The ALP steps on more rakes

Not  a year after the “Climate Referendum”  there are headlines from the ABC hopefully suggesting that Albo is about to re-commit to zero emissions by 2050 (well all the conservatives are talking it up), Penny Wong has opined that inaction would be 20 times more damaging than (what?) and this morning the front page of The Weekend Australian revealed that the shadow Cabinet thought about a cap on coal exports.

On the coal exports, look forward to a Climate Roundup on world trends in coal consumption and the prospects for increasing use of coal as far out as 2050.

Not to mention the German Green energy transition

Because RE zealots crowed about Germany’s ‘inevitable transition’ to wind and solar from the outset, it’s no surprise that its disastrous conclusion is attracting attention, much like a freeway pileup.

Germany’s so-called Energiewende (energy transition) has turned into a power pricing and supply calamity. Which was as perfectly predictable as it was perfectly avoidable.

Its the choke point, stupid!

Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity.

Paul Kelly speculates that the bushfires have shifted the public culture enough for Albo to bet that they will accept the cost of zero emissions. The kiddies maybe but the punters who vote and pay the bills will bail out the minute they get an idea of the cost. That is apparent from all the research on how deep in their pockets people will reach to save the planet. To be fair, he ended the story with the thought that the change is not likely to be permanent. You bet, see how it holds up to the next increase in power prices.

Liberty Quote – Acts of Parliament do not simply fail; they frequently make worse.  Herbert Spencer

Bonus. More seriously bad news about windfarms and political patronage in Victoria. Incidentally claims about the adverse health impacts of windfarms are starting to get some traction with cases in the courts at home and overseas.

Another bonus. A letter to confirm that the PM has been captured by the fake climate science mafia. ScoMo – Prime Minister’s Reply – 2019-11-26

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The ALP steps on more rakes

  1. I very much doubt that most people think climate change is responsible for the bushfires. Suggesting such is just the MSM trying to foist their Leftist views and make them appear real.

  2. Rafe Champion

    Quite likely bemused, interesting to see the different tenor of comments in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian.

  3. Phill

    I would very much love to hear the ALP position on pollution in China and India.
    Do they think anything Australia could do would make a difference, compared to the free pass Kyoto and Paris gave to these “developing” countries?
    There is a site that Cats may be aware of that shows the difference at a glance, here, ( if the link attaching stuff doesn’t work).

  4. Leo G

    Because RE zealots crowed about Germany’s ‘inevitable transition’ to wind and solar from the outset, it’s no surprise that its disastrous conclusion is attracting attention, much like a freeway pileup.

    Just as predictable is the power pricing and supply calamity on those freeways, with lithium cell recharging on a choked grid for batteries that require more than twice as much energy to produce (including recycling) than the energy they deliver during the lifetime of the battery.
    Double jeopardy for motorists on electric motorways?

  5. P

    ABC heading:
    Labor’s Anthony Albanese recommits party to net zero carbon emissions target for 2050

    From Australian Green from their website:
    Net zero or net negative Australian greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2040.

    Davos ‘Forget about net zero, we need real zero‘ Greta Thunberg

  6. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    inaction would be 20 times more damaging
    93.1% of the US electorate didn’t vote for Fatty Trump
    the oceans are going to rise by 100 metres
    97% of scientists believe in gerbil worming
    etc, etc, etc

    What is it with collectivists and plucking ridiculous figures out of their flabby backsides?

  7. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Forget about net zero, we need real zero

    Here’s another catchy name you could use, Toots – “Year Zero”.

  8. BoyfromTottenham

    Can anyone tell me what ‘net zero emissions’ actually means? Net of what? Across the whole economy, or just electricity? The questions go on and on, but nobody seems to be asking them of the ALP and Greens.

  9. The funny thing about all of this net zero/negative emissions crap is that when the lights etc start going out on a regular basis, it’s the Left that will be the first to flounder, as they are the most dependent on modern technology.

    By that I mean, have a look at who goes, camping, caravaning, boating, 4WDriving, hunting, fishing etc. It’s not the latte sipping, inner-city, Greens and their supporters. The former are generally able to live without the mod cons.

    We regularly have to make do with blackouts and, every time that happens, out come our camping gear and we continue life as before.

  10. Roger

    Across the whole economy, or just electricity?

    The impact will be felt across the whole economy, you can be sure of that.

  11. P

    This UK article gives a description of Net zero:

    Net zero: why is it necessary?

  12. P

    A couple more links from the same source that may be of interest to some here:

    Almost half of global GDP under actual or intended net zero emission targets
    Published:18 February 2020

    Net Zero Emissions Race

    2020 Scorecard

  13. H B Bear

    ScratchAlbo. Find a true Lefty.

  14. Cynic of Ayr

    Is there any information on just how much Horse Power – or KiloWatts if you prefer, there is being used daily in Australia for the transport of goods alone.
    I include Trains, Trucks, Ships.
    This all has to be eliminated, or jillions of trees grown to compensate.

    I laughed at that idiot labor bloke Marles.
    Interviewer, “How much will it cost to do this?”
    Marles, “How much will it cost not to?”
    Not only does the moron not know how much it will cost, he has no clue how much it won’t cost!

  15. Leo G

    Climate science is clear that to a close approximation, the eventual extent of global warming is proportional to the total amount of carbon dioxide that human activities add to the atmosphere

    To a close approximation, that “Climate science” is not science. Maybe it’s “trans science” or “binary science”, where not all science identities are valid science”.
    A binary science for instance, might be clear that the atmosphere makes distinctions about the source of its carbon dioxide when it responds to such moieties. Valid science does not.

  16. Lutz Jacoby

    I am now forced to live to the age of 105 years, just so I can see how this is accomplished.

  17. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    I am now forced to live to the age of 105 years, just so I can see how this is accomplished.

    I’ll be there as well, Squire, enjoying every minute of being a relatively spritely 85.

  18. Cassie of Sydney

    “I am now forced to live to the age of 105 years, just so I can see how this is accomplished.”

    I want to live to be 110 so I can be very, very grumpy and I can say to people….amidst the moral, social and economic apocalypse….that you were all complete and utter fuckers…..I told you that this was all going to happen…… Cassandra of Troy….who predicted the collapse of Troy. It’s gonna be sweet…so sweet.

  19. Squirrel

    They keep stepping on wakes, but wun of these days, they’re gonna get that wascally wabbit!

  20. Rafe Champion

    Marles unwittingly asked the right question (how much will it cost not to do it) but unfortunately it was only to cover up his ignorance on the first question.
    Of course we need cost benefit studies a la Lomborg. I wonder if anyone who works in Parliament House has thought of that.
    More Fisher modelling please!

  21. Cassie of Sydney

    “Of course we need cost benefit studies a la Lomborg.”

    Rafe….that was a great Lomberg lecture last week.

Comments are closed.