Barnaby Joyce, Nationals and Coalition flayed for Australia's lack of climate change policy by Labor and Independents on Q+A
ABC News
October 14 2021
The federal government has been excoriated on Q+A by Labor and cross bench MPs for not having a climate policy that gets the nation to net zero emissions by the year 2050.   :(

Key points:

The government came under fire for taking too long to commit Australia to net zero by 2050
The National party was widely accused as being a major stumbling block on that issue
The Morrison government was labelled a "rabble" by Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus during a withering attack over a lack of action on climate change.

The panel, consisting of Mr Dreyfus, Independent MP Helen Haines, Liberal Senator for NSW Andrew Bragg, television director Craig Reucassel and Melbourne Demons President Kate Roffey, were asked by viewer Glenn Gibson why the federal government had left it so late to draft climate policy.

The question came ahead of the UN's climate change conference in Scotland, an event Prime Minister Scott Morrison has yet to commit to attending.

Senator Bragg defended the government, saying formulating a plan on climate change was difficult.

"The plan to get emissions down is a very complex agenda because you've got to decarbonise electricity, you have to decarbonise industry and transport and you also have to look to agriculture," he said.

"What you'll see over the next few weeks is an agenda to decarbonise those three things with a target to get to net zero in a particular year and I think it's important that as part of that agenda there is a clear checkpoint along the way in 2030."

Asked what that should be, Senator Bragg said: "Forty per cent. I think that is quite achievable [and] would be a reasonable target for us to show the rest of the world we are serious about getting to net zero."


Mr Dreyfus was not placated.

"This is a rabble of a government," he said.

"We have been waiting eight years for a government to have a proper policy on climate.   :(   

"We have had 21 polices, all of them abandoned and we're now waiting on the 22nd."

Mr Dreyfus then accused Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals of holding the Coalition and Australia to ransom.

"We're waiting for Barnaby Joyce and the National Party to tell the government of Australia, which they're part of, what the policy's going to be," he said.

"Federal Cabinet met yesterday but no-one is prepared to talk about what was discussed or even maybe decided because we're waiting until the National Party meet on Sunday.

"I find this absurd.

"We had the pre-COP in Milan two weeks ago; Australia didn't say anything at the pre-COP because we didn't have a policy.

"This rabble of a government have not got a policy and they have let Australia down big time."   :(

Q+A host Virginia Trioli reminded him that federal Labor have not been perfect on climate change policy either, with Member for Hunter Joel Fitzgibbon at odds with his party on several climate policies.

Mr Dreyfus blamed the Abbott government for "wrecking" Labor's past climate policies.

Independent member for Indi, Helen Haines, also went on the attack against the National party.

"Fundamentally, the government have not had a plan," Ms Haines said.

"There's a closed door secret deal being done at the moment with the National Party and the Liberal Party.

"I represent an electorate in rural and regional Australia and let me tell you, farming communities, regional communities are so far in front of the National Party [and] the Liberal Party.

"The National Farmers' Federation committed to zero net emissions by 2050 years ago.

"The meat and livestock association have committed to carbon neutrality by 2030.

"We have the dairy farmers in my electorate sending me their plan for climate action.

"Every large renewable project is in the regions, but are the profits coming back to the regions?

"No. Because there hasn't been a plan from the National Party, they're too busy looking backwards and looking for things that have happened years ago."

ScoMo is Prime Minister number 6 to attempt political survival when formulating a Climate Change policy.

Little Johnny; Kevvie; Julia; Abbott; Turnbull all FAILED.

Will ScoMo actually succeed?  :o

Not likely nor any of his successors.

Any climate change policy is so beset by political and ideological differences that it is as intractable as Afghanistan.

Nobody will ever agree...Dear Julia was adamant that Australia was Most Wanted due to our individual carbon footprint; many disagree since China is a disaster area for pollution etc with a vast carbon footprint compared to all of Australia.

While ever our politicians play Popularity instead of doing their simple job and are blown along by any trendy wind that comes along, things will never change, and especially as long as the sheeple just swallow their bullshit.

The Greens destroyed two attempts to introduce carbon pricing, yet some think they are an environmental party  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Nationals’ Matt Canavan, now on the backbench, was for three years the federal resources minister. He tells Inquirer net zero is like a beauty contest where everyone answers “world peace”.

“It sounds very nice but is just totally unattainable, given our need for fossil fuels to grow our food, travel and defend ourselves.”

He points out that Australia has met its targets whereas many other countries have not. Canada and New Zealand, to take just two, have shown no real movement in their emissions.

Says Canavan: “A formal embrace of net zero will give licence to every bureaucrat in Canberra to stop us doing anything. We won’t build another Adani, baseload power station, or even another Murray-Darling. All such projects will need to offset their emissions, which will just act as a big tax on developing our nation.”

Quote:

With the Morrison government set to confirm on Tuesday support for a net zero by 2050 target after a cabinet deliberation on Monday night, voters were asked to nominate emissions reduction targets that would create jobs during the transition. Almost 30% of respondents think the proposed mid-century commitment is the best target for job creation. But a higher percentage of respondents, 35%, say a more ambitious 2030 target would be better for job creation than net zero. Morrison abandoned an effort to achieve a higher 2030 target when Nationals vetoed the idea last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/25/australian-voters-rethinking-immigration-in-wake-of-extended-border-closures-poll-suggests

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 26^th, 2021 at 3:56pm:

Quote: With the Morrison government set to confirm on Tuesday support for a net zero by 2050 target after a cabinet deliberation on Monday night, voters were asked to nominate emissions reduction targets that would create jobs during the transition. Almost 30% of respondents think the proposed mid-century commitment is the best target for job creation. But a higher percentage of respondents, 35%, say a more ambitious 2030 target would be better for job creation than net zero. Morrison abandoned an effort to achieve a higher 2030 target when Nationals vetoed the idea last week. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/25/australian-voters-rethinking-immigration-in-wake-of-extended-border-closures-poll-suggests

When I click on this link, I get an article about immigration, not NET ZERO 2050.

Scroll down, boyo!

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2021 at 1:12pm:

Will ScoMo actually succeed?

not if todays announcement is any indication ::)

Frank wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 10:01am:

The Nationals’ Matt Canavan, now on the backbench, was for three years the federal resources minister. He tells Inquirer net zero is like a beauty contest where everyone answers “world peace”. “It sounds very nice but is just totally unattainable, given our need for fossil fuels to grow our food, travel and defend ourselves.” He points out that Australia has met its targets whereas many other countries have not. Canada and New Zealand, to take just two, have shown no real movement in their emissions. Says Canavan: “A formal embrace of net zero will give licence to every bureaucrat in Canberra to stop us doing anything. We won’t build another Adani, baseload power station, or even another Murray-Darling. All such projects will need to offset their emissions, which will just act as a big tax on developing our nation.”

Coal industry is firmly entrenched in caravans  back pocket , blantantly obvious

So ScoMo gets the government to sign up to 'net zero' by 2050 - for wich all the Gretas and Brandts here were clamouring - but now that it's done - NO GOOD!


For you stupid progs it is never about the thing, it's  always about the clamouring and the anger and the 'maintain the rage'. You'd resent it if world peace was brought about a non-prog.

.

---

.

---

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 26^th, 2021 at 10:49pm:

.

Made me laugh even though I’m not sure what it’s saying. I got the bulldust part though.

So we finally have a net zero emissions target but unlike Europe, the US and China, the government believes we’ll manage to reduce emissions to zero without implementing any legislation that either requires businesses to reduce their emissions or that of their products; or provides funding to pay these businesses to reduce their emissions at mass scale.

Morrison argues that businesses and households will voluntarily reduce their emissions almost entirely. Let's see how that plays out.

Raven wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 1:08pm:

So we finally have a net zero emissions target but unlike Europe, the US and China, the government believes we’ll manage to reduce emissions to zero without implementing any legislation that either requires businesses to reduce their emissions or that of their products; or provides funding to pay these businesses to reduce their emissions at mass scale. Morrison argues that businesses and households will voluntarily reduce their emissions almost entirely. Let's see how that plays out.

"Unlike China"
:D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D

Frank wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 1:18pm:

Raven wrote on Oct 27th, 2021 at 1:08pm: So we finally have a net zero emissions target but unlike Europe, the US and China, the government believes we’ll manage to reduce emissions to zero without implementing any legislation that either requires businesses to reduce their emissions or that of their products; or provides funding to pay these businesses to reduce their emissions at mass scale. Morrison argues that businesses and households will voluntarily reduce their emissions almost entirely. Let's see how that plays out. "Unlike China" :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D

Yes unlike China. They've actually legislated emission reductions. The 14th Five Year Plan (FYP) published in March establishes binding targets for reducing both carbon and energy intensity. It aims to reduce carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP) by 18 percent and energy intensity (the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP) by 13.5 percent by 2025. Also, it promises to increase non-fossil fuel primary energy resources to 20 percent, a critical step in decreasing China’s reliance on coal.

Raven wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 1:30pm:

The 14th Five Year Plan (FYP) published in March establishes binding targets for reducing both carbon and energy intensity. It aims to reduce carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP) by 18 percent and energy intensity (the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP) by 13.5 percent by 2025.

That must be why they are ramping up their own coal production.

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

Raven wrote on Oct 27th, 2021 at 1:30pm: The 14th Five Year Plan (FYP) published in March establishes binding targets for reducing both carbon and energy intensity. It aims to reduce carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP) by 18 percent and energy intensity (the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP) by 13.5 percent by 2025. That must be why they are ramping up their own coal production.

Yes they are. Beijing has ordered coal mines to increase production to avoid power shortages over the coming winter. Surging demand from heavy industry in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic has led to shortages in several regions of the country in recent weeks.

But they are also going green.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/096F/production/_119651420_solar_update_29_jul-nc.png

China also believes going green has enormous economic potential, providing jobs and income for millions of Chinese, as well as reducing China's dependence on foreign oil and gas.

China also makes and buys more electric cars than any other country.

Further China is literally getting greener at a faster rate than any other country  largely as a result of its forestry programmes designed to reduce soil erosion and pollution.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/114B1/production/_118933807_china_greening_2x640-nc.png

Increasing the area of land covered in vegetation will help, as plants absorb carbon dioxide.

The world needs China to succeed and China knows this. The CCP loves nothing more then showing off to the world what it is capable of. They are desperate to be seen as the world leader and they are very very good at sticking to long term plans.

Legislate-schmegislate.


https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/1_27_14_Eric_CoalPlantsUSvsChina_take5_650_574_s_c1_c_c.gif

Raven wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 2:11pm:

Increasing the area of land covered in vegetation will help, as plants absorb carbon dioxide.

Yep. Due to CO2 the whole world is greening.

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

So tell us again on why we should shut down CO2?

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 2:55pm:

So tell us again on why we should shut down CO2?

Because your thinking is ill-informed, simplistic and unscientific.

So we are committed to net zero co2 emissions by 2050.

Hurray the world is saved!!!

The Cabbage eaters will now have to invent something else to whinge about.

Ayn Marx wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 3:21pm:

Because your thinking is ill-informed, simplistic and unscientific.

Now all you have to do is back your assertions up with peer-reviewed facts. ;)

Why is it you never do that? ;)

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 2:55pm:

Raven wrote on Oct 27th, 2021 at 2:11pm: Increasing the area of land covered in vegetation will help, as plants absorb carbon dioxide. Yep. Due to CO2 the whole world is greening. "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth So tell us again on why we should shut down CO2?

Those who are involved with promoting plant growth for commercial reasons use CO2 generators.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=co2+generator&source=hp&ei=NRd5YaC4Dd-x5OUPouKfkAU&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYXklRU_CxKlTXpvwQKJnse-0LGv502nG&oq=co2+generator&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjoRCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOggIABCABBCxAzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQ0QM6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOgQIABADOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToFCAAQgAQ6BQgAELEDOggIABCxAxCDAToICAAQgAQQyQNQ6hBY7i1giVBoAHAAeACAAfIBiAH_EJIBBjAuMTAuM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

The Luddites tried to stop progress , who would've thought 20 odd years ago we would be holding a phone in our hand that had processing power the equivalent of apollo 11 space craft , embrace the future guys and stop.opposing it . Lamb roasts aren't going to cost a 100 dollars , Whyalla isn't going to be wiped off the map despite what your liberal Murdoch masters tell you , the lights will stay on and the world will not end .

Labor majority government wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 9:49pm:

The Luddites tried to stop progress , who would've thought 20 odd years ago we would be holding a phone in our hand that had processing power the equivalent of apollo 11 space craft , embrace the future guys and stop.opposing it .

Yeah. Fancy going back to old technology. They moved from windmills for a reason.

And solar - it used to take ages to dry grain.

Frank wrote on Oct 26^th, 2021 at 9:06pm:

So ScoMo gets the government to sign up to 'net zero' by 2050 - for wich all the Gretas and Brandts here were clamouring - but now that it's done - NO GOOD!

Of course it's no good. Scummo's alleged net zero "plan" is a fraud:

1. Every state and territory, and a significant number of businesses have already signed up to net zero. Morrison's effort is like a large number of people lifting a heavy object while Morrison stands there doing nothing, then after the object is lifted Morrison walks up and pretends to be lifting it too. He's done no actual heavy lifting. The only "net zero" here is Morrison's leadership.

2. The government alleged "plan" relies on fictional technology.

3. This alleged "plan" has no modelling backing it. The warning signs of this are obvious: every one of the percentage ranges in the alleged "plan" are multiples of five. The probability of this happening by chance are around 0.01, so there's about a 0.99 probability that these numbers were just made up. It's not a plan, it's a sham and a scam.

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2021 at 2:55pm:

So tell us again on why we should shut down CO2?

CO₂, not CO2.

If you are unable to understand why emissions need to be reduced despite having this explained to you many times, it's pointless explaining it to you further because you wilfully ignore the explanations so you can lift quotes out of context and post crap like you always do.

Bam wrote on Oct 29^th, 2021 at 9:31am:

If you are unable to understand why emissions need to be reduced despite having this explained to you many times, it's pointless explaining it to you further because you wilfully ignore the explanations so you can lift quotes out of context and post crap like you always do.

So we should reduce emissions because neither plants nor animal need CO2, or if you want to be pedantic CO₂, although both are in common usage so neither is incorrect?

You do realise that before the industrial revolution CO2 was low? That plants were close to dying? And it was the time of the LIA when many people died of cold. And yet people want to go back to those times? Absolutely ridiculous.

All you have is feelings. If you feel so strongly about it post something that is peer-reviewed on how bad it will be. Not climate models because they are unverified.

You can't even do posts on AGW (CC) with or without context. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Oct 29^th, 2021 at 9:17am:

Of course it's no good. Scummo's alleged net zero "plan" is a fraud: 1. Every state and territory, and a significant number of businesses have already signed up to net zero. Morrison's effort is like a large number of people lifting a heavy object while Morrison stands there doing nothing, then after the object is lifted Morrison walks up and pretends to be lifting it too. He's done no actual heavy lifting. The only "net zero" here is Morrison's leadership.

OK now we are talking.

Net emissions = gross emissions - gross sequestration. Would you agree with that?

IF so then you need to know the sum of Australia's gross sequestration. Now all you have to do is find that out and we can start from there. If you don't have a start point you cannot possibly have an end point. ;)

Why is it that once the libs retire and are no longer on the payroll of the miners, their story regarding global warming flips completely to that they pushed when they could have done something about it. Seems to be common amongst the libs.



Quote:

Glasgow: Former Australian finance minister Mathias Cormann is urging world leaders to axe costly taxpayer-funded fossil fuel subsidies, as the Glasgow climate summit’s goal of “consigning coal to history” was undermined by a watered-down deal which key countries refused to sign. Cormann, who has embarked on a green pivot since his election as secretary-general of the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, said winding back subsidies would be “difficult and sensitive” but crucial to neutralising carbon emissions by 2050. “Governments should remove distortions that divert investment away from the transition to net zero,” he told the COP26 talks on Thursday local-time.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/remove-distortions-mathias-cormann-calls-for-fossil-fuel-subsidies-to-be-abolished-20211104-p59670.html?fbclid=IwAR2WCqrTYiopqd4qs-sH4z1zMd3yUj6Tt5zS7WEQh6Xz71UK-QOE6RcA4x0

I know you will say you were only quoting him.  ;)


John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 7:59pm:

Glasgow: Former Australian finance minister Mathias Cormann is urging world leaders to axe costly taxpayer-funded fossil fuel subsidies,

So what fossil fuel subsidies does Australia pay? No I am not talking about tax deductions.

They are far less than paid to renewables per output unit. Of course you believe in fairy farts like renewables being able to power the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 8:19pm:

So what fossil fuel subsidies does Australia pay?

it's been done to death ... you've made a fool of yourself each and every time. I'm not interested in repeating it all again.

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 8:35pm:

it's been done to death ...

it has but you can't accept the truth. ;)
John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 8:35pm:

I'm not interested in repeating it all again.

Of course not petal. t would just show you up AGAIN. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm sure the only good news you have on any day is that which you invent for yourself, so you keep telling yourself that if it helps you to feel better.

6.9$7.4 billion mainly on tax deductions

https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Climate-Policy-Factbook_FINAL.pdf

$6.9 billion in direct subsidies plus their tax deductions.

"The subsidies are directed to weather-controlled sources of electricity that account for one fifth of supply in a market that without the subsidy would turnover $10 billion a year. These renewable subsidies, therefore, add 70 per cent to total market costs. 

Coal generators, which account for over 60 per cent of supply, receive no subsidies — indeed, coal faces an actual penalty because it is taxed through state royalties.  "

https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/01/yes-the-energy-system-is-broken-but-because-of-ministers-bureaucrats-and-regulators-rush-to-renewables/

"Renewable energy generation in the NEM climbed to 28.8% overall in the first six months of the year, with Tasmania leading the way with 99.6% of its energy needs delivered by renewables."

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/07/22/fossil-fuel-subsidies-labelled-reckless-as-renewables-hit-new-highs/

Wow. Similar "subsidies" for 30% of the load. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Wow. Similar "subsidies" for 30% of the load

similar subsidies .... weren't you earlier crying they had no subsidies?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

that didn't take long

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 9:32pm:

weren't you earlier crying they had no subsidies?  Grin Grin Grin Grin

No petal. But of course you could quote me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://i.imgur.com/GSKa2mG.jpg

;D

Nuclear is the answer. 8-)

Belgarion wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 9:25pm:

Nuclear is the answer. 8-)

If nuclear is the answer, then the question must have been stupid.

Nuclear power would be a better idea if Australia was a small country with a large population like Japan, but they are not necessary for Australia.

Australia has a population of about 3.4 people per square kilometre. That leaves plenty of room for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.

Australia could provide most of its power needs with about 2,000 square kilometres of solar panels, or about 0.025% of the area of the country.

Wind power is another viable option. Offshore wind turbines in the Bass Strait or off the west coast of Tasmania would work well from being located in the Roaring Forties where the winds are fairly reliable.

As for batteries, sodium ion batteries are not far off large-scale deployment. These would be a lot cheaper than lithium batteries because sodium is far more plentiful than lithium and about 100 times cheaper.

So we don't actually need nuclear power in Australia for our energy.

Bam wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 9:43am:

Belgarion wrote on Nov 9th, 2021 at 9:25pm: Nuclear is the answer. 8-) If nuclear is the answer, then the question must have been stupid. Nuclear power would be a better idea if Australia was a small country with a large population like Japan, but they are not necessary for Australia. Australia has a population of about 3.4 people per square kilometre. That leaves plenty of room for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. Australia could provide most of its power needs with about 2,000 square kilometres of solar panels, or about 0.025% of the area of the country. Wind power is another viable option. Offshore wind turbines in the Bass Strait or off the west coast of Tasmania would work well from being located in the Roaring Forties where the winds are fairly reliable. As for batteries, sodium ion batteries are not far off large-scale deployment. These would be a lot cheaper than lithium batteries because sodium is far more plentiful than lithium and about 100 times cheaper. So we don't actually need nuclear power in Australia for our energy.

Wrong on so many levels. The land area required for solar and wind farms is an ecological disaster in itself, not to mention their inefficiency and the inability to recycle most of the components at the end of their short lifespan. 

Food for thought here: https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Infographic-nuclear-solar-wind-footprints.jpg

Bam wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 9:43am:

Offshore wind turbines in the Bass Strait or off the west coast of Tasmania would work well from being located in the Roaring Forties where the winds are fairly reliable.

Any wind turbines at sea require more maintenance due to salt. It is also more expensive for the maintenance and they have to be replaced sooner.

What does "fairly reliable" mean. They are either reliable or they are not.