Techno-optimism alone won’t fix climate change.
Sussex Energy Group 12th May 2025 by Ruby Loughman , https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/2025/05/12/techno-optimism-alone-wont-fix-climate-change/
This blog post was originally published by the Energy Demand Research Centre (EDRC), 2 May 2025, written by Professor Mari Martiskainen.
Ex-prime minister Tony Blair was making headlines this week by saying that current Net Zero policies are ‘doomed to fail’. In a new report by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), he argues that voters “feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal”. It is an unprecedented call from a former prime minister whose party has been leading climate action in the UK. I will pick up on three key points in relation to the importance of climate action.
The science on climate change is clear
First, the science is clear. Unless we take action, climate change is going to have even more devastating impacts on our societies and the global economy. Countries such as China are seeing this as a big financial opportunity in winning the green race. The evidence on the economic prize is sound and clear: the opportunity for the UK economy is enormous relative to the impact we can have on global emissions, where green growth should be seen as this century’s central opportunity for growing more equitable prosperity.
People want climate action and clear government leadership
Second, people want to take climate action, and for that they want clear leadership from government. While the TBI report questions people’s willingness to undertake lifestyle choices, for example, it is clear from a host of academic and policy studies that people want to act and are ready to change, as long as they get clarity on what is expected. For example, the world’s largest standalone survey on climate change by UNDP found that 80% of people globally want their country to do more on climate change, and 72% want their country to move away from fossil fuels to clean energy quickly.
An academic survey of 125 countries by Andre and colleagues found that “69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action.” Many people have important conditions for this transition, such as it being fair. Crucial issues for policy attention include ensuring that people can have confidence on the value that their own financial commitments will deliver, privately and publicly. This means also the government committing to a genuinely ‘just transition’ in terms of jobs and delivering greener growth.
People must be at the centre of climate solutions
Third, the report calls for ‘actions for positive disruption’, and by this it means accelerating and scaling technologies that capture carbon, harnessing the power of AI, investing in frontier energy solutions, and scaling nature-based solutions. The latter are very welcome, but a major focus on nuclear, carbon capture and AI relates to techno-optimism and the widely debunked approach that technology alone will fix the world’s problems.
This approach leaves out a range of positive socio-technical approaches where people are at the centre of climate solutions. It also misses out on the numerous benefits that could be achieved by engaging citizens in the energy transition. A truly positive disruptive action would be for example to question the high-consuming lifestyles and excess energy consumption that many countries have, including some of those petrostates that TBI has worked for.
It also needs to recognise the opportunity that energy demand action can have in reducing emissions while also enabling a better quality of life for many. The TBI report for example claims that “proposed green policies that suggest limiting meat consumption or reducing air travel have alienated many people rather than bringing them along”. However, our research with people in the UK, for example, has found that there is support for a substantial shift in diets, including reduced meat and dairy consumption.
Addressing climate change needs to be a joined-up, global effort. This needs trusted, robust and impartial evidence applied in a world of vested interests and misinformation. Net zero policies themselves have not become toxic for the majority, yet we should not discount people’s concerns about the changes needed. Technology alone, however, is not the solution.
Solar and wind make up 98 pct of new US generation capacity in Trump’s first three months
Stillwater plant combines 33 MW of the original baseload geothermal, 26 MW of solar PV and 2 MW of solar thermal power generation
Enel Green Power North America
Joshua S Hill, May 13, https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-make-up-98-pct-of-new-us-generation-capacity-in-trumps-first-three-months/
A new analysis of government data has revealed that solar and wind accounted for nearly 98 per cent of new electricity generating capacity in the United States through the first quarter of 2025, despite efforts by the new president to unravel clean energy efforts.
The Sun Day Campaign, a non-profit research and educational organisation founded by Ken Bossong, has been fighting the good fight since 1992, and has been an invaluable tool for journalists covering clean energy in the United States.
A review conducted by the Sun Day Campaign of data recently published by the US government’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) demonstrates the momentum driving the clean energy industry, even in the face of extreme political adversity.
According to the government’s own data, solar and wind accounted for nearly 98 per cent of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first quarter of 2025, and solar and wind were the only sources of new capacity in March – a month that was the nineteenth in a row that saw solar stand out as the largest source of new capacity.
A total of 447MW of solar was installed in March along with the 223.9MW Shamrock Wind & Storage Project in Crockett County, Texas.
Over the first three months of 2025, a total of 7,076MW of solar and wind was installed, accounting for 97.8 per cent of new capacity.
The remainder was made up with 147MW of new natural gas capacity and 11MW from oil.
On its own, solar accounted for two-thirds of all new generating capacity placed into service in March, and 72.3 per cent of new capacity through the first quarter of the year. That makes solar the largest source of new generating capacity per month since September 2023.
This also brings the total installed capacity of solar and wind up to 22.5 per cent of the country’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity, accounting for 10.7 per cent and 11.8 per cent respectively.
On top of that, approximately 30 per cent of US solar capacity is considered small-scale, or rooftop solar, and is not in fact reflected in FERC’s data. If small-scale solar is added to utility-scale solar and wind, that brings the total share to a quarter of America’s total.
Adding other renewable energy sources – including hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%) and geothermal (0.3%) – renewables accounts for 31.5 per cent of total US utility-scale generating capacity.
FERC itself also expects a “high probability” that new solar capacity additions between April 2025 and March 2028 will total 89,461MW – by far and away the largest source of new capacity. For comparison, over that period, FERC expects 129,609MW of new capacity to be installed, meaning that there is a “high probability” that solar will account for 69 per cent. The next highest source of “high probability” generating capacity is wind energy, with 22,279MW, followed by 16,947MW worth of natural gas.
Conversely, FERC expects there to be no new nuclear capacity installed in its three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,372-MW and 2,108-MW respectively. And while new natural gas capacity is expected, that 16,947MW is offset by 15,209MW worth of retirements, resulting in an expansion of only 1,738MW.
“Thus, adjusting for the different capacity factors of gas (59.7%), wind (34.3%), and utility-scale solar (23.4%), electricity generated by the projected new solar capacity to be added in the coming three years should be at least 20 times greater than that produced by the new natural gas capacity while the electrical output by new wind capacity would be over seven times more than gas,” said Sun Day.
Finally, the Sun Day Campaign is currently predicting that all utility-scale renewables will account for 37.5 per cent of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity by April 1, 2028, “rapidly approaching” that of natural gas (40.2 per cent).
“If those trendlines continue, utility-scale renewable energy capacity should surpass that of natural gas in 2029 or sooner,” says Sun Day.
“Notwithstanding the Trump Administration’s anti-renewable energy efforts during its first 100+ days, the strong growth of solar and wind continues,” said Ken Bossong, Sun Day Campaign’s executive director.
“And FERC’s latest data and forecasts suggest this will not change in the near-term.”
Joshua S. Hill is a Melbourne-based journalist who has been writing about climate change, clean technology, and electric vehicles for over 15 years. He has been reporting on electric vehicles and clean technologies for Renew Economy and The Driven since 2012. His preferred mode of transport is his feet.
If the Coalition sticks with nuclear, the fallout will be toxic.
Rebecca Huntley May 10, 2025, https://www.smh.com.au/national/if-the-coalition-sticks-with-nuclear-the-fallout-will-be-toxic-20250505-p5lwmu.html
Much of the post-election commentary has rightly focused on how the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal was bad – very bad. It was one of the reasons Peter Dutton lost his seat and for net swings against the Coalition in areas such as Gippsland and the Hunter. Unpopular among women voters, who the Coalition continue to struggle to appeal to, and unpopular among undecided voters.
More importantly, nuclear undermined Peter Dutton’s credibility. After the Voice, the only real policy most voters associated with the opposition leader was nuclear. Once his ill-fated campaign began with a backflip on public servants working from home, the swath of undecided voters got spooked.
No one wants someone who seems highly disorganised to build a nuclear reactor.
If you scrutinise the research numbers, the lack of public support for nuclear was clear; more importantly, support for renewables didn’t dip in the face of the pro-nuclear push. Pursuing nuclear made the Coalition look like it was out of sync with what people really wanted. If it continues to pursue this as a policy, it will be seen as defying the will of the people.
Over the years of Labor’s first term, despite a cost-of-living crisis and well-funded campaigns against renewables online and in traditional media, research showed steady support for solar, wind and batteries. Even the election of Donald “drill-baby-drill” Trump didn’t undermine support.
The online misinformation and disinformation campaigns against renewables certainly ramped up after Albanese was first elected, supported by attacks from Sky News and the Murdoch-owned press.
The Coalition playbook was simple: cast enough disinformation and misinformation across channels to create doubt and antagonism against renewables. It fully believed it could win seats off the back of voter dislike of offshore wind in particular, especially in areas such as the Illawarra. It was in for a surprise.
The outcome of this election shows us a truth the Coalition must accept: amid a cost-of-living crisis, Australians back renewables. In fact, the overall swing towards Labor in seats where anti-offshore wind campaigns were rife was greater than the overall statewide swing. Except for Monash in Victoria, anti-offshore campaigns backfired on the Coalition.
Dutton and his Coalition colleagues in the Nationals severely underestimated the Australian people, particularly those in the regions. Support in proposed nuclear reactor communities, including Gladstone, Bunbury, Hunter and Gippsland, was weak, ranging from 22 to 32 per cent.
A poll published in this masthead in April showed 31 per cent of voters said their biggest hesitation in voting for the Coalition and Dutton was the plan to use nuclear power, up 5 percentage points from two months earlier.
This campaign was fought and won on the cost of living. In the end, Australians believed the right policies on renewables – including more access to home batteries – would save them money now and into the future.
Can you imagine what would happen if all the confected outrage over renewables disappeared, and all that was left was public opinion? The support for renewables is there once you strip away the headlines that seem to suggest otherwise.
So, what does this mean for our newly elected Labor-landslide majority government? And for a Coalition still wrestling with where to go on energy policy? When the word “mandate” gets used in relation to election victories, I have to resist a reflexive eye-roll. Election results don’t necessarily equate to public endorsement of every promise made in the campaign by the winning party. But this result is definitive, and more remarkable considering so many federal elections in the past two decades have been close. The last time there was such a strong message from the electorate was in 2007. In many respects, the Rudd government underestimated the permission the public gave it to act on climate. When Labor stepped away from that commitment, its credibility sagged.
A triumphant Albanese government, going into a second term with more power and confidence, should feel like it can act on the energy transition with a belief that the community will follow, especially if its policies deliver cost savings to households and significant and lasting benefits to the regional communities hosting renewable infrastructure. It’s a green light for further progress, but understanding community sentiment – and responding to it – will be essential to maintaining the permission.
Early signs from the Labor government indicate it knows it can proceed swiftly. On election night, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said, “In 2022, the Australian people voted to finally act on climate change. After three years of progress, in 2025, they said keep going.”
“Keep going” should be the official government slogan. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails, but early signs from the Coalition seem to indicate more of the same: support for nuclear, which really means less renewable energy.
If the members of the Coalition don’t want to believe the polling data, perhaps they should think about these figures. In the years they have been pursuing their nuclear policy, global solar power has doubled. According to the Clean Energy Council, more than 300,000 small-scale rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, bringing the total number to more than 4 million. Utility battery storage more than tripled. And last year, Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
The transition to renewables is happening, and nuclear is a policy that is too toxic for the electorate and too late to be helpful for emissions.
Any politician who resists that logic will be warming the benches of opposition for some time to come.
Dr Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s foremost researchers on social trends and a Fellow of the Research Society of Australia. She is director of research at 89 Degrees East.
I just returned from Antarctica: climate change isn’t some far-off problem – it’s here and hitting hard.
The continent stands as a powerful symbol of our interconnected climate systems – a compelling case for conservation…………………… the ocean shapes our world – and Antarctica is central to that story. The surrounding waters link the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans through the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This connectivity means that what happens in Antarctica affects us all.
Jennifer Verduin, Sun 11 May 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/11/antarctica-climate-change-threat
As an oceanographer, I study how the ocean shapes our world. For Australia and other nations, the lesson is urgent.
Antarctica is often viewed as the last truly remote place on Earth – frozen, wild and untouched. But is it really as untouched as it seems?
This vast frozen continent is encircled by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the only current in the world that connects all the oceans, showing how closely linked our planet really is.
Earlier this year, I joined more than 100 scientists on a journey to Antarctica. What we encountered was extraordinary: towering icebergs, playful penguins, breaching whales and seals resting on the ice. Yet beneath this natural wonder lies a sobering reality – Antarctica is changing, and fast. The experience left me both inspired and deeply saddened.
This unique environment highlights the fragility of our planet. Its pristine landscapes and thriving wildlife represent what we stand to lose if we don’t take urgent action to reduce human impact.
Historically, Antarctica suffered from exploitation – hunters came for whales and seals, leaving scars on its ecosystems. While wildlife is slowly recovering, these species now face a new threat: climate change. Rising ocean temperatures are melting ice, reshaping habitats and disrupting the delicate balance of life.
The continent stands as a powerful symbol of our interconnected climate systems – a compelling case for conservation. During our visit, we toured research stations and Port Lockroy, where gentoo penguins raise their chicks. Here, human activity is carefully managed. Half the island is set aside for the penguins, while the other half welcomes around 18,000 tourists each year who come to learn about this remarkable place. It’s a model of coexistence – one that shows how we can live alongside nature when we choose to act responsibly.
Along our journey, we witnessed diverse wildlife in their natural habitats – from penguins and seals to whales and seabirds. Albatrosses and cape petrels followed our ship, gliding effortlessly over the waves – symbols of resilience, yet also vulnerability.
But reminders of past damage still linger. On Deception Island, rusted remains of the whaling industry serve as stark evidence of the harm unchecked exploitation can cause. They also underscore why continued protection of these fragile ecosystems is vital.
As an oceanographer, I study how the ocean shapes our world – and Antarctica is central to that story. The surrounding waters link the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans through the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This connectivity means that what happens in Antarctica affects us all. Pollution, warming seas and oil spills know no borders. These changes disrupt ocean currents, harm marine life and influence climate systems around the globe.
The implications are clear: addressing environmental challenges requires international cooperation and decisive action.
Want to know how the world really ends? Look to TV show Families Like Ours
John Harris, 1 May 25
The Danish drama is piercing in its ordinariness. In the real world, the climate crisis worsens and authoritarians take charge as we calmly look awaySun 11 May 2025 21.35 AESTShare649
The climate crisis has taken a new and frightening turn, and in the expectation of disastrous flooding, the entire landmass of Denmark is about to be evacuated. Effectively, the country will be shutting itself down and sending its 6 million people abroad, where they will have to cope as best they can. Huge numbers of northern Europeans are therefore being turned into refugees: a few might have the wealth and connections to ease their passage from one life to another, but most are about to face the kind of precarious, nightmarish future they always thought of as other people’s burden.
Don’t panic: this is not a news story – or not yet, anyway. It’s the premise of an addictive new drama series titled Families Like Ours, acquired by the BBC and available on iPlayer. I have seen two episodes so far, and been struck by the very incisive way it satirises European attitudes to the politics of asylum. But what has also hit me is its portrayal of something just as modern: how it shows disaster unfolding in the midst of everyday life. At first, watching it brings on a sense of impatience. Why are most of the characters so calm? Where are the apocalyptic floods, wildfires and mass social breakdown? At times, it verges on boring. But then you realise the very clever conceit that defines every moment: it is really a story about how we all live, and what might happen tomorrow, or the day after.
The writer and journalist Dorian Lynskey’s brilliant book Everything Must Go is about the various ways that human beings have imagined the end of the world. “Compared to nuclear war,” he writes, “the climate emergency deprives popular storytellers of their usual toolkit. Global warming may move too fast for the planet but it is too slow for catastrophe fiction.” Even when the worst finally happens, most of us may respond with the kind of quiet mental contortions that are probably better suited to literature than the screen. Making that point, Lynskey quotes a character in Margaret Atwood’s novel The Year of the Flood: “Nobody admitted to knowing. If other people began to discuss it, you tuned them out, because what they were saying was both so obvious and so unthinkable.”
These days, that kind of thinking reflects how people deal with just about every aspect of our ever-more troubled world: if we can avert our eyes from ecological breakdown, then everything else can be either underestimated or ignored. There is a kind of moment, I would wager, that now happens to all of us. We glance at our phones or switch on the radio and are assailed by the awful gravity of everything, and then somehow manage to instantly find our way back to calm and normality. This, of course, is how human beings have always managed to cope, as a matter of basic mental wiring. But in its 21st-century form, it also has very modern elements. Our news feeds reduce everything to white noise and trivia: the result is that developments that ought to be vivid and alarming become so dulled that they look unremarkable.
Where this is leading politically is now as clear as day. In the New Yorker, Andrew Marantz wrote, in the wake of Trump’s re-election, about how democracies slide into authoritarianism. “In a Hollywood disaster movie,” he writes, “when the big one arrives, the characters don’t have to waste time debating whether it’s happening. There is an abrupt, cataclysmic tremor, a deafening roar … In the real world, though, the cataclysm can come in on little cat feet. The tremors can be so muffled and distant that people continually adapt, explaining away the anomalies.” That is true of how we normalise the climate crisis; it also applies to the way that Trump and his fellow authoritarians have successfully normalised their politics.
Marantz goes to Budapest, and meets a Hungarian academic, who marvels at the political feats pulled off by the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán. “Before it starts, you say to yourself: ‘I will leave this country immediately if they ever do this or that horrible thing,’” he says. “And then they do that thing, and you stay. Things that would have seemed impossible 10 years ago, five years ago, you may not even notice.” The fact that populists are usually climate deniers is perfect: just as searingly hot summers become mundane, so do the increasingly ambitious plans of would-be dictators – particularly in the absence of jackboots, goose-stepping and so many other old-fashioned accoutrements. Put simply, Orbán/Trump politics is purposely designed to fit with its time – and to most of its supporters (and plenty of onlookers), it looks a lot less terrifying than it actually is.
Much the same story is starting to happen in the UK. On the night of last week’s local elections, I found myself in the thoroughly ordinary environs of Grimsby town hall, watching the victory speech given by Reform UK’s Andrea Jenkyns, who had just been elected as the first mayor of Greater Lincolnshire. For some reason, she wore a spangly outfit that made her look as if she was on her way to a 1970s-themed fancy dress party, which raised a few mirthless laughs. She said it was time for an end to “soft-touch Britain”, and suddenly called for asylum seekers to be forced to live in tents. That is the kind of thing that only fascists used to say, but it now lands in our political discourse with not much more than a faint thump.
Meanwhile, life has to go on. About 20 years ago, I went to an exhibition of works by the French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson – one of which was of a family of four adults picnicking by the Marne, with their food and wine scattered around them, and a rowing-boat moored to the riverbank. When I first looked at it, I wondered what its significance was. But then I saw the date on the adjacent plaque: “1936-38.” We break bread, get drunk and tune out the noise until carrying on like that ceases to be an option: as Families Like Ours suggests, that point may arrive sooner than we think.
This week – not-the-corporate nuclear news
Some bits of good news: Sustainable Ocean Action: A Global Stocktake of the Our Ocean Conference
How Pakistan pulled off one of the fastest solar revolutions in the world – a “bottom up” revolution.
TOP STORIES Why Is US Congress Silent on the Manmade Nightmare It Is Enabling in Gaza? -Bernie Sanders. Expulsion and Occupation: Israel’s Proposed Gaza Plan.
Resuscitation at Zaporizhzhia?
From the archives. Conflicts of interest in the Trump group’s push to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia.
Climate. I just returned from Antarctica: climate change isn’t some far-off problem – it’s here and hitting hard.
‘Sitting ducks’: the cities most vulnerable to climate disasters -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/07/2-b1-sitting-ducks-the-cities-most-vulnerable-to-climate-disasters/
How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action. Two-thirds of global heating caused by richest 10%, study suggests.
5 huge climate opportunities await the next Australian parliament – and it has the numbers to deliver.
Noel’s notes The pro-nuclear drive and Zionism are intertwined.
AUSTRALIA.
- Business as usual: Labor stalls on Defence reform as AUKUS woes grow.
- If the Coalition sticks with nuclear, the fallout will be toxic. Will the Coalition ditch its nuclear power policy? Coalition bombs itself with nuclear energy policy. Australians choose batteries over nuclear after election fought on energy. Scrap nuclear: Key Liberal senator wants radioactive energy plan buried.
- Poison in the Heart-The Nuclear Wasting of South Australia.
- Who’s afraid of big, bad China?
- Front groups working with Zionist actors are promoting Islamophobia.
- The dark cloud of Murdoch has no silver lining.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ECONOMICS. Ontario’s Darlington SMR project to cost nearly $21-billion, significantly higher than expected. Google agrees to fund the development of three new nuclear sites. How Miliband can make renewables cheaper – but there is really no alternative to renewables. |
| ENERGY. Rooftop solar can be torn out of capital’s hands. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Sellafield’s massive water abstraction plan for its new construction work has no environmental impact assessment and inadequate monitoring. Ohio EPA launches limited Luckey water testing after independent report shows high radiation in wells. |
| HISTORY. 80 years on US still embattled in senseless Cold War with Russia.The Anglo-Nazi Global Empire That Almost Was. |
| LEGAL. Lawsuit Compels Nationwide Public Review of Plutonium Bomb Core Production. |
| MEDIA. Israel Will Even Persecute Palestinians For Simply Talking To Journalists. |
| POLITICS. Durbin successor must not be co opted by the Israel Lobby. [SMRs] Trump wants to speed up construction of more NPP, bypass safety regulations- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/12/2-b1-draft-executive-orders-aim-to-speed-construction-of-nuclear-plants/. Trump administration considers orders expediting nuclear plant construction, NYT reports. US Administration’s initial proposal sees cuts to nuclear energy budget. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Iran calls latest nuclear talks with US ‘difficult’ but both sides agree negotiations will continue. The Stakes of Donald Trump’s Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia raises the prospect of US nuclear cooperation with the kingdom. Non Proliferation Preparatory Committee concludes; Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons states point way forward. |
SAFETY.
- The Challenge to Japan’s Nuclear Restart.
- Starmer ignored nuclear watchdog when he blamed regulations for delays. Improvement notice issued at Dounreay nuclear power plant.
- Chernobyl shelter’s drone damage includes 330 openings in outer cladding. Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl.
- Zaporizhzhia: Hurdle or catalyst for a peace deal in Ukraine
- Trump tightens control of independent agency overseeing nuclear safety. Trump considers weakening nuclear safety agency in bid for more power plants- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/05/12/1-b1-trump-considers-weakening-nuclear-agency-in-bid-for-more-power-plants/
| SECRETS and LIES. The Deep State & the Death of Democracy. ‘It’s deceitful’: Critics slam owners of TMI Unit 2 for not reporting fire at plant. |
| SPINBUSTER. Who are Britain Remade? Atomic lobby seizes on Spanish blackout .Google tries to greenwash massive AI energy consumption with another vague nuclear deal. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Westinghouse drops out of UK SMR competition. |
| URANIUM. Depleted Uranium by Lynda Williams 2025- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_BXI5wVhKU |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Too Cruel to Even Imagine—Nuclear War in Densely Populated Areas Close the US military bases in Asia! Nuclear war has never been more likely – Here’s what it would look like now. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Nuclear threat is more real than at any time since second World War. Starmer prepares for attack by Russia. |
Coalition bombs itself with nuclear energy policy
By Dave Sweeney | 12 May 2025
While the Coalition was determined to switch Australia over to nuclear energy, voters had another opinion and overwhelmingly rejected the LNP’s energy policy, writes Dave Sweeney.
WHEN HE UNVEILED the Coalition’s nuclear energy ambitions last June, outgoing Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the Election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear.”
As the adage says, be careful what you wish for. The election result was a resounding rejection of the high-cost, high-risk nuclear option.
The Coalition’s intention to build nuclear reactors at seven sites in regional Australia was the biggest policy difference between the major parties ahead of the Election.
The nuclear push was heavy on headlines and assurances, but very light on details and evidence.
Despite numerous requests, the Coalition’s nuclear promoters failed to visit the reactor sites or answer fundamental questions, including where the required water would come from and where the resultant radioactive waste would go.
Other unanswered questions overflowed the Coalition’s too-hard basket.
What would the impact on employment and output be from Australia’s rapidly growing renewable energy sector? What sort of reactors were planned and how many? What would fill the electricity shortfall between the certain closure of coal and the uncertain start of nuclear? Would taxpayers bear the increased cost of nuclear in our tax bills, our power bills, or both? Who would operate and regulate the Coalition’s nuclear plants?
As the scrutiny and uncertainty grew, so did the community concerns and the considered critiques.
The Climate Change Authority warned the Coalition’s nuclear policy would add huge amounts of extra climate pollution to the atmosphere and make it “virtually impossible” for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The interim report by a parliamentary committee inquiring into nuclear energy found – like so many inquiries before it have found – that nuclear energy was not right for Australia.
While Australia’s energy utilities made it clear they did not support or see a future in nuclear, Australia’s insurance sector confirmed that its policies do not cover nuclear accidents.
Shadow climate and energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien might have been convinced nuclear is as safe as houses, but Australian insurance providers did not share that view.
The concern was widespread, but most obvious in Australian women’s scepticism about nuclear. They didn’t want to hear about it and when the issue was raised with Dutton, he didn’t want to talk about it.
When the Coalition pushes nuclear, Australia pushes back. In 2007, John Howard took nuclear to an election where he lost government and his own seat. In 2025, Peter Dutton said nuclear and Australia said no — and goodbye.
Polling by the Liberals Against Nuclear group demonstrated the nuclear policy’s drag on the Coalition’s vote in marginal seats and across the nation, while 46 per cent of voters in Dutton’s electorate of Dickson said they were less likely to vote for Mr Dutton because of the nuclear power policy.
In front of shellshocked Coalition politicians on election night, senior press gallery journalist Mark Riley summed up the Coalition’s problem:
“The party that chose nuclear energy as its policy has exploded in a nuclear bomb set on them by voters tonight.”
The idea of domestic nuclear power is over.
It’s time to draw a line under this unproductive distraction and get on with real action to meet our nation’s climate and energy challenges.
Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic has called on her party to “immediately scrap the nuclear energy plan and back the private market’s investment in renewable energy”.
Her call echoes that of the South Australian Liberals, which have already dropped plans for another inquiry into nuclear power, with State Leader Vincent Tarzia declaring that nuclear has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
Defeated Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says the nuclear push was “not the policy position I would have taken” and she would rather “let the market decide”.
The Federal Coalition must ditch any lingering nuclear ambitions and join every other major political player in backing a renewable energy future for our nation.
Australians have overwhelmingly voted for positive solutions, real action and respect — for each other and our environment.
It’s time to stop playing politics with nuclear distractions and delays. It’s time to get on with the clean energy transition, effective climate action and building an energy future that is renewable, not radioactive.
Australians choose batteries over nuclear after election fought on energy
By climate reporters Jess Davis and Jo Lauder, ABC News, 6 May
When Peter Dutton unveiled his party’s nuclear energy plan last year, it opened up a seismic difference between the two major parties.
It offered a real choice for Australian voters over the future of the country’s energy policy.
“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices, on lights going out, on who has a sustainable pathway for our country going forward,” he said.
Taken on those terms, Saturday’s election outcome was an endorsement of renewable energy over nuclear.
“It’s clearly a referendum on energy policy, given the prominence of energy throughout the entire election campaign,” Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton said.
“I think it’s an emphatic victory for Australia’s transition to clean energy.”
At a household level, Labor offered a significant discount on home batteries to accompany the booming solar on rooftops all across the country, aiming to get 1 million batteries installed under the scheme by 2030.
The last election saw a new generation of independents join the parliament, riding a wave of climate concern. Any expectation that the “teals” were a single-election trend has been dispelled, with most of them set to be returned, and new ones joining their ranks.
While the Greens have an anxious wait ahead to see how many lower seats they’ll win, they recorded their highest-ever primary vote and will hold the balance of power in the Senate with 11 senators.
After losing the Liberal heartland to the teals in the last election, the Coalition decided to pitch instead to the outer suburbs.
But the decision to campaign against renewables, and scrap climate policies such as the EV tax breaks, seems to mismatch the views of middle Australia.
Outer suburbs embrace solar power
Dutton set out to make up gains in the outer suburbs by offering a discount on the fuel excise. But the data for solar uptake and electric cars paints a very different picture to the caricature of solar and batteries as a plaything for the inner city.
While energy may not have been a top concern for voters, it’s the outer suburbs where our love for rooftop solar is at its highest, especially in Queensland and Western Australia.
In Dutton’s former electorate of Dickson, some 60 per cent of households have a solar system, double the national average, according to data from the Clean Energy Regulator……………………………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-06/federal-election-shows-voters-support-renewables-over-nuclear/105252888
I would’ve led a very ‘aggressive campaign’ says Tim Wilson as he backs nuclear
Sumeyya Ilanbey, AFR, 7 May 25
Tim Wilson says he defied political gravity to wrest back the Melbourne electorate of Goldstein from teal independent MP Zoe Daniel in a victory speech in which he flagged an intention to return to the Liberal frontbench and backed nuclear energy.
As of Wednesday, Wilson had finished ahead of Daniel by 0.47 per cent – or 980 votes – on a two-candidate count and his lead was growing as more postal votes were counted…………………………………………………….
Wilson refused to be drawn on whether he had Liberal leadership aspirations or who he would back to lead the party that has been reduced to about 40 seats in the lower house. But he said there was a lot of work the opposition needed to do to rebuild.
……………………………………………………………………………. Wilson refused to be drawn on whether he had Liberal leadership aspirations or who he would back to lead the party that has been reduced to about 40 seats in the lower house. But he said there was a lot of work the opposition needed to do to rebuild…………..
While some of his colleagues have called for the Coalition to scrap nuclear energy as part of its policy offering, Wilson, a former minister for climate change and energy, said nuclear was part of “building the future industrial base of the country”. The comment drew loud cheers and applause from his supporters…………https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/triumphant-wilson-backs-nuclear-power-and-has-some-notes-for-dutton-20250507-p5lx7x
Business as usual: Labor stalls on Defence reform as AUKUS woes grow
Defence spending is lagging, AUKUS is stalling, and systemic mismanagement persists as Labor avoids hard structural reform.
Bernard Keane, May 11, 2025, https://www.themandarin.com.au/291901-business-as-usual-labor-stalls-on-defence-reform-as-aukus-woes-grow/
Having managed to get through an election campaign barely mentioning defence — despite the opposition trying to make it a late-stage vote winner — the newly expanded Labor government still faces a number of big challenges in the defence portfolio, and no easy answers.
The two big ones are well-known: the replacement of the US security guarantee with Trumpian chaos, which means Australia will have to strengthen its defence capability so that it has to rely less on the US, and the profound problems of AUKUS.
Despite some budget sleight of hand purporting to show an acceleration in defence spending, the government remains committed to increasing defence spending to just 2.33% of GDP — not merely well below the Trump administration’s demand for 3%, but below the Coalition’s planned increase to 2.5% and the calls from defence and security experts, as well as Labor luminaries like Kim Beazley, for a significant increase.
But the ability of the Department of Defence to handle any increase in spending — or even competently spend what it currently receives — is openly questioned even by hawks. Average major project slippage time, already alarming when the Coalition was last in power, noticeably deteriorated in Labor’s first term. The response of Defence appeared to try to hide embarrassing data from the Auditor-General under the pretence of national security.
Also characterising Labor’s first term was the admission of failure of departmental process, to the very highest echelons of Defence, in relation to the Hunter-class frigate project and the shocking audit of Defence’s dealings with Thales on munitions manufacturing (the second part of which is yet to arrive from the auditor-general).
With both defence minister Richard Marles’ track record in Labor first term, and his general insouciance toward revelations such as the Thales debacle — which included the revelation that the department had actively misled predecessor ministers — it seems unlikely Defence will face any real pressure to improve the incompetence and, quite possibly, corruption that marks its management of major procurement processes. A defence minister like Andrew Hastie, far more credentialed in military matters than most within the department, could have driven the kind of reform that would have gotten Defence backs up, and led to copious leaking against him, but improved the reliability and integrity of the department’s procurement processes. Instead, we’ll have to hope that a Labor government with a big majority and more confidence will be more willing to take on the fundamental problems in the portfolio.
A similar business-as-usual approach will likely characterise the unfolding disaster that is AUKUS. The grim reality is that US submarine construction rates are slowing, not accelerating as they need to if the US is to provide three Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia from 2030. In early April, the US Navy admitted to Congress significant delays in constructing its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, which shares some components with the Virginia class. While the builders of the Virginia-class boats are talking bravely of demand signals and additional investment, the build rate for the subs late last year was barely above half that required by AUKUS.
None of this, apparently, is of interest to the bureaucrats charged with overseeing AUKUS. The Mandarin applied under Freedom of Information laws to the Australian Submarine Agency to see what briefing it was providing to ministers on the problems in submarine construction in the US and the UK. No such documents, came back the answer. Blind faith that the US can double the rate of submarine construction in a couple of years is one thing, but remaining ignorant of how badly off track AUKUS is? That’s quite another.
One of the key problems of the Virginia-class boats for Australia is that they require huge crews — 135 sailors, compared to just 58 for Australia’s current submarines. That brings into focus a persistent and worsening problem — our inability to attract and retain ADF members. Last year the Navy was short around 900 people. The Army was short around 5000; only the RAAF is around its mandated strength. A change of recruitment agency for the ADF proved a disaster, with portfolio minister Matt Keogh expressing his “deep disappointment” with the provider’s “wholly deficient” performance. Critics say the problem is with the ADF itself, which is “too slow and too picky”. The government announced in mid-2024 the brilliant idea of opening up the ADF to personnel from Five Eyes. countries. Only problem is, they’re all suffering the same problems with defence recruitment. In fact, armies, navies and air forces around the world are suffering ongoing recruitment problems and have done so for years — even the People’s Liberation Army is struggling to attract Chinese youth to its ranks.
In each of these areas, clearly, business as usual won’t cut it. But that is what Defence is very good at, and its ministers are very bad at preventing. To prevent it, only structural arrangements that disrupt Defence’s normal processes will achieve results. The royal commission into ADF member and veteran suicide had the right idea — and the government rightly took its lead from the commission in its response. The commission recommended a new independent statutory body to oversee reform across the whole Defence/Veterans Affairs portfolio, not a new area of Defence. And it urged, and the government agreed, that central agencies be charged with implementing the commission’s recommendations: the result was a Prime Minister and Cabinet taskforce to start implementing reforms, with the help of external expertise.
An independent agency, and a PM&C-led implementation taskforce, was what was needed to ensure Defence didn’t simply default back to business as usual when it came to the mental health of its members and veterans. Only the oversight and interference of high-powered external bodies will compel Defence to change its culture.
And it’s the only thing that will enable the government to seriously tackle the biggest challenges in the portfolio over the coming years.
Bernard Keane
Bernard Keane is a columnist for The Mandarin. He was a Canberra press gallery correspondent covering politics, national security and economics, and a public servant and speechwriter in transport and communications. He is co-author of A Short History Of Stupid, which covers the decline of reason and issues with public debate.
Who’s afraid of big, bad China?
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
In the recent Australian election, Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
Jocelyn Chey, May 7, 2025 , https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/05/whos-afraid-of-big-bad-china/
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China. To the contrary, the proper management of co-operative relations with China is essential to Australia’s future.
Finally, the election process is over and done with and the results are in. We look forward to news bulletins not dominated by party spokespeople spruiking how they will deal with the cost of living. Rents, health and transport costs are all important, but the big issues that will make or break their social policies are all global, and the real question is how we can front up to them and hopefully turn them to our benefit. If the world goes into recession, which is a very real possibility, we will all be affected. The cost of living will go up. Cuts to social services will be inevitable.
Why did the candidates not admit this? Do they have contingency plans and, if so, what are they? What are they afraid of? Were they scared that if they mentioned China, the US or Russia, they would lose votes, or be backed into election promises that they could not keep? Or were there structural weaknesses in their policies that they did not wish to expose to scrutiny?
In previous election campaigns, the candidates were not so hesitant to pronounce on international affairs. The 2001 election was dominated by immigration issues and the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It was the first “khaki election” since the Vietnam War. In the 2022 election, the Morrison Government tried to repeat their 2001 success by promoting fear of Chinese invasions, both military or cultural, but their attempt failed. This time around, both sides of politics have been careful about their choice of language and avoided difficult topics.
Insofar as national security featured at all in the elections, Labor and the Liberals competed to portray themselves as the better party to protect Australia’s international relationships, particularly in the Pacific. Penny Wong accused the Liberals of leaving a “vacuum” that China was ready to fill, but she did not directly accuse Beijing. The one attempt to whip up fear of an invasion was pinned onto Moscow, rather than Beijing, when news broke of a possible deal between Russia and Indonesia about developing a military airbase in West Papua.
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country. Labor and Liberal both promised to increase defence spending, one side to 2.3% of GDP, and the other side to 3% over 10 years. Neither mentioned the reasons for such an increase, or where the money would be found. AUKUS is already absorbing all the increases announced by the last government and affecting other procurement needs. AUKUS spending over the next five years is estimated to reach $18 billion and ultimately will total $368 billion, not including the cost of new infrastructure such as a dedicated naval base at HMAS Stirling. The rationale for nuclear-powered vessels is not the defence of our coasts, but the perceived need to attack distant targets, and that target is China.
China has been progressively opening to the world since the 1980s. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active member of many multilateral organisations. With Australian encouragement, it has engaged with the multilateral trade system, joined APEC and the World Trade Organisation. The domestic economy has flourished in this open environment and in a region that has not seen armed conflict since the end of the Vietnam War. Maintaining strong growth and raising living standards have been the main pillars of Chinese domestic policies.
Economic development has not always been smooth, and recently new problems have emerged on the international front. China trusted the established international governance system to support and regulate its growth, but, as the country grew stronger, it became evident that the US did not return that trust. Its rapid rise and increasing global presence changed the regional and global balance and generated a geopolitical response that was perhaps predictable.
In 2025, the Trump administration has not yet clarified its policy for handling the relationship with China. Tariffs have been imposed, increased and decreased, and threats and hints have been made by the White House. All is chaos. The only thing that is certain is that Trump will challenge China in a more transactional and unpredictable way, will intensify trade confrontations and sanction Chinese companies in his goal to achieve greater self-sufficiency in the US.
In Beijing, Xi Jinping’s response has been measured and consistent. Official statements emphasise that China supports international rules and regulations and the multilateral system. During the National People’s Congress in March, Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a briefing to the international press presented China as a responsible and stable global power and, without explicitly saying so, drew comparisons with Trump’s America and its chaotic pronouncements.
He said: “We will provide certainty to this uncertain world. … We will be a staunch force defending our national interests. … We will be a just and righteous force for world peace and stability. … We will be a progressive force for international fairness and justice. We will be a constructive force for common development of the world.”
The contrast with Trump’s Tweets could not be more striking.
China is now truly integrated into the global economy. National policy has determined this, and, in any case, it would have been inevitable, given the development of advanced technologies and information and communication systems, all requiring international engagement. China, above all, wants stability and security in international relations to underpin its economic growth. In the future, the major challenges that the world will face are global. Climate change cannot be tackled without international co-operation. Australia needs more than ever to understand China and its domestic and foreign policies.
Co-operation with China is not easy. To borrow Trump’s words, “They hold the cards”. Australia, however, is not alone, and the best response to China is to consult and co-ordinate with neighbouring countries who also regularly interact with the rising superpower. Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, all have important trade and diplomatic ties with China and have much experience to share about how to manage a relationship with China, a regional power and a global superpower. Australia should be able to manage relations with China. If we respect Beijing’s legitimate rights, Beijing will respect ours
It is possible. China has no history of annexing other countries as Russia annexed Crimea. It respects other countries’ autonomy more than Trump respects the sovereignty of Mexico, Canada or Greenland. It has claims over a large part of the South China Sea that on the surface suggest aggressive intent, but this is not a new claim. The “nine dash line” outlining its territorial claim was first proposed by the then Nationalist government in 1948, and the government of Taiwan still maintains this position. Considering that China is surrounded by a string of US bases along the “first island chain” from Japan to the Philippines, amid that Camp Humphreys, near Seoul in South Korea, the largest US overseas military base, is just 549 kms from the city of Dalian in northeast China, it is not surprising that China should wish to limit further US advances.
As for the other superpower, in the first 100 days of the Trump regime, he has attempted to use the legal system to carry out his personal vendettas. He has shut down many government departments. He has attacked scientific research and the universities and disregarded statistical evidence, particularly in medical science and climate science. He is prejudiced against immigrants. He dismisses the most basic ideas of trade and economics. He prefers to deal with other autocrats like Vladimir Putin and has turned his back on international agreements and treaties.
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China.
(This is a summary of a talk given at the Festival of Wild Ideas, St Paul’s Burwood, on 4 May 2025)
US military expected to export ‘high-risk’ explosives to Australian ports amid arms expansion
“Australia and the Indo-Pacific region is a theatre to the American military planners,”
ABC News, by Oliver Chaseling, Fri 9 May 25, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-09/us-defence-department-to-increase-arms-shipments-to-australia/105259122
In short:
The US Department of Defence has sought tenders for the handling of US military cargo in Australian ports.
In its tender solicitation, the shipping manifest of an existing contract has been expanded to include indefinite quantities of explosive cargo.
What’s next?
Further announcements on US-Australian military cooperation in coming months was flagged at a recent Defence industry summit in Darwin.
Subcontractors in at least four Australian ports are expected to soon handle United States military cargo containing gases and radioactive material, as part of an expanded contract with the US government, the ABC can reveal.
The US Department of Defense is currently seeking tenders for port services in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria, where it expects “indefinite quantities” of explosives, aircraft, classified and general cargo to be unloaded from ships and onto trucks.
The tender solicitation issued by a US transportation battalion based in Yokohama, Japan, covers the handling of cargo shipped to and from Australia……………………………………………………………………………….
The new contract will also expand arms shipments to the Point Wilson port, between Geelong and Melbourne, which in 2023 was flagged for “large-scale importation of guided weapons and explosive ordnance” according to the Australian Department of Defence……………………………………………………..
Shipments mark ‘maturing’ US military logistics network
Defence industry consultant Darian Macey said the contract “broadens the [US] strategic footprint” in Australia, by adding more dangerous cargo and expanding arms shipments to Victoria’s Point Wilson port.
“While the contract itself doesn’t specify end use, the inclusion of high-risk cargo types and expanded port access is consistent with broader trends we’re seeing under AUKUS and allied posture initiatives,” he said.
Mr Macey said the contract signalled “a maturing [US] posture in the region” that could support rapid deployments throughout the Indo-Pacific.
“Australia and the Indo-Pacific region is a theatre to the American military planners,” he said.
“Having those assets in theatre means that they can respond more rapidly, than if they had to bring those assets across from their home country.”
The Australian Department of Defence’s Brigadier Mick Say told the recent Northern Australia Defence Summit that the pre-positioning of US military equipment in Australia had been “enabled” by the 2014 US Force Posture Agreement.
He flagged a potential expansion in US Force Posture efforts after high-level ministerial talks between Canberra and Washington later this year.
“That will lead to a number of other announcements, once agreed to by governments, in regards to the next steps of the Force Posture activities within Australia,” he said.
Front groups working with Zionist actors are promoting Islamophobia
Letters were circulated in the electorate of Goldstein shortly before the election last weekend falsely accusing climate independent (“teal”) Zoe Daniel of being antisemitic in conspiracist terms. It is not known which individual or group circulated the anonymous letters.
Daniel’s Liberal Party rival Tim Wilson, was affiliated with the Atlas Network partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)
May 9, 2025 Lucy Hamilton, https://theaimn.net/front-groups-working-with-zionist-actors-are-promoting-islamophobia/
Australian front groups have been working to promote the idea that the Greens make many cultural identities less safe. Zionists are incorporating Hindu and Iranian figures, depicting a fake “threat.”
Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon are tracking the Zionist disinformation strategies that have been at work in the Australian local, state and federal political information space recently.
In this information project, any speech act or protest supporting peace and rights for Palestinians is depicted as an “antisemitic” threat that frightens Jewish people. The Greens are being tarred with the accusation that they pose a threat to many multicultural identities, not just Jewish. This of course distorts the fact that the Greens are the strongest party voice against prejudice in Australian politics – which includes opposing Zionist prejudice against Palestinians as well as antisemitism.
Protest is a speech act and must be protected – particularly when it is directed against matters as urgent as the climate catastrophe and genocide.
The project being carried out by the front groups investigated by Bacon and Aharon functions to foster anti Muslim sentiment. That work is inherent to the current shape of the transnational Right. Demonising Muslims is not new: in 2010, then Liberal Party MP Scott Morrison proposed targeting Muslims for political gain. His colleagues attempted to shame him for the divisive suggestion, but in the years since, that tactic has become mainstream for the political and media Right in Australia as well as abroad.
Morrison’s role flags the importance of Christian Zionists to this mission.(1) It is difficult to tease out the primary motivation. One role is to help Australia’s “conservative” politicians win elections. It is also potentially to keep out the Greens (and independents known as “teals”) to prevent genuine climate action, since the Labor Party appears to be constrained by state capture. The focus on Israel might be for Jewish Zionist interests or as part of the Christian Nationalist project aiming to control Australian politics. The Never Again is Now body speaks to that last motivation.
Advance – which was so active against the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament and then committed over the last few months to destroying the Greens and “teal” independents – has been shown to have personnel links with Atlas Network partners in Australia. Advance has also received funding from the Liberal Party through the party’s Cormack Foundation.
Maurice Newman, who has a long track record of action around Atlas Network partners in Australia, was a Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) member from 1976. (The MPS is described as the functional steering committee of the Atlas Network and one of its major roles in recent years has been promoting climate denial.) Newman was also listed in 2014 as one of Australia’s 12 “most influential” climate deniers who used his time as ABC chairman to skew the coverage of the science. Newman was an “early driver” of Advance. In March this year, Newman described pro-Palestinian encampments on university campuses as one sign that “ideology” (rather than a moral compass) is taking over and stated, “We might as well be in communist China.”
Some Atlas Network partners have a history of promoting intervention in the Middle East, with the American Enterprise Institute’s neocons probably being the most influential in promoting “regime change” from within the White House. The Heritage Foundation claims to be no longer affiliated with the Atlas Network after decades of acting as one of its major partners. It too is engaging strongly in culture wars over purported antisemitism with Project Esther. As Axios observed, the project was as much about crushing Americans’ ability to protest. Jewish commentators also fear that the mechanism will cause blowback against Jewish Americans. As a part of the Christian Nationalist project, Esther’s strategy has been summarised as “a sweeping program of surveillance, propaganda, deportation, and criminalization.”
David Adler was a “founding board member and advisor” of Advance. He is best known as having founded the extreme Australian Jewish Association, a “private advocacy group” mimicking a peak body. Adler has spoken on rightwing media against doctors being vocal on the substantial threat that the climate crisis poses to health as leftist posturing. He disdainsclimate science as comparable to “gender issues.” Adler has recently stepped down as AJA “president.”
The degree to which Adler is a fringe figure in Jewish Australian opinion is conveyed by rejections such as:
“Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council national chairman Mark Leibler, a prominent Indigenous rights activist who co-chaired the Referendum Council, said that due to the AJA’s “misleading name”, it is very important for people within the Jewish community, but also people outside the Jewish community, to “understand that this organisation and this person, they do not speak for us”.
“They do not communicate what, in any sense of the term, can be regarded as Jewish values,” Leibler said.
“Some of the things that Adler has said are frankly nothing short of horrific.”
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Peter Wertheim said Adler’s comments “are wrong, offensive and bigoted, and indicate that he lacks the same sensitivity to other forms of racism that he has for antisemitism”.
“These comments do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the mainstream Jewish community in Australia. They are contrary to Jewish values, and the teaching ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to others’,” Wertheim said.
“Despite its misleadingly generic name, the Australian Jewish Association is a private group led by a small number of unelected people promoting marginal, ideologically-blinkered views. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has been the peak, representative body of the Australian Jewish community since 1944.”
Given that none of the older peak bodies have been what might be described as particularly supportive of justice for Palestinians (leading to the formation of the progressive Jewish Council of Australia to fight for both Jewish and Palestinian safety), this condemnation speaks to the fringe nature of the AJA’s politics.
Bacon and Aharon have been tracking down several Zionist front groups. Better Australia began as Better Councils where the “Israel lobby,” as Bacon termed it, appeared to be attempting to disrupt and influence Sydney council elections. The pair have found connections with Liberal Party affiliates such as Alex Polson who owns Better’s ABN. He is a Liberal Party member and previously worked for Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham. Bacon and Aharon have also investigated the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC) which appeared to be a reasonably significant player in the 2024 Queensland state election.
The Minority Impact Coalition (MIC) is a creation of the QJC. Alex McKinnon has reported some of the extremity of that body’s social media posts. The Australian depicted the group as a grassroots immigrant movement against Labor and the Greens.
Bacon and Aharon have tracked down loose connections of various kinds between Advance with the Zionist-affiliated groups. QJC accepted help from Advance. QJC’s MIC has claimed very limited connection with Advance. Better may have had early plans to work in cooperation with Advance. Bacon and Aharon have noted that Advance or AJA boost the social media posts of these micro bodies, creating the only occasions when their posts achieve traction. This suggests some degree of cooperation.
In her reporting on the Queensland election campaign, Bacon illustrates a graphic from the AJA that was used to advertise a webinar to introduce its members to Advance. That same image was later used on QJC billboards as well as on the MIC’s website.
The image features three individuals targeting the Greens as a “divisive hate group” for the represented ethnicities or cultural identities. One of the three is posed as representing a “Jewish Queenslander” who doesn’t feel safe in her own cities because of Greens repeating “slogans of the terrorists that wish [her] dead.”
The other two represent an identity coalition that the QJC (alone?) was forging in a “multicultural impact network meeting.”
The second individual is a “Hindu Queenslander” who is quoted on the graphic as asserting “The Greens glorify those that terrorise us. They make me scared for the future.”
This is not an outlier. The shared work of linking Muslims with terrorism is central to the Hindutva nationalist project, just as it is to Israel. Prime Minister Modi, for example, declared that both Israel and India face a shared threat from “radical Islam.”
The recent attack in Kashmir has led to calls to use the “Israel model” in Kashmir with suggestions that both Kashmir and Pakistan should be “flattened” like Gaza.
There is no inference made that the woman pictured supports Hindutva ideology.
It appears the Hindu Council of Australia (HCA) had a speaker at the QJC event in June 2024. The HCA may have no interest in the religio-ethnonationalist Hindutva ideology. It is noteworthy, however, that the HCA site hosts a post suggesting that an attempt to tackle Hindutva extremism is actually about “dismantling Hinduism” and an attempt to spread fear mongering against Hindus.
The MIC site claims to have the group Hindus of Australia as an endorsing body. That link is backed up by an Indian-Australian news site, which depicts MIC as protecting Australia from “imported hate.” In the aftermath of the election, the Hindus of Australia X account reposted a QJC post, with additional comment that the Greens had brought “degeneracy” to “Australian political and social lives.” It also made the strange claim that the Greens had “put targets on the backs of Australian Jewish and Hindu communities so that the terror and criminal elements now consider our communities soft targets.”
Modi and his party have a long history of targeting Muslims, including Modi campaigning on the fear of being outbred by Muslims at the last election.
Israel and India are bonded over these parallels.
The third individual on the AJA graphic represents Iranians. A speaker at the event is reported to have represented the Iranian Novin Party (INP). Hesam Orujee, a member of the INP, is featured on the AJA Facebook page as a member of the QJC.
The Iran Novin Party is “Pahlavist.” That is, they support the Pahlavi family to replace the Iranian Islamist regime. The QJC site claims that the Greens “support the Iranian regime’s terror proxies.” This is, of course, nonsense. (The MIC site also targets Labor for not attacking these groups’ issues aggressively enough.)
The Iranian monarchist community is connected to the NatCon religio-ethnonationalist project. The last conference in Washington (where JD Vance was soft launched at the final dinner just before being announced as Trump’s running partner) featured Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Iranian monarchists are reportedly working with Israel in their efforts to overthrow the regime and reinstall their Shah.
It is also reported that the Iranian MEK has funnelled Saudi money into the creation of the Spanish Far Right Vox party that is militantly Islamophobic as well as socially ultra-conservative.
The J-United group from Melbourne is on record as being backed by Advance in its targeting of Greens candidates. Australian Jewish News described J-United’s political campaign as having “received support from diverse community groups including Iranian, Hindu and Christian organisations.”
Letters were circulated in the electorate of Goldstein shortly before the election last weekend falsely accusing climate independent (“teal”) Zoe Daniel of being antisemitic in conspiracist terms. It is not known which individual or group circulated the anonymous letters.
Daniel’s Liberal Party rival was affiliated with the Atlas Network partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society the last time the list was leaked. Tim Wilson’s most significant moment with the international Atlas Network-connected activity was breaking Australia’s carbon price mechanism. In recognition of this, his IPA team was shortlisted for the Atlas Network’s most prestigious global prize.
Advance and the AJA have several reasons for welcoming losses of Greens seats in parliament. For the former, this signals fewer politicians to defend climate action and social justice. The AJA rejects politicians supporting a peaceful resolution for Palestine. The work of the front groups suggests both groups to be loosely part of the NatCon project that aims to unite Christian Nationalists, Israeli Jewish Nationalists and Hindu Nationalists against Muslims, against modernity and against climate action. The Iranian monarchists’ role in that coalition is noteworthy.
The Australian Right is more strongly represented in the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’s (ARC) version of NatCon messaging.
Tony Abbott was an advisor to Advance. Abbott is a Distinguished Fellow at the IPA and is also on the ARC Advisory Board alongside several other past and serving Australian politicians.(2) ARC co-founder John Anderson AO has posted this disturbing interview about Israel and Islam with Douglas Murray, another board member, on his YouTube channel.(3) ARC is a strongly climate denial project, loosely promoting NatCon ideology. NatCon ideology is backed by the Edmund Burke Foundation which has important Zionist connections.
The fact that Advance is so closely connected with a Zionist group such as the AJA, which real Jewish peak bodies depict as “marginal” and “ideologically blinkered,” not to mention expressing “horrific” views, is an important feature.
It is natural that immigrant and other minority groups will hold opinions on ways nations they are affiliated with could be better. It is also to be expected that some fringe elements will hold views that incorporate prejudice.
Australia’s multicultural project is, however, a precious and vulnerable experiment. It is reckless to allow strategists to undermine it for political goals. The Australian majority was revealed in this election to reject divisive culture war games: we cannot ignore the inherent Islamophobia that is core to the religio-ethnonationalist NatCon ideology. It is even more dangerous when bodies founded to foster dis- and misinformation bring together those fringe elements of our multicultural communities, promoting the demonisation of one category of Australian citizen.
Keating savages Albanese and Labor ‘factional lightweights’ after Husic and Dreyfus pushed from cabinet
Tom McIlroy Chief political correspondent, Guardian, 7 May 25
Former prime minister says dumping of Ed Husic was ‘appalling denial’ of his ‘diligence and application’
Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating has savaged Anthony Albanese and “factional lightweights” within the Labor party over moves to dump ministers Ed Husic and Mark Dreyfus from cabinet, calling the decision unfair and disrespectful.
Jostling between right faction MPs in New South Wales and Victoria led to Husic, the industry and science minister, being pushed out of cabinet on Thursday, in a move Labor insiders said was ruthless.
……………………..”As the cabinet’s sole Muslim member, Husic’s expulsion from the ministry proffers contempt for the measured and centrist support provided by the broader Muslim community to the Labor Party at the general election,” Keating said in a statement.
…………………He also criticised the move by Victorian right faction MPs to remove Dreyfus, who has been attorney general since 2022 and held the same role at the end of the Rudd-Gillard government in 2013.
Keating said “factional lightweights” had pushed out Dreyfus, calling him “the cabinet’s most effective and significant Jewish member”………………………………….
A Labor legend, Keating has been a public critic of the Albanese government in the past. He accused Albanese, Richard Marles [above] and the foreign minister, Penny Wong, of abandoning traditional party values over support for the Aukus nuclear submarines agreement.
Keating even suggested last year on the subjects of defence and foreign policy, “this is not a Labor government”.
Albanese’s second cabinet is expected to be sworn in on Tuesday next week. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/08/keating-savages-albanese-and-labor-factional-lightweights-after-husic-and-dreyfus-pushed-from-cabinet?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Tim Wilson, secretive money and “think” tanks. Australia’s democracy is at stake.
April 18, 2025 Lucy Hamilton, https://theaimn.net/tim-wilson-secretive-money-and-think-tanks-australias-democracy-is-at-stake/
Advance’s links to Australia’s Atlas Network partners were laid out by Dr Jeremy Walker in the Voice campaign. Its origin and links to the Liberal Party as well as the global thinktank operation was explored in detail in the Sydney Morning Herald. That report also illustrates the body’s links to Zionist operations, fostered through its co-founder David Adler. It has three new front groups to discredit the Greens: Greens Truth, Her Truth and Election News.
There are as many as 18 such shadowy organisations acting against renewables and in favour of nuclear energy at the moment. Most can be found on social media targeting key seats. Others can afford billboards.
April 18, 2025 Lucy Hamilton, https://theaimn.net/tim-wilson-secretive-money-and-think-tanks-australias-democracy-is-at-stake/
Australians should remember, as the election approaches, that Tim Wilson was shortlisted in 2015 for the US-based Atlas Network’s most prestigious prize. He and his team at the Atlas Network-partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) had been nominated for the award for their work in bringing down Australia’s carbon price.
Crikey captured the misleading wording of the nomination for posterity before the Atlas Network became more cautious and took it – as well as its list of partners – down: “As the only major organization in Australia to publicly and consistently oppose the tax, the IPA’s work against the carbon tax was instrumental in fostering sentiment against the tax, which, in addition to its economic drawbacks, wouldn’t have achieved any environmental goals.”
The Atlas Network is the organising force that connects “almost 600 think tanks in over 100 countries” to promote big business’s goals. While the head office is not currently funded by fossil fuel, many of the partner organisations continue to be, and fighting climate change science and solutions remain core business for many of them.
In fact, a carbon price was working and has been found to be an effective method of pushing transition. Peta Credlin has admitted that the attacks on it as a “tax” were just “brutal retail politics.” The “fostering sentiment” that the Atlas Network described is the job of these so-called thinktanks. They create the permission structure for the policy that big business wants. They also enable the election of big business’s preferred political party.
Atlas’s wording highlighted that the IPA was the “only major organization in Australia” helping engineer Tony Abbott’s victory in 2013 and the resulting instant dismantling of the carbon price.
Voters need to be reminded that it is largely foreign mining interests that benefit from fostered sentiment created by thinktanks. Prizes worth $100,000 from abroad don’t often come for purely domestic campaigns. That said, one of the Atlas Network’s US partners awarded Gina Rinehart its “Lifetime Achievement Award” for her contribution to the Network’s shared goals in 2024.
Rinehart is the only known big donor to Wilson’s former employer, the IPA now. Her largesse was made public by accident: donations of over $2 million a year for two years were recorded in tax filings submitted to court. We cannot know how much more she has given. Rupert Murdoch continues to support this organisation his father co-founded in 1943. We cannot know if he gives money now, but News Corp is an “in kind” donor, providing constant platforms for the Australian Atlas partners and interlinked groups.
The IPA is 80 years old, so it seems more respectable than the temporary dark money front groups that are popping up to push messaging as suspect as the IPA’s war on the carbon “tax.” The difference is more in scale and ambition than in nature.
These bodies copy the Atlas Network model: that involves spawning new PR operations to ensure that the electorate does not come between the corporations and their profits. Because the Atlas Network no longer declares which organisations it lists as partners (and many interlinked bodies were never listed at all), we cannot declare them to be part of the Network. They serve, however, the same purpose for similar clients.
Australians for Prosperity is clearly interlinked with both the coal sector (by the only declared donation), and the Liberal Party (by its personnel). It was forced to delete two months-worth of social media posts by the Australian Electoral Commission for being unauthorised election material. Their prime targets are the independent MPs that are now representing formerly Liberal Party safe seats, and they are spreading disinformation to discredit these parliamentarians.
It may be a coincidence that the body has copied the name of one of the Atlas partners most responsible for the current debased condition of American politics, Americans for Prosperity.
Advance’s links to Australia’s Atlas Network partners were laid out by Dr Jeremy Walker in the Voice campaign. Its origin and links to the Liberal Party as well as the global thinktank operation was explored in detail in the Sydney Morning Herald. That report also illustrates the body’s links to Zionist operations, fostered through its co-founder David Adler. It has three new front groups to discredit the Greens: Greens Truth, Her Truth and Election News.
There are as many as 18 such shadowy organisations acting against renewables and in favour of nuclear energy at the moment. Most can be found on social media targeting key seats. Others can afford billboards.
Pollsters have always been a key tool in business propaganda: the Coalition’s internal pollster in this election campaign is connected to Australians for Natural Gas. That body’s director, Nathanial Smith” is also the Liberal Party’s candidate for Whitlam.
One of the old guard Atlas partners is the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. Its founder, Tim Andrews, is now working for Grover Norquist at Atlas’s Americans for Tax Reform in DC. The current executive director is Brian Marlow.
Marlow is also functioning as the “Campaigner” for Citizen Go, under whose umbrella he appeared before federal Parliament arguing against the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. Citizen Go is a global project constructed out of a Spanish extremist Catholic “hate group.” Citizen Go’s Australian “campaigns director” is George Christensen who has registered himself as the head of a “foreign political organisation.” The Facebook page campaigns using an “end abortion” hashtag, using misleading information. As a state MP, Nathaniel Smith argued for abortion to “remain in the Crimes Act.” The Coalition candidates’ commitment to a Christian Nationalist position is not separate from their Atlas Network links but directly connected to that movements’ transnational trend.
It is not surprising, in either of Marlow’s roles, to find such figures fighting efforts to control mis- and disinformation. With climate science as certain as it is, and the need to transition to clean sources of energy so urgent, the campaign to disrupt the transition is hard pressed to find useful truths: both misleading information and distraction can serve.
Australia needs a minority government with the crossbench granting it courage to tackle the threats to Australian politics of dark money and shadowy disinformation campaigns.
Political merchandise
We don’t need a government containing Tim Wilson whose speech at the 2015 Atlas Network regional gathering, the Friedman Conference, celebrated his turning Human Rights Commissioner role into a defence of property rights. Think hard about why this network values protecting property but not protecting you as a community member, worker, consumer or citizen.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 