www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/18/guardian-essential-poll-labor-2030-emissions-target-paris-agreement-2050-climate
Guardian Essential poll: Labor vulnerable to Dutton’s climate campaign as voters split on 2030 target | Essential poll
Solution reignite the climate wars which went on for 20+ yearse
France has low carbon emissions, and reduced its dependency on fossil fuels to solve its dependency on oil due to the 1973 Arab oil crisis. It did it in 15 years or so https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=FR
The problem Australia has isn't Dutton or Albo; it's that the system has been captured by ideological dolts.
Vote for anyone you want; it won't matter.
For the record: I am happy for people to build nuclear power in my back yard although I would prefer to just build more coal/gas power as the net zero thing is just more ideological nonsense.
Nonsense? And what scientific method do you have to back that up?
Simple reasoning. We can't stop climate change anymore than we can stop the air from moving or earthquakes from occurring. Humans survived the Little Ice Age, in which the Thames river in London froze over and the Baltic sea froze over enough for Sweden to invade Denmark. We also survived the earlier Medieval Warm Period with far less technology.
The Philippines suffers from earthquakes more than Japan, not because earthquakes affect Japan less, but because Japan has higher engineering standards. They simply withstand it by using science and engineering. France solved a problem they had in the 1970s by using science and engineering to reduce their need for fossil fuels.
But then again, this is a country that believed in locking down. Australians would rather give up all their money than spend five minutes thinking.
If you want a scientific resource, see Dr Judith Curry: here's a talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLz0O1tH0Uc
Ok cooker
I should get that printed out on a tshirt or something. It's heartwarming to think that political victory is the only thing that counts in the West these days. It reminds me of the soviet union.
Ok Cooker
Oh, humanity will survive climate change. But how many will suffer and die in the process and how much will our quality of living nosedive is the real question. You talk about engineering solutions, and fighting climate change is a great way to advance clean energy science.
Less people are dying from natural disasters than ever before. If you want people to survive disasters, like say a flood, you build sewerage systems. You don't try and change the weather.
People in Europe built homes and heaters to survive the freezing winters they have. They didn't try and change the climate. Because that's dumb.
How does a sewer system prevent frequent flooding of swathes of Pakistan like we saw recently?? You can’t engineer for these big scale events. They’re poor already. The cost of rebuilding will put us further in debt if the predictions on extreme weather events are accurate.
A sewer system, along with storm water system, will channel the water away from the populated areas. Apparently the Chinese can figure out how to dam the entire Yangzte river but we can't figure out how to survive the odd hurricane. Coz we're not surviving hurricanes as it is? What did people do in Darwin do after Cyclone Tracy? Pack it in? Make sacrifices to the hurricane god?
Also - the 'extreme' weather events will not make a difference. They're called extreme to scare you into submission otherwise you might balk at the massive increase in energy. Humans have already survived ice ages, we probably even contributed to the extinction of woolly mammoths, we have survived the little ice age which occurred a few hundred years ago and froze the Thames river in London solid, but yeah, a hurricane is going to do it in. We're doooomed.
We might even get a COVID hurricane - then we'll really be doomed. We better sit inside our safe space forever in case something happens outside.
Thanks for playing champ.
You know nothing about civil engineering. You cannot build these structures without massive govt coffers. Poor countries do not have this money. They already don’t have good sewage and potable water.
The problem with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and more intense isn’t that they pose an engineering challenge, it’s that they cost fuck loads of money to remediate afterwards. Cairns still isn’t fully repaired from the last cyclone. Do you think governments have infinite money to throw at these problems? We struggle to fund our current infrastructure as it is.
It seems like you’ve mashed every climate change denialist’s talking points together and ignored the volumes of scientific research, measurements and solutions out there.
Nobody can argue with you because you’ve already cherry-picked every bit of bullshit to support your delusion
The climate change denialists are the non-Western world. They are not going to compromise their recent success for some environmentalist utopian dream that they can control the planet. No one has solved earthquakes; they just built earthquake proof buildings. No one has solved hurricanes. They just have disaster planning and better building standards. No one has solved winter. They built warm buildings and made clothes. Even cavemen figured out how to put on animal skins. Too hard for you lot. If India gets its act together, it will also not solve climate change ... it will just install air conditioners.
I find the term denialist interesting because it was lifted directly from the holocaust denier charge to avoid having to deal with ways of solving problems. Why solve problems when you can just accuse your opponents of being genocidal maniacs?
People like you is what makes this country ungreat. Thank you for your contribution.
Your arguments are the equivalent of a doctor treating a skin rash without looking at underlying cause.
People have done all these things as a coping mechanism with a heating world. Not as a solution.
To solve the 400ppm of carbon in the atmosphere that we pumped out requires all countries doing their part. Of course many countries aren’t doing enough, but the rest of them need to stay the course if we’re ever going to bring record temperatures back down.
And if you mention natural cycles of ice ages and global heating again you’ll be blocked. That shit doesn’t apply in this case as countless research has shown
If your doctor is telling you that he or she can change the weather to solve your problems, find a new doctor. We don't have that much power.
The mention of natural cycles is simply to point out that humans have survived a lot and it is simply alarmist (or ideology) to suggest otherwise. Of course, censorship is par for the course these days. Block away!
Nah that comment is fine. I’m ok with opinions
Not doing yourself any favours here
Albo seems to be bleeding votes to the Greens on climate as he is seen as not doing enough to meet the 2030 target or bleeding votes the other way to those who think cheaper power now is more important. His each way bet of claiming to be able to deliver both is not resonating. Maybe he just thinks that Greens and Teals will support him in a minority Government so who cares anyway.
Anyone who wants cheaper power now and thinks the way to get it is voting LNP are misinformed at best
Labor are focused or obsessed with renewables for political and ideological reasons , not cost. They admit they have one policy , renewables. Whatever the cost or anything else.
And interim gas to 2050
It's not just about support as a minority government but in an election it's unlikely to have the greens take 2nd over Labor and thus greens preferences flow to Labor.
Any votes lost to the coalition though are votes that don't flow back as they're usually the #2 party so no preferences to distribute.
Truly astonishing how many people (particularly those less well off) genuinely think that they would do better under an LNP government.
The following things are all true: * Are there many valid criticisms of Albanese and the current Labor government? Yes. * Is there far more that could be done for the cost of living crisis and housing affordability? Yes. * Would Peter Dutton and the LNP be any better on the above points? Absolutely not.
What you're not understanding: people aren't better off ALP.
They are two cheeks of the same arse.
The working class is at least marginally better off under Labor policies. This includes low-income earners (through changes to tax cuts and income support), students, families with children, minimum wage workers, aged care workers, people on Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and people who use bulk-billing GPs.
Higher-income owners probably don't directly benefit from ALP policies as much as they would LNP policies. The global inflation surge complicates matters because it has coincided with an ALP term, meaning that in many people's minds, this ALP term has been associated with high interest rates and mortgage stress. Those same things would have still happened if the LNP were in power, which a lot of people tend to forget.
I'm generally one of the first to criticise the ALP, but saying that they're as bad as the LNP is simply not true.
What the government giveth, inflation taketh away, and more.
If they were seriously interested in Australians livelihoods, they would reserve some of Australia's gas for our usage. Western Australia does it - but Anthony Albanese knocked it back. Because he's weak and no different than Scott Morrison.
You say "would have happened if the LNP were in power". Like I said, same two cheeks of the same arse. ALP will not do anything of substance and will campaign on virtue signalling issues.
The reality that ALP and LNP are not interested in governing for the benefit of Australia's future or the prosperity of Australians. Cope harder.
We tend to not vote governments in but rather vote them out.
Albo is not delivering so he is risking voter backlash and he may well be voted out as a message from dissatisfied voters.
I’m not a labor lover but what are they not delivering on? Genuine question
I see them giving handouts on power bills, tax cuts for everyone, and setting up a housing fund plus more due to the Greens pressure.
They can’t lower interest rates- that’s not their department.
So what is it that they’re not delivering on?
Hang on, this poll says Labor's now leading again, so things really are split here.
I have to wonder if Labor's hoarding all wacky shit Dutton has said and all the achievements they've done and just waiting for the campaign to unleash? Because their communication has been horrible.
But with the way things are now with high cost of living, it's not too horrible of a polling situation for Labor. If interest rates start dropping and inflation dips, Labor could gain ground. They just need to somehow SHOW that they're working on rents.
I have to wonder if Labor's hoarding all wacky shit Dutton has said and all the achievements they've done and just waiting for the campaign to unleash?
No.
Personally, I think the Labor party organisation needs a major kick up the arse. As you said:
Because their communication has been horrible.
They don't seem to have the ability to change the narrative. Labor and their supporters just curl into a ball every time someone criticises them, and blames the great satan, Murdoch.
Yeah, I agree with this as someone who has campaigned for Labor... they really don't have the marketing team. They believe in the people power/community volunteers to get the word out, which whilst is effective, it is also dismal in today's world of communication.
But it is also true that the LNP have Murdoch, which is a significant advantage, no matter which way you look at it. The Libs also jump at any chance to be interviewed, where as Labor chooses not to, usually because they have other things to do, and it's usually to swat away some BS the LNP has spewed on Sky After Dark. To feed that narrative is ridiculous, but they don't seem to realise they have to.
They generally save all of their rebuttal to the LNP to Question time, and they usually get it right, but the question time rhetoric is not the optics Labor want, whereas the LNP is more than happy to fuck up their optics because that's what people expect them to do.
But it is also true that the LNP have Murdoch, which is a significant advantage, no matter which way you look at it.
That's true, but Murdoch has been a fixture in our system for 50 years. During that time, we've had plenty of Labor governments - including the long-lived Hawke-Keating Government. And back then it wasn't just Murdoch but Packer as well.
Plus, we currently have all mainland states governed by Labor. Even in states where Murdoch has a monopoly.
Frankly the more Labor just blames Murdoch and cries in the corner they will not win many elections. They can win, and certainly govern, in spite of him.
The Libs also jump at any chance to be interviewed, where as Labor chooses not to
Of course. The Liberals are in opposition, so will take any opportunity they can. But Labor can, and should, accept any chance to be interviewed - be it on the ABC, Sky News, whatever. That they allow the Liberals to go unchallenged is an indictment on the government.
They generally save all of their rebuttal to the LNP to Question time
I hate the term "Canberra Bubble", but it's apt here. Question Time is an embarrassment to the parliament, our politicians and the nation, and Labor should not be basing strategy around it. Most voters look at it like a bunch of ill-disciplined kindy kids hyped up on red cordial arguing and don't give much credence. And if nothing else, they end up with a "both sides are just as bad" feeling.
There's an old adage, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get dirty, and the pig enjoys it". That applies very well to Question Time, and Parliament in general.
The only poll that matters is election day.
The ALP have moved mountains to fixed a broken government, but don’t receive the recognition because single issue voters scream and carry on their topic hasn’t managed well enough.
Shorten is working to reset the NDIS to a sustainable model and showcasing the lack of checks and balances the LNP had in allowing organized crime to rort it.
They stopped exporting government work to consultancy firms and hired people to clear the back logs at Services Australia, including the Dept of Veteran affairs where most vets expected to die before receiving any payments.
Same job same pay means the person employed through labour hire gets paid the same as a direct employee. Broader stage 3 tax cuts to give more people more take home pay.
There is more renewables projects underway that ever, and there is clear evidence it’s cheaper to build and should lead to cheaper power bills when compared to burning coal and gas.
While cost of living is putting pressure on everyone, this was created by the LNP and RBA mis managing the covid response.
No one acknowledges either, that the ALP can’t spend to help households because it’s inflationary.
If the RBA just rate cutes 25 points and the banks passed it on, that mortgage relief would do more to help houses than government spending.
The only poll that matters is election day.
There is more renewables projects underway that ever, and there is clear evidence it’s cheaper to build and should lead to cheaper power bills when compared to burning coal and gas.
Except the policy includes burning gas for at least the next 25 years.
Considering we just started cutting back yesterday that’s pretty decent as a minimum goal
A huge chunk of our economy is tied up in energy in mining transitioning should’ve started a decade ago ideally. Which would’ve happened under Rudd we even had an incredibly progressive carbon tax until the LNP dismantled it.
Feels weird to jump down labor’s throat after half a term about not doing enough to wind down an entire industry during a cost of living crisis.
I noticed you left out the Greens when discussion Krudd.
Yeah they were super helpful in wedging the Rudd government I’m so glad they didn’t approve the CPRS we have another 200 tonnes of carbon to show for it.
Another example of labor trying to appease the greens and the libs, amending the bill to get support from both parties and then getting shafted and slandered in the media while we end up with nothing to show for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme
Just complete and utter insanity. People are upset power bills are high, so they want us to continue to use the most expensive form of power generation that will continue to get more expensive?
Like, this isn't even a moral question (well it's that too). If the government would stop just crossing its fingers that the private market will magically build renewables and just fucking do it, this wouldn't even be a question as people would be able to see the lower power bills.
As it stands, instead of pushing for more movement, people are actively voting to increase costs on power bills? I can never understand how over and over again the LNP seem to be able to convince huge amounts of Australians to actively vote against their own interests.
"My power bills are high, Dutton says this is cause renewables, I will vote to make them even higher"
Do you actually think renewables are cheaper for the consumers than burning coal?
Yes, and there’s been about a billion studies showing it, including every industry report for the last decade. And that’s even if you include cost to connect to the grid, extra transmission, and firming.
Despite all that evidence to the contrary do you really think coal is cheaper?
You mean to tell me that for the past 100 years we’ve been making the mistake of burning fossil fuels as opposed to the cheaper option of using renewable energy sources? And you also expect that it will actually drive down prices for consumers (ostensibly not just a little bit too) if we stop using fossil fuels?
Is this actually what you believe? If it is you are truly brainwashed.
Technology hasn’t stayed the same for last 100 years. 30 years ago renewables weren’t as cheap as coal. Now they are cheaper.
Is that seriously your argument? That fossil fuels were a better choice 100 years ago? Times have changed since the 1920s
You have got to be a bot. Nobody is this uninformed
Funnily enough solar PV technology was invented around a hundred years ago (despite only recently becoming 'economically viable') but was stopped after it's primary researcher at the time suffered some unfortunate and mysterious setbacks. It's second go was stopped in America after one president put solar panels on the Whitehouse, but the next had them immediately removed. With the downward price action on solar in the last decade, imagine if we had been on top of it for decades or even a hundred years.
On the other hand we have coal, which despite being our primary fuel source for hundreds of years, we still burn so inefficiently that we lose around 60% of the energy potential within in. If fossil fuel companies gave one shit about lowering prices for consumers, you would think they would take steps towards doubling the amount of power we get from their product, then maybe (despite the other glaring reasons to stop burning fossil fuels) they would actually be competitive on price and have a leg to stand on in that one aspect of the energy transition.
So will renewables lead to lower prices for us? Theoretically yes, as proven over and over again in studies, research papers, and simulations/predictions. Realistically, maybe, energy companies are some of the worst offenders of ecocide capitalism. But we know for sure that fossil fuels aren't ever getting cheaper, and the time for improving that technology is past, they wasted their opportunity, kick them to the curb.
If the guy you were replying to could read, be would be very mad at you for this.
Unquestionably. The profit margins on renewables is lower though, so the private industry has been reluctant to move across to it.
But if the government owned power generation so profit wasn't the only outcome that the power generators cares about, then yeah man your power bill would drop.
I think the generally accepted conservative estimate is that solar is a third of the cost of coal. Wind is in a similar spot.
So yeah, if we had someone who cared about the end user cost running the essential services, you would get your bill at least 2/3 less expensive, and then the profit margin could be narrowed to almost nothing since the Gov collects taxes.
Labor should have known before or at least learned after the Voice failure that people's most pressing concerns are their immediate needs like housing. Issues like climate change are extremely important but if immediate needs are not adequately addressed first everything else will get derailed.
Renewables are cheaper though and labor is investing heavily in housing and planning reform
If we did those things a decade ago we could’ve avoided the current shitshow but here we are
The difference here is climate change can be said to impact all people, which really lessens the attack. It strikes at the fundamental right to a home, shelter and food just as much as affordable housing (and yes I know the two contribute to each other) instead of being for a very small group.
Also they can pull the don't know, say no (to nuclear) campaign this time, and we know how well it works
The problem is that there will always be something more immediately pressing and urgent than climate change. Until of course, there isn’t, and by then it will be far too late for any preventative measures
Essential report with a huge drop in the Lib vote, tpp 53-54 to Labor. Not replicating the big swing to Dutt (or away from Albo) on PPM.
Seems like an outlier.
Or an attempt to at the least get some sentiment moving around, not settled.
Just less than half (48%) said the target was “unachievable and hurting the economy” and Australia should “instead focus on the 2050 target”. Two-thirds of Coalition voters (67%) supported that view, as did one-third (34%) of Labor voters.
This will be the core thing the LNP will want to tap into/continue to drive; that the plan towards renewables is the cause for broader economic issues (its literally not, global conditions, LNP cash injections like Home Builder and such are the reason for the inflation but anyway) regardless of whether or not it was the LNP that helped put us in the spot if having no real long term RE energy.
With the economy/electricity bills high, people will search for the easy message as to why, and building more cheap generation now vs waiting to build very expensive generation later, and environmental concerns later, are the obvious casualties.
its literally not, global conditions
It was the reason Albanese gave, are you saying he is wrong?
Dutton and Albanese both think they’re on a winner with nuclear power!
Only one man can be right.
It's just insanity to me that one of them has multiple reports analysed and approved by industry experts and researchers, and the other has his personal opinion.
When the fuck did we fully commit to this stupid idea that we can't trust experts, but a political parties leader is super trustworthy
I feel like I post this all the time, but this whole nuclear debate spurned on by Dutton is so painful that hopefully he loses his seat and we never hear of it again.
No one in any part of professional society can suggest a plan like nuclear power, then when pushed how it will be implemented just 🤷🤷🤷
Lol, why is nuclear so painful for you bro?
I am a professional engineer who works in a lot of different fields including energy generation, I think nuclear has about as much merit as covering the country with dams, solar panels and windfarms not to mention redesigning our transmission system.
Sure, maybe CSRIO or some other green group has done a study to say that its cheaper to go renewables. Unfortunately there is no non partisan entity that can prove it one way or another.
For me, they will both be incredibly expensive, take three times longer than they should, and by the time we finish them there will be something better anyway.
CSIRO isn’t partisan. Neither is AEMO. Or the IEA for that matter. They’ve all proved it. Just because the evidence is different to your opinion doesn’t make the people who researched it partisan hacks
Because it’ll take decades to build and it’s inferior to other technology anyway?
Its painful because it's a never-ending idea that comes back every 2 or 3 years.
How? Especially considering it'll be an outdated technology once its up and running?
The merit with renewables is that we don't need to find somewhere to dump the carbon rods once they're spent.
Should've done it 10 years ago, even 35 years ago would've been better instead we had the same people who whinge about it every 2-3 years and so we built big dirty brown coal power plants instead.
I think it comes up because its something that actually works. The closer we come to embarking on the renewables adventure the more people will baulk.
Renewables has merits, but geez, the lifecycle is not one of them. Think of all those solar panels and wind turbines, batteries, will make literally constant large amounts of waste forever.
Unfortunately there is no non partisan entity that can prove it one way or another.
Why is science and facts so painful for you bro?
CSIRO, our national science agency who hire a buuuunch of people smarter than us.
How about the AEMO Integrated Systems Plan that lays out the steps and what we need to do?
But hey, whay do a bunch of researchers and industry experts know. Dutton says they are problably wrong. As apparently does "WongsAngryAnus" who is totally a professional engineer who "works in a lot of different fields".
Unfortunately there is no non partisan entity that can prove it one way or another.
The CSIRO isnt partisan? Australian Energy Market Operator isnt partisan?
I have a feeling this is going to be a pointless discussion because anything that doesnt agree with you, regardless of the data, is going to be "suspect" but Nuclear Scientist Peter Dutton clearly knows what hes talking about.
Hey, I worked in CSIRO in Melbourne, have you? Its definitely partisan unfortunately.
Its all so simple to you, just follow the neat little plan AEMO have laid out. Using all their experience in large project execution..... If a project of this size ever got going, it would be the largest and most complex engineering project Australia has ever undertaken. Our track record is not great, NBN, Snowy2 to name a few. I see it as a huge risk, for so little reward. It would doom our country economically for the next 50 years and would be looked back on as a giant waste.
I have a feeling this is going to be a pointless discussion because anything that doesnt agree with you, regardless of the data, is going to be "suspect" but Nuclear Scientist Peter Dutton clearly knows what hes talking about.
Dutton does not have a clue either. There is no "data" you can rely on because none of this has been done before at this scale. Nuclear and renewables are both unbearably costly. I see more risk in renewables than nuclear. But hey, you know what you are talking about, and you have AEMO's 10 step plan so you are all set!
Hey, I worked in CSIRO in Melbourne, have you? Its definitely partisan unfortunately.
Yep, im Doug Hilton the CEO. And its definintely nor partisan.
See, i can say random shit too!
Our track record is not great, NBN, Snowy2 to name a few
So why in the hell would you want the government building a nuclear plant. Those things are ridiculously safe, unless the government building it randomly decide to buy more copper wires from telstra to use as insulation.
Germany decomssioned its last nuclear plant in 2023.
Spain is decomissioning its last nuclear plants over the next 8 years to become fully renewable.
And both of these countries are ones that have worse environments.
Of course there is "data".
France gets something like 70% of its energy from Nuclear Power. Ukraine used to get around half its power from nuclear. Belguim was also close to half its power.
And just wanting to be perfectly clear, nuclear power is awesome. The countries that it makes sense in have gotte massive benefits from it. I hate the fearmongering that goes with the word "nuclear"
Norway gets almost 100% of its power from renewables. Brazi, NZ Columbia, Canada, Sweeden all get between around 70 and 75% from renewables.
Data which anyone who worked for the CSIRO would have looked at.
The numbers dont stack up. Simple as that. But parroting the "But we dont REALLY know" line that the LNP keep using is a lot easier than looking at data that proves them wrong.
The only actual unknown is SMRs, which could theoretically make the equation a lot closer. But it is actually an unproven tech that hasnt had commercial useage anywhere in the world, so we for realsies dont have data for that one.
Im sorry mate, but as the CEO, im going to have to have you come into my office tomorrow. We cant have the "facts and data are biased" kind of people working here.
Germany decomssioned its last nuclear plant in 2023.
How is that working out for them Doug?
Spain is decomissioning its last nuclear plants over the next 8 years to become fully renewable.
Yeah, I wonder why. Also, it may not actually happen. Seems to be the usual partisan shit going on there.
Norway gets almost 100% of its power from renewables. Brazi, NZ Columbia, Canada, Sweeden all get between around 70 and 75% from renewables.
Lots and lots of fucking huge dams me thinks. Sounds pretty hard and nearly unfeasible in Aus. But hey, Snowy 2 is going so well, why not do it 50 more times! Its genius!!!
How is that working out for them Doug?
In my professional opinion as a CEO, poorly. No idea why Germany thought it was smart to decommission the existing plants, especially with the popluation density they have. Would have thought they would be perfectly suited for nuclear, which any report by us, the CSIRO, would have concluded.
My point is more that it gives data to work with. How long shit took, what changed about the grid on the national scale etc etc.
Seems to be the usual partisan shit going on there.
Disappointing, i hadnt seen that. Spain are probably the world leaders in Concentrated Solar Power, and have grid level plants that they have run for 24 hours at various times. Was really hoping to see them ramp that up even further.
But in my profressinal opinion as CEO, Spain is a LOT more suited for renewables than germany.
Lots and lots of fucking huge dams me thinks. Sounds pretty hard and nearly unfeasible in Aus. But hey, Snowy 2 is going so well, why not do it 50 more times! Its genius!!!
Yep, we suck at building massive plants. Which one being a disaster would have bigger consequneces? Maybe if we get better we can think about nuclear? How about this, if the government finishes its homework and does Snowy 2, and proves they can be responsbile, then we can talk about getting a puppy, i mean nuclear.
But yeah, i should have been clearer about my point, that its all data that we can use in our modelling. The various energy mixes help us extrapolate on the data and make our models more accurate. Which is why we KNOW what normal nuclear does. And we KNOW what various mixes of renewables does.
This is Doug, signing off.
I think you're fibbing, in one of your other posts here today you said you worked at one of the four big banks. Lucky for you, I was about to tell you to get back to work instead of posting on Reddit and wasting my taxes.
Cheers, Tony Albo
Liberals put Australia $1 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it. That's many generations of debt.
At least the Feds can do QE, I’d be more worried if I lived in Victoria
Dan really got the LNPs knickers all twisted didn't he? Just a constant barrage of negative bullshit every day , day in day out ...you'd swear Dan Andrews was in a basement somewhere single handedly brewing huge vats of covid during the pandemic ....Victoria's broke...,Dan did this , didn't do that ...hes so corrupt ... yadda yadda yadda....it just goes on and on and it's tiresome and childish.
One day I hope News has to account for their utter rubbish and manufactured consensus amongst the dribblers, along with the IPA.
Oh btw Victoria is still very much part of Australia so unless they issue their own currency ( let's call it a Kennett hey?) then I'm quite sure the Commonwealth may assist them.
you'd swear Dan Andrews was in a basement somewhere single handedly brewing huge vats of covid during the pandemic
Well he did manage to get the highest infection rate, highest number of infections, and highest number of deaths, so maybe he was.
That’s how diseases work lmao
So every state recorded the highest? That's not how counting works.
Colder climate and bad luck essentially
If you get an outbreak in one state and it spreads you’re already fucked. NSW and VIC had pretty much identical circumstances other than those two variables.
Experts agreed it was mostly chance:
James McCaw, a professor of mathematical biology at the University of Melbourne, says chance is a dominant factor, because there is a huge amount of variability in how many people an individual infected with Covid-19 spreads the virus to.
In the early stages of an outbreak, the virus has a distinct pattern of spread known as clustered transmission, which is highly unpredictable. An estimated 70% of infected individuals do not pass the virus on to anybody else, and research has shown that around 20% of people – so-called “super-spreaders” – are responsible for the vast majority of viral transmission.
When it was NSW it was poor management and poor decisions by the government when it is Victoria it is just bad luck
When it was NSW it was poor management and poor decisions by the government
Not really? Although they did send a cruise ship full of passengers with COVID home via town hall train station which was a questionable move...
You mean in Aged Care homes ? The ones that fall under Federal responsibility? Or are you referring to allowing a certain cruise ship's passengers into the community in Sydney ...only for those that where infected to ...go home ....or visit relatives in Victoria ...a long time before that? Politicising people's deaths is woefully low.
I do love Fiction though.
No I mean in regular households, it was the major wave in 2021 that had nothing to do with aged care homes or a cruise ship where he broke all these records by quite a significant amount.
It's almost like households have relatives in woefully understaffed, deplorably ran donating ( but profitable ) Federally administered Aged Care.....?
And he didn't personally ensure Victoria recorded the most, the anti science denying morons , the cookers and the anti vaxxers grouping TOGETHER in feeble minded defiance, selfishly deciding their " freedumbs" were more important than other people's lives or health cause " I'm not gonna be told what to do ay" , spurred on by scurrilous and disingenuous media influence magnifying their sense of entitlement.
I suggest you read up on " Disease Vectors" and go from there.
Try again.
I can tell you like fiction, you're making a lot of rubbish up here. You might, have a case if we were just talking about cases in early 2020, that's a might. But we aren't limiting to these first 6 months.
Plenty of all those people in the other states too including ones with higher populations, yet by the numbers and on a per capita basis Victoria was first.
You should be happy, Victoria finally number 1 in something and the person you simp for was the man in charge of it.
I'm not simping for anyone , Chump. Nor do I live in Victoria.
Keep screaming at the sky buddy
Nor do I live in Victoria.
That would explain your ignorance
You think the Feds just forgive the debt?
I think if the LNP were somehow in charge this even wouldn't be a conversation.
I dunno, a projected 5x increase in government debt from 2019 to 2027 feels worthy of discussion, particularly as rates have tripled in that time, so interest costs are up a cool 15x. There’s no precedent for this kind of debt expansion anywhere in Aus.
It's almost like they are preparing for.....alot of people to live there . ?
Council rates ? .....directly linked to the value of your property. Was Dan running local councils as well ?
Dan still lives!
And he's turning in his bloody grave!
The party that promises serious action on cost of living will be the party that wins the election.
Labor has already lost credibility on that issue after promising the world and delivering nothing (my power bills are not going to be $275 cheaper).
People do not care about climate change when they can't afford to pay rent or buy food.
(my power bills are not going to be $275 cheaper).
I believe the current narrative is now that your power bills would be $275 dearer had they not implemented their policies so therefore your bill is cheaper.
I have heard that one before, problem is they explicitly promised ot would be $275 lower than the pre-election price.
Oh I know exactly what they said, but the Labor party are spinning it and all the labor simps are repeating the lie.
If you believe the Liberals will offer more action on cost of living, I have a bridge you may like to buy.
Lots of people do.
Then I have lots of bridges to sell.
I am not even sure what you are arguing here. Do you dispute that lots of people think that? The polls would suggest lots of people do.
what they're arguing is that its an idiotic conclusion to make that the Liberals are better economic managers than Labor re. any issue, especially cost of living.
Sure Labor haven't done much, but the Liberals will make you pay for it.
The superior economic manager line is a myth and something will be lost in the long term so you benefit in the short term.
Its not worth the risk.
Suggest scrolling up and reading it again before creating a strawman argument.
Labor has already lost credibility on that issue after promising the world and delivering nothing (my power bills are not going to be $275 cheaper).
"My power prices arent $5 a week cheaper, I think I will votw Liberal now"
They should be more than $800 a year now. That is $40 a week. If that isn't signification for you then you are probably too privileged to be feeling the cost of living crisis anyway.
$800 a year is $40 a week is it?
Oh right, am pretty terrible at arithmetic.
In any case, more than $800 a year is significant for anyone not financially privileged.
$15 a week.
How much has other policy saved people?
Money is fungible. This has nothing to do with privilege. Labors tiny increase to jobseeker alone more than covers this.
I expect any worthwhile government to massively increase job seeker and deliver on their promises. Labor has made a tiny increase to job seeker and completely failed on one of their biggest promises.
I expect any worthwhile government to massively increase job seeker and deliver on their promises.
...and you are expecting a Liberal government to to deliver?
So aboit that bridge. I think you'll really like it. Shall we begin the negotiations for your purchase?
We're talking about Labor.
Sure I actually agree with what you have said here.
So I assume you'll be voting Greens, then Labor, then Liberal.
Based on your suggestion that a government making promises it doesn't keep and failing to improve welfare are things that shouldn't happen.
I can't stand the Green's socially "progressive" SJW nonsense. Otherwise I would absolutely vote for them. If there was a genuinely economically left wing party without the progressive social nonsense I would vote for them in an instant. That option just doesn't exist in Australia.
Sure, and I actually agree that the greens have shit the best this term and should have been hammering home on their policies on housing, education, healthcare, renewables, instead of getting distracted with a new cause every week.
But you've got Labor who seem to have actually shifted somewhat economically conservative while staying socially progressive.
The liberals who are very economically and somewhat socially conservative.
And the greens who are economically and socially progressive.
I'm putting minor parties with a larger focus on the economically progressive first (Sustainable Australia and Fusion party from what I can gather) but I also need to decide of those 3 which one has the things I find more problematic.
And while I do lean socially left, I'm past the point of giving a shit about where someone sits socially.
The various causes the greens champion will be useless if we can't afford a house, or have the ecosystem collapse, or end up like the USA where poor people just if they get six.
We desperately need anyone to come in with some policies that are going to have a significant improvement on cost of living, housing, education, healthcare and renewables.
In my personal opinion, any party that is economically conservative is incapable of resolving any of our problems with the above.
So then the question becomes, what order so you put the 3 bigger parties in? It sounds like even though we don't sit in the same spot on social issues, we both probably agree that the social side is so unimportant compared to the very real and problematic economic problems the average Aussie is getting buried under.
I'm mostly just curious as to which order and why lol.
That was only one policy, thats why I saod alone. Jobkeeper should be high tho that sucked
Labor has prevented $131bn from being stolen from the working class annually via wage theft, which the liberals strongly opposed
Insane how little attention this was given
Probably because they... haven't increased our wages above inflation since god knows when.
Wages are above inflation now, they have been all this year.
Inflation has halved, minimum wage is going up 3.75%, and the stage 3 tax cuts changes means that people literally on minimum wage will be getting a real wage rise for the first time in years
Also theyre wrong, real wages are increasing for the first time in years
real wages are increasing for the first time in years
This would mean greens voters have one less thing to scream about, and is therefore wrong
When has that ever stopped them
They've done numerous things on that front, not least which is rejig the stage 3 tax cuts which will benefit you more than the $275 I keep hearing about. The tories would have kept that going to the top 5% of earners, so why would anyone support them. Is it enough to stop the pressure? I doubt it, but you cant say they are doing nothing. For reference I have been to two other countries in the last 6 months, cost of living pressures were the same or worse in both.
The tax cuts didn't net the poll bump that was expected. It was risky, for every voter they pleased, they irritated another who viewed the change as a blatant backflip on an election promise.
Trust is a big problem with the ALP, they say one thing and do another once elected.
Well, if that's your bar, they pale into insignificance next to the promises broken during the previous govt's tenure.
Politics is complicated. A coalition broken promise can be held to a different standard.
The $275 price reduction was a promise whereas the stage three tax cuts were not. They should be held to their promise.
The $275 price reduction would still be a pretty big help. We would be more than $800 better off every year.
The promise regarding stage 3 was that they wouldn't change them
Exactly. So they broke the stage three tax cut promise and the $275 power price reduction promise.
Well money is money at the end of the day, not personally arguing where it's coming from.
Money is money, but a promise is also a promise.
They should not be excused for blatantly breaking a promise.
If you want to die in a ditch over it because you need a reason to hate labor then sure, I guess you are right... For everyone else, its money to pay bills and pay for food.
It is a pretty good reason to hate Labor.
They lied to the most vulnerable people in Australia and now we are more than $800 a year worse off than they promised.
You defend the lnp and argue for the vulnerable with the same breath? Keep voting against your best interests.
What the hell are you talking about? I despise the LNP. If you're just going to lie what's the point.
All you do is repeat (often false) LNP talking points. I don't believe you.
Their promise was to permanently bring down the price of power bills by at least $275. The promise was not to "give people $275 [in order to pay their power bills]". Subtle but crucial difference.
Yes, of course they’re vulnerable when Australia’s corrupt corporate media gets away with spewing non-stop propaganda and lies for the LibNats and the coal/gas industries.
Despicable.
Labor was stupid to not initiate a royal commission into media as soon as they got elected to justify reforms to smash the media oligarchs.
While I am all for a right-wing media smackdown, what would a royal commission actually achieve in that regard, other than confirming that yes the Australian MSM is biased?
Yep, two ex-pm's advocating for it, obvious to everyone except those wilfully ignorant of it. But Labor instead is trying to stop people on 'Social media' from not telling the truth.
Labor are simply cowards on this issue, they are afraid of the campaign against them when they are in power, and they cant do anything about it when they arent in power.
All they need to do is make all broadcast news have a charter of honesty similar to the ABC, problem solved.
Broadcast news should have extra responsibilities, because unlike social media, their audience doesnt have a right of reply.
Yep, two ex-pm's advocating for it
Both of whom have gone quiet about it now Labor is in government.
No doubt the LNP's coal sponsors will be happy, and the multiple LNP politicians that have business interests in that area too. This party works for the best interests of the people folks, they aren't deceiving you, no, not at all.... Quick there s a woke book, let's ban it, get angry!
No doubt the LNP's coal sponsors will be happy
Since when is the CFMEU sponsoring the LNP or any coalition party?
If coal sponsors would supposedly be happy about this, why are the biggest energy companies coming out against nuclear? Why does Origin want to close Eraring so badly?
I assume he means the mining magnates not the power plant owners.
Ol Gina seems to have made some big investments into uranium mining. Wonder if that's just a coincidence...
Wonder if that's just a coincidence...
It's not but has nothing to do with Australia, the uranium price has significantly increased over the past few years, in the past year alone it has jumped 71%
In 2019 the price was $48/kg it is now $142/kg, I'd be investing in uranium too because regardless of what some small country like Australia is doing, nuclear power plants are being built elsewhere.
Oh 100% agree with this. While Australia and a few other countries are well suited to renewables, there are a HUGE number of countries that arent and will require nuclear to transition off fossil fuels.
From my understand, a 1000 MW nuclear power plant needs 27 tonnes of uranium a year to operate. Paladin Resources (a single producer) has produced, on average, 4 million tonnes of uranium a year over the last decade. Australia would need a lot of nuclear plants to move the needle for a uranium miner.
4 million tonnes of uranium a year over the last decade.
I thought those numbers seemed a little high, so I did some digging (not for yellowcake). According to the Australian Government, we exported 7,571 tones of Uranium Ore Concentrates in 2018. A bit less than 4 million tonnes.
edit - scroll down and the figures from 2009 to 2019 are shown. Around an average of 7,500 tonnes a year.
edit again - the Ranger Uranium mine produced a total of 132,000 tonnes in it's entire lifetime (1980-2021). Apparently Australia's entire known uranium reserves are just over 2 million tonnes. Where the hell did your figure of 4 million tonnes annually come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves (The list given here is based on Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand, a joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency)
final edit (I promise :D) - Paladin resources produced 43 million POUNDS of uranium ore OVER TEN YEARS. https://www.paladinenergy.com.au/langer-heinrich-mine/#:~:text=An%20independent%20producer,O8%20in%20the%20future.
So 2 things.
Thats a fuckton of uranium, is that all usable in nuclear plants? And what else are we using for?
Id be interested in the profit margins on it. Does coal cost more to mine? How much more per kg does uranium make.
Thats a fuckton of uranium,
27T is an insignificant amount compared to 4,000,000T.
Sorry, bad wording, i meant 4000000T is a fuckton or uranium, what the hell are people buying it for.
My post above shows that the OP's figures were a touch off. I think he meant 43 million pounds of uranium over 10 years. I take it was an honest mistake.
Oh right, and most of it is for nuclear power, they are more being built around the world. There would also be some for nuclear medicine, and some for scientific research like what is used in Australia's nuclear reactor.
Ahhh ok, i just saw that natural uranium needs to be processed into LEU at a rate of 10-1, which is what we use. So im assuming a theoretical plant in aus would need 270T of natural Uranium. Which makes more sense to me on a worldwide scale.
Fair point, but these are not miners. They are energy companies that understand an orderly transition is needed sooner rather than later.
Libs are choosing to fight old battles, that they have lost on the past, because they think voters might be getting cold feet.
They dont see that their campaign against renewables is a symptom of their problem, which is that they are ruled by old-fashioned people with no vision for the future.
They won in the past against Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, because Labor fell over themselves, not because of what they did. They need a period of self-reflection before they can or should be in government again, they are proving they arent ready.
I don’t think you read the article, this together with Resolve is showing support for these post materialist priorities is losing support.
'Post materialist'?
My my that's a very big word on a Tuesday morning from you Leland
Care to explain what you think it means?
Here is a direct reference from our friends at "Wikipedia":
in which he discovered that the formative affluence experienced by the post-war generations was leading some of them to take their material security for granted and instead place greater importance on non-material goals such as self-expression, autonomy, freedom of speech, gender equality and environmentalism. Inglehart argued that with increasing prosperity, such postmaterial values would gradually increase in the publics of advanced industrial societies through the process of intergenerational replacement.
Fundamentally, the young generation in Australia (who want to complain about how awful our country is and how hard their lives are) are in a position to prioritise issues like this, and Australia more generally, ironically, because of the privileged position we enjoy as a country. This is much the same as our Teal and Green voting inner city elite friends.
Are you Joey Tribbiani? Do you not know what " " means?
How very curious.
Would you say the fact that not a single young person can afford to buy a house, and that delightful neoliberals like yourself want to stuff them all into the furthest suburbs from their work, a material issue?
Not one single young person you say? This even thought the percentage of first home buyers taking out new loans has barely changed in 20 years?
i mean over 65% still want to be rid of fossil fuels and really the only disagreement is over whether we aim for the 2030 target or 2050. You are over-egging it here.
Support for the 2030 targets (outside of Reddit, in the real world) appears to be on the nose. This will be interesting to consider on an electorate by electorate basis. It is also an interesting result given the Essential Poll tends to always lean more "progressive" on issues like this. To my great surprise, Dutton seems to be cutting through, or perhaps people are starting to question what these targets actually mean, what they will cost and what the return really is? Support for sticking with "fossil fuels" is still low at 37%.
I don't think Dutton is cutting through so much as people are pissed off that Labor isn't addressing cost of living and so by default the LNP is doing better as people drift from Labor. The longer government's neglect the wellbeing of people the angrier people get hence the move towards voting for extremists being seen around the world.
Yet support for the overall 2050 remains.
After billions of dollars in brainwashing people are confused, others just plain ignorant or despising of reality.
Interim targets are non-negotiable. Some heads will need to be pulled out from very warm, cozy rectums.
I am not surprised that there is positive polling for the LNP, because if you only get the news from TV, Radio, or Newspapers, you would assume Peter Dutton was our PM given how much airtime he gets. The LNP is opposed to these targets the same as they have been opposed to every other climate target for the last two decades - we have already kicked this down the road multiple times. They have no intention of ever stopping the mining / resource industry, even though we as a country see little return on it. This is not some masterclass from the LNP, or some poor policy from Labor, this is just good old fashioned politicking that yields zero benefit (and in this case, serious negative consequences) for the general public over the long-term.
Well said. It wouldn't be so galling if we did actually benefit, like Norway, but still the wrong thing to do.
16 missing replies
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.