Opinion polls on green energy: a glass half full

There is some interesting material thrown up by today’s release of the Newspoll results on climate change.  One interpretation is that a majority of respondents would prefer to leave the Paris Agreement, which the Government uses as justification for green energy policies, in light of Trump having already so opted, if this “could result in lower electricity prices”.

Another way of looking at the results is that 40 per cent want to stick with the Paris Agreement even though its original fragility (in not requiring any action from the non OECD world responsible for 60 per cent of emissions) is further undermined by the US reneging with a further 15 per cent.  That 40 per cent of voters (34 per cent Coalition; 50 per cent ALP; 71 per cent Green; 19 per cent One Nation) refused the carrot of prospectively lower electricity prices.

The problem with such surveys is “rational ignorance” on the part of respondents with many other matters on their mind beyond abstract policy matters.  This is a factor in 17 per cent of Green voters rejecting the party’s core policy and 19 per cent of One Nation supporters also reject a key party policy line.

Breaking down the reactions by party of choice in this way means rather less reliability but the numbers of supporters for each political party that reject the leadership position is interesting.  While the Coalition supporters are overwhelmingly lined up against the Turnbull government pro-Paris position, over a third of the ALP people reject the extreme 50 per cent renewables policy being promoted by the Shorten team if that will cost them – as it undoubtedly would.

Some doubt on the credibility of what people say as opposed to what they do can be seen in the fact is that only about 3 per cent (and falling)  of electricity users actually agree to pay any premium by selecting green power options.  But then again most people think the government should collect taxes but hardly anyone voluntarily pays more than required!

The poll’s result illustrates the support for “clean energy” and all the other propagandistic labels that have conditioned people’s thinking.  There is no major lobby group prepared to contest this head on – even the Minerals Council doffs its hat to lower emissions.  Add to this a high proportion of people who are sucked into the Finkelesque view that renewable energy if not quite cheaper than fossil fuels right now will very soon be.

We have some way to go before a recognition of the damage being done by green energy causes a groundswell of opposition to the policy and causes the retail politicians to abandon it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Opinion polls on green energy: a glass half full

  1. Tom

    Hahaha. That’s made my day. According to the Newspoll figures, 17% of Filth voters reject CAGW hysteria. On the other hand, they’re still voting for the communist economy-wreckers.

    Intelligent voters are in a terrible predicament when only small non-left minor parties support rational energy policy, but that’s where the votes are. The major parties won’t go there because they’re terrified of Twitter and the Stalinist media.

    The Lib-Lab primary vote total will be lucky to exceed 60% at the coming federal poll.

  2. gbees

    Seems as if One Nation voters have their heads screwed on correctly. Can’t believe 34% of LNP voters don’t want to exit it. Just shows how many ‘useful idiots’ there are even in the so-called conservative ranks. The 17% of Greens in favour would be those who haven’t worked out yet that The Greens party is a communist party and not true a environmental party.

  3. A Lurker

    We have some way to go before a recognition of the damage being done by green energy causes a groundswell of opposition to the policy and causes the retail politicians to abandon it.

    More will walk away from the collective delusion when in the middle of a typical Australian Summer heatwave hundreds of thousands of people in the major cities are without power and they are left sitting sweating and wilting in the heat along with irritable children.

  4. jupes

    … even the Minerals Council doffs its hat to for lower emissions.

    Appalling.

    Also the Business Council of Australia supports the NEG. What hope is there for common sense policies when even business groups are colluding with the scammers.

    As you say Alan, there is still some way to go.

  5. H B Bear

    Polls about what people are prepared to spend money on are beyond useless. Follow the money. Why do you think the RET isn’t funded by a voluntary, opt-in Green Levy imposed by retailers?

  6. Gengis

    Jupes,
    What about the appalling behaviour of the leaders of our big gas companies looking the TV camera in the eye and say the ‘Clean Gas’ is the natural medium for a transition to renewable energy. They are liars because they well know that EVERY gas field has inherent ‘natural’ CO2 of varying amounts. This goes from a gas field in SW Victoria at over 90% CO2 used for our fizzy drinks (and I wonder what they do with the methane – vent it!) and the Woodside fields of WA at 4% CO2. The Cooper basin varies around 8-12% CO2 and is vented at the Moomba plant. It was never included in Australia’s emissions.

  7. min

    I talk to many people about Climate Change from young to old Including politicians and university lecturers . I am in despair at the misinformation, lack of knowledge of history and just plain mouthing of the Propoganda that is exhibited. For instance the lecturer in Climate change bases her lectures on Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph , the politician in charge of Energy who did not know about medieval warming and the general public who are clueless about how wind and solar energy is negligible and what batteries can actually do to keep power going . Until they suffer the consequences or are reeducated polls tell us nothing.
    Another bit of Propoganda that Co2 levels highest in 8000 years being promulgated at the moment if that is so what caused warming higher than now in more recent periods.

  8. struth

    What’s the point of this poll?

    Another way too vague, really.

    Take a polling of only those who pay electricity bills, domestically and industrially.

    The problem with such surveys is “rational ignorance” on the part of respondents with many other matters on their mind beyond abstract policy matters. This is a factor in 17 per cent of Green voters rejecting the party’s core policy and 19 per cent of One Nation supporters also reject a key party policy line.

    Another example of why compulsory voting is such a disaster for Australia.
    People should not be forced to vote on things they know nothing about.

  9. Roger

    We have some way to go before a recognition of the damage being done by green energy causes a groundswell of opposition to the policy and causes the retail politicians to abandon it.

    NSW, VIC & SA paying ever rising prices for an unreliable electricity supply this summer might to do it.

  10. entropy

    jupes
    #2538562, posted on October 31, 2017 at 9:10 am
    … even the Minerals Council doffs its hat to for lower emissions.

    Appalling.

    Also the Business Council of Australia supports the NEG. What hope is there for common sense policies when even business groups are colluding with the scammers.

    But of course. If you were a policy officer/administrator in an employer org, you have to have one eye on your pre retirement gig, these days typically a board member of an industry superfund where the positions are gifted between ex union officials, ex industry org reps and ex politicians. These superfunds are heavily investing your money in renewable subsidy farming, so the last thing they will do is try to derail the gravy train.

    Always bet on the holy trinity of Big Government, Big Union and Big Business.

  11. John Constantine

    If the Australian quisling class can deindustrialise Australia fast enough, there might be enough ruinable electricity this summer after all.

    Instead of rolling blackouts for all, metal smelters will shut down, then other heavy industry.

    When the cost of ruinable electricity diffuses into the economy, it can be insidiously promoted as a good thing.

    When meatworks depending on gas and electricity to process meat grown intensively and depending on gas and electricity can no longer supply to end users that have to cook the meat with windmills and sunshine, because:

    We can import ready cooked porkbellies, Proudly Made With Coalpower, cheaper than we can ruinably do it.

    The public then are sold the cheap imported stuff as a price saving, but it is only cheap because we have ruined our own industry.

    Shut down metal smelters, to ration ruinable electricity to the welfare services economy and voters.

    Then import solid coal power in the form of aluminium and pork bellies.

    Borrow the money to pay for it.

    Comrades.

    [ lot of the filth cannot understand that only shutting down a meatworks for a handful of random days a year could make it unviable, or don’t care, or worse actually plan to deindustrialise meat production in Australia with ruinables.]

  12. EvilElvis

    The minerals council is too busy tying itself in a knot over shafting Grylls over a proposed big miner royalty increase and then having to deal with the elected government wanting to increase gold royalties! They are A grade fuckwits!

    Apologies, WA centric post…

  13. RobK

    I responded to a Reachtel push poll last night regarding children in custody. It conflated state and federal issues but there was no room for nuances. I didn’t agree with their assertions and was forced to choose the option of troglodyte each time.
    Polling is an art form not a science.

  14. v_maet

    I would have liked a follow up question for those who are happy to pay higher electricity prices to work out what level of price increase they are happy with and what impact to reliability they would be happy with.

  15. Gilas

    Why the reference to Trump in the question?

    Is it to imply that Australia needs to follow someone else’s lead? Because we are too timid to “Lead the World” on this issue, like we do on every other concern-of-no-relevance-to-anyone?

    Or is it to bias the question, given Trump’s unpopularity with the great unwashed?

    I suspect the latter, me smells a rat.

  16. NB

    It’d be a good idea to drop the terms ‘renewable’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ energy for solar, wind, wave etc generation of electricity. The terms are deceptive. For example, solar and wind power generation equipment is very far from green or renewable.
    In fact, the deleterious aspects of sun, wind and wave power generation equipment, and the batteries to store energy, would be vigorously opposed by greens for any other application.
    Tom, above, used the phrase ‘rational energy policy’ for a policy not dictated by AGW. The phrase has a good ring to it.
    But what about a generic term or terms such as the ‘immature’ technologies, or ‘expensive’ technologies, or other adjectives such as ‘dangerous’, ‘wasteful’, ‘ineffective’. Or perhaps just using the words ‘sun, wind, wave’ etc might do. ‘Land intensive’ comes to mind, or ‘landscape filling technologies’, ‘land reliant’.
    Are there some wordsmiths out there who might come up with some two or three terms that help counter the misimpression created by the terms renewable, sustainable and green?

  17. RobK

    NB,
    Experimental technologies.

  18. RobK

    Low yield agrarian technologies.

  19. NB

    ‘Low yield agrarian technologies.’
    Yes! 🙂
    Or maybe ‘pie-in-the-sky’.

  20. Kneel

    The only way is SHOW people what we NEED.
    Show them a single 2.4GW power station – full walk-through tour. Remind them we need 8 of these all running flat out to generate the required 18GW of the NEM minimum load with near enough as makes no difference NO spare capacity if something fails – so probably 12-16 in reality.
    Then show them a 2MW wind turbine and remind them that we would need over 1800 of these to replace just one quarter of one of those power stations (1/64th of the required power) and that even then, we could not guarantee reliability of supply 24/7/365.
    Remind them that peak consumption increases the load by approx. 30% or more.
    Inform them that solar is worse.
    Inform them that batteries on this scale are more than 100 times the cost of the wind turbines.
    Inform them that even if they wanted to go down the solar/wind/batteries path, that the extra grid investment to get such distributed generation onto the grid would essentially double the cost of just the turbines/PV arrays.

  21. jupes

    What about the appalling behaviour of the leaders of our big gas companies looking the TV camera in the eye and say the ‘Clean Gas’ is the natural medium for a transition to renewable energy.

    The idea that CO2 is somehow ‘dirty’ is one of the great propaganda victories of all time.

  22. CameronH

    There is still a large number of people who do not really understand or believe the impact that renewable energy has on energy prices. The greens and other Marxists in the Labor party run a very good misinformation campaign on this.

  23. Muzzlehatch

    went to a community meeting on fracking. presenter knew nothing about drilling or geology. vast lack of understanding on the basics. managed to freak out some of the normies though. many nories were already on the bandwagon already. Who funds these groups? OPEC?

  24. Snoopy

    The idea that CO2 is somehow ‘dirty’ is one of the great propaganda victories of all time.

    And without endless footage of steam billowing from cooling towers they probably couldn’t have pulled it off.

  25. manalive

    I don’t understand why specific references to ‘Marxism’ or Stalinism’ are common in discussions like this; the fake energy ‘market’ both major parties are pursuing is a broader statism which can also reference Fascism and various forms of Corporatism.

  26. David Brewer

    Poll is meaningless since question is loaded with:

    “If pulling out could result in lower electricity prices, would you be in favour or opposed…”

    Imagine the results if instead it was loaded with:

    “If pulling out could result in further dangerous climate change, would you be in favour or opposed…”

    Yes, I know climate change is bunk, but some of the respondents don’t and will be guided in their answer by what comes before.

    At least Sir Humphrey had the wit to suggest concealing the leading questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

  27. JohnA

    People should not be forced to vote on things they know nothing about.

    Well, struth, we should shut down Canberra, Spring St et. al. so that the stupid pollies can’t vote on ANYthing.

  28. Les Hunt

    Alan

    Interested in your current comments within the context of the future of the Latrobe Valley.

    We have spoken to you before on Gippsland FM community radio.

    Would you be available this Sat to speak about renewable energy targets, energy policy, coal policy and the like.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *