have to answer, to him and his ministers. The physical environment may not be so obliging. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/morrison-torches-environment-department,13415
Scott Morrison and Liberals recommended lifting Australia’s ban on nuclear power
|
Josh Burns Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 13 Dec19 Today, Scott Morrison and his Government MPs ignored the experts and recommended lifting the bipartisan ban on nuclear energy in Australia.
I’ve been part of the Parliamentary Inquiry into nuclear energy for the past few months. The overwhelming evidence said that Australia should not move towards this expensive and dangerous technology. Instead of actually creating a national energy policy, Scott Morrison is now looking at a location near you to build Australia’s first nuclear power station https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/ |
|
Labor leader Anthony Albanese dismisses nuclear ambitions as a fantasy
|
A 230-page report released on Friday by chairman of the parliament’s energy committee and Liberal MP Ted O’Brien said nuclear energy should be considered as part of Australia’s future energy mix.
The government-dominated committee called for further work on nuclear technology and the partial lifting of the current moratorium on nuclear energy to allow for “new and emerging nuclear technologies”…….
A dissenting report by Labor MPs said there was no economic case for pursuing nuclear energy and safety issues had not been addressed.
“Nuclear power has never overcome the dangers that we have seen played out around the world time after time,” Mr Albanese told reporters on Friday after finishing off his week-long trip to Queensland. https://www.9news.com.au/national/nuclear-ambition-a-fantasy-albanese-says/00946ea2-8c16-45ba-b76d-5c36c8de5785#close
|
|











