Another Labor Split on climate and energy?

This has been coming for a long time and almost a decade ago I suggested that the ALP would crash and burn on the climate issue. That was before the Coalition turned out to be almost equally misguided and the crunch in the ALP was delayed by the crippling demand for groupthink in the party.  From The Weekend Australian.

A growing number of Labor MPs are urging Anthony Albanese to adopt the Coalition’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, with one warning the party may never win another election unless it takes a more moderate position on ­climate change. 

Amid concerns Labor needs to broaden its appeal, senators Alex Gallacher and Glenn Sterle have backed resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon’s calls to adopt the government’s ­medium-term target to lower emissions by 26-28 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030.

If we don’t accept that, we may never get back into government,” Senator Gallacher told The Weekend Australian.

“The reality is, we are going to have a deficit that you can’t jump over. We can’t constrain our economy in terms of what some of the people on the Left want to do. Just do it and move on.

“It may tear the heart out of some of the people in the conservation world but really it isn’t going to tear the heart out of the electorate. And it certainly won’t tear the heart out of a lot of people we want to vote for us.”

Senator Sterle, from the West Australian Right, said: “Joel is on the money. I support Joel’s ­position”.

This development means that the Cat letter writers are getting into the game at a very strategic time and we await with interest the replies that come back from the local members. The first replies are automatic emails or standard boilerplate and advice that the concern will be referring to the relevant Minister. The interesting part will come when they are pressed on their perception of the most obvious pitfalls for RE – the wind droughts, choke points, the island effect and the non-existence of grid-scale storage.

Keep on windwatching and see the size of the black, brown and red bars!  Not much wind in SA at present and they are importing coal power, despite a lot of gas capacity. So much for self-sufficiency with RE. That’s the way it goes in SA, when the wind blows and the sun shines they export, otherwise they import to supplement the local gas supply. With a fleet of diesel generators available in case the interconnector fails again:)

And see how it is going in Britain!

Bonus. A paper with a very good and detailed explanation of the reasons why windpower can’t replace conventional fuels. And then the case for power from tidal coffer dams! Admittedly at the same alarming price as offshore wind!

Crit of wind power in favour of tidal coffer dams

 

 

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

21 Responses to Another Labor Split on climate and energy?

  1. Mak Siccar

    … Fitzgibbon’s calls to adopt the government’s ­medium-term target to lower emissions by 26-28 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030.

    No, we want this emissions reduction crap to stop altogether, not simply bubble along at a lower rate.

  2. Iampeter

    This has been coming for a long time and almost a decade ago I suggested that the ALP would crash and burn on the climate issue. That was before the Coalition turned out to be almost equally misguided and the crunch in the ALP was delayed by the crippling demand for groupthink in the party.

    What do you mean “the Coalition turned out to be almost equally misguided?”
    The Coalition led the way in building the green bureaucracy in this country. Almost a decade before Al Gore’s movie and the issue was going mainstream.
    Not Labor, not the Greens. It was the Coalition. That’s why the sudden opposition to environmentalism from conservatives that appeared after Rudd became PM makes no sense.
    That’s why this is another issue conservative don’t have a leg to stand on and actually have a lot of explaining to do.

  3. mem

    It will take five years to get our emissions back to where they were given economic/industry downturn.Neither party will need to lift a finger.But in Danistan we can bet that they will roll out more useless renewables on the grounds it will create jobs.

  4. nb

    Nice try, but China will direct them to destroy the Australian economy one way or another. Easiest way? Get in on moderate climate stupidity, then, after some unusual climate-related event (whatever is the true cause) declare a ‘climate emergency’.

  5. H B Bear

    Will anyone ever trust the Liars on energy after Gillard’s “ There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead.”?

  6. Roger

    That was before the Coalition turned out to be almost equally misguided…

    “Almost…” you say?

    Who introduced the RET and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)?

  7. Rafe Champion

    I wasn’t paying attention at the time, later I thought the RET was tokenistic and a requirement for electoral survival. Last week the chief scientist at the time did a Menzies Research Institute podcast and seemed to be taking some credit or at least approving the restrictions on clearing native vegetation that has turned out to be disastrous and a clear indication that the rot had set in well and truly. Under Abbott the situation improved and that was probably as much as anything the reason for stabbing him in the back. I would like to see a list of the backstabbers and their alignment on a range of issues including same sex marriage, freedom of speech and of course warming and RE.

  8. Roger

    Last week the chief scientist at the time did a Menzies Research Institute podcast and seemed to be taking some credit or at least approving the restrictions on clearing native vegetation that has turned out to be disastrous and a clear indication that the rot had set in well and truly.

    Howard uncritically accepted the advice of activist scientists on several key environmental issues.

    Fishing is another one.

    He’s done more damage in this area than any Labor PM (not for want of trying by the latter!).

  9. old bloke

    Under Abbott the situation improved and that was probably as much as anything the reason for stabbing him in the back.

    I know that Abbott isn’t a particularly popular person here, but we should acknowledge that he did try to undo some of the mess created under Howard. With Clive Palmer’s support, he consigned Gillard’s Carbon Tax to the bin, but Palmer wouldn’t go with him to abandon the RET.

  10. old bloke

    And see how it is going in Britain!

    10% of their energy comes from burning trees. An independent Canadian investigation found that North Korean forced labour teams are harvesting timber in Russian Siberia for “bio fuel” for European electricity generation. Way to go Britain, pay your electricity bill to keep Kim Jong-un happy.

  11. candy

    A good sign from Labor they might become more down to earth.
    In retrospect Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten (and Bob Brown) did tremendous damage to them.

    The time is perfect for them to have an old fashioned Labor leader, not a whinging “poor me” lady leader but a strong focussed man who can relate to the many ordinary folk and not a pretender.

  12. Rafe Champion

    but Palmer wouldn’t go with him to abandon the RET.
    That could be the worst thing Palmer ever did, I can’t be sure but possibly if the RET was ditched the whole garment would start to unravel although the states have stepped up.

  13. Old Bloke:

    An independent Canadian investigation found that North Korean forced labour teams are harvesting timber in Russian Siberia for “bio fuel” for European electricity generation.

    I understood the wood was from the US.
    Do you have a link?

  14. Ed Case

    Wood grows on trees and is very renewable.
    I’m not seeing a problem here.
    Anyone estimated the amount of Energy went up in smoke over Christmas/New Year in Vic and New South?
    Yet you could go back in 5 years and it would be all grown back and green.

  15. Boambee John

    Ed Case
    #3519328, posted on July 20, 2020 at 4:58 pm
    Wood grows on trees and is very renewable.

    In general, that is not the opinion of the ‘vironmental movement, though they do tend to soften a bit when cutting down forests is labelled as “renewable energy”.

    Until, at least, it is proposed to do it here. Then it will become sacrilege. NIMBY!

  16. Iampeter

    I wasn’t paying attention at the time

    At least you had the balls to admit it. Still, it’s hardly something we can just blow past. Were you in your 20’s, just discovering conservatism and naively assuming Howard was an alternative to the left, or something? Also, how does that explain your support for Trump? Are you still not paying attention, or is something more fundamental going on?
    Then you say:

    later I thought the RET was tokenistic and a requirement for electoral survival.

    Um, what?
    Don’t you have a political ideology, a theory of government that guides your positions?
    Someone implementing a policy out of a tokenistic requirement for electoral survival should be even more despicable than someone who actually has beliefs they are pursuing, regardless of how wrong they might be.

    Sorry, but Howard put an end to the pretense of conservatives being an alternative to the left on a national level. Now Trump is going to put an end to this pretense on a global level. There’s no recovering from this.

    There’s no issue you could comment on without having to explain Howard, Trump, et al and pretending you weren’t paying attention isn’t really going to work.

    I would like to see a list of the backstabbers and their alignment on a range of issues including same sex marriage, freedom of speech and of course warming and RE.

    Mate, you don’t even align on these issues the way you think you do.
    You think the state should regulate marriage, regulate private enterprise in an act of censorship because you’ve got it confused with free speech and of course warming and RE you weren’t “paying attention” when it would’ve mattered most.

  17. Don

    The RET and its costs are opaque to most people. This has enabled the most egregious rent seeking dressed up as virtue by banks, project carpet-baggers and union dominated super funds. A carbon tax would have made the costs and effects of Australian emissions reductions easier to observe and likely would have led to greater public opposition by now.

    The RET legislation was definitely seen as political sand bagging by the Howard Government. It made no attempt to understand the effect of a separate market for “renewables” on the wholesale electricity market and the power system. Among other outrages, the RET’s injection of uneconomic new capacity and its ability then to trade below cost in the wholesale market allow the rent seekers and the zealots to claim renewables lower energy prices all the while doing the opposite. An astounding and dismaying act by a right of centre government.

  18. Bar Beach Swimmer

    The Joel Fitzgibbon situation in the seat of Hunter is very interesting; he nearly lost Hunter to the PHON candidate at the last election and only got over the line because of those same preferences.

    That candidate was/is a coal miner from the Upper Hunter, which in itself is significant – a coal miner standing up against the Labor man – in a seat that has never been anything but Labor. Next time around Fitzgibbon may go under, as he well knows.

    Fitzgibbon’s situation I think is showing those MHRs who represent what is now “old” Labor – mining and manufacturing – that not only will Labor lose the next election if their current climate policies don’t change into the next election but also how they too will go down sooner or later.

    Changing a policy must have a reason: self-interest, as Jack Lang once pointed out, is a good reason.

    But realising self-interest can be used against the other side as well helps; if a major party thinks that the changed policy can damage politically the other other. Doing so could break the Gordian Knot of climate policy existing between the two major parties.

  19. Rex Anger

    IamAComradeInDisguise lecturing Rafe (and by extension the rest of us) on all his usual allegedly ‘individualist’ and ‘capitalist’ talking points.

    Always starting with our lack of intelligence and ideology. And always ending with Evil Bad Orange Man is Evil. And a ‘leftist.’ How very ‘individualist’ and ‘capitalist’ and original from the Mental Mausoleum of IamVladimirIlyichLenin.

    I really do wish IamReallyTryingToBeAVeryGoodRedGuard,Honest! would Moby off, or at least stop trying to tell us that flag depicting the Hammer and Sickle surmounted upon a Rainbow clenched in a Red Fist flying proudly above his head is actually a Skull and Crossbones…

  20. Iampeter

    @Rex – asking if you have ideology is not saying anything about someone’s intelligence. You can have no ideology and still be very smart. You just can’t discuss politics because that requires ideology.
    In short, reading my posts demonstrates to you that you are very unintelligent and out of your depth in these discussions. I don’t need to actually say anything.
    This realization triggers you, which is understandable, but don’t take it out on me.
    Also, all of this is dishonest projection anyway, since you literally follow me from thread to thread trying to lecture me and be as insulting as possible.
    There’s no recovering or saving face for you.

  21. Rex Anger

    Sorry IamDesperatelyTryingToWinSomethingThisMorningBeforeMyEgoCompletelyCollapses, but the only people interested in ideology and critiquing said ideology are SJWs and shoddily masked Marxists like yourself.

    Try to use the normal people term ‘opinions’ IamMarkZuckerberg. You’ll sound less like a communist lizardpeople. Or a Political Science student.

    Furthermore, congratulations on your tiggering and incensed projection. I reiterate that your attempts to outscreech anyone who directly mocks you are repetitive and boring.

    (Now, are you really sure your Hammer and Sickle is actually a skull and crossbones? Also, humans like water. You could always drink more water…)

Comments are closed.