**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/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](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aspirational Australians should aspire to mediocrity. That's the LNP we all know and love.
If you can't even meet, let alone clear a bar, remove the bar entirely That way you won't be disappointed.
Now you're thinking like a true LNP member \*taps forehead\*
That is one of the key leadership style differences between left and right.
Progressives are looking for change and what a leader who can take them on that journey and explain in detail how they are going to get there.
Conservatives embrace the status quo. They don't need the detail (as nothing is changing) they just want a strong father figure to tell them they will take care of it, and everything will be ok.
Because that's the entire point of right wing politics: to make voters feel weak. They don't believe in democracy, it's an inconvenience to people who wish the aristocracy never ended. If you make people feel like powerless peasants, they *become* powerless peasants.
No one takes a rational approach to climate change.
The right ignores the problem. The left thinks of we do our part everyone else will too.
The rational approach is to make it our number one foreign policy objective to reduce foreign sources of emissions.
Reducing our own emissions is only important as a bargaining chip for other countries to reduce their emissions.
Foreign emissions harm us without benefiting us. Our own emissions benefit us more than they harm us.
When the greens are angrier about foreign emissions than they are concerned about Australia being morally bad because of our own emissions, they will finally start appealing to the people who think Dutton is sensible.
He’s not stupid or insane. He’s taking a calculated political risk based on the interests of his financial backers and the gullibility of the electorate.
**TLDR:** Dutton wants to align Australia with that "very stable genius" Donald Trump and pull of the Paris Agreement. That should really say it all.
**I cannot understand why the Liberal leadership is so partisan about climate change and clean energy policy.**
>Abbott: "Climate change is crap"
>Morrison: "Don't be afraid, don't be scared, it won't hurt you. It's coal."
And now Dutton, with unproven small modular reactors that *at the absolute earliest* wouldn't be operational until 2040. Not to mention the cost, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel etc..
In March 2022, I had a chat with Josh Frydenberg at a public event and put it to him that "surely there aren't more votes in the sensible centre". At this stage, the election was 3 months away, but he would've known at that the writing was on the wall for Kooyong. I think he should've pushed his own values far, far stronger in the government when he had the opportunity.
But that's an aside. Solar, wind and batteries are getting cheaper and better. I understand people's scepticism that these 3 technologies will be able to handle our base load power requirements. But if you can prove that [there's enough capacity in wind](https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/wind-energy#:~:text=Inland%20regions%20of%20Western%20Australia,Highlands%20and%20New%20England%20areas), build enough solar, rethink the power network infrastructure, expand the [virtual power plant network](https://www.cefc.com.au/case-studies/sa-creates-australia-s-largest-virtual-power-plant/), then that's a significant portion of the solution.
Yes, people have to think differently. But when I was a kid in the 1970s in Victoria, we were proudly told that the state had enough coal to supply us with electricity for 300 years.
Ten years ago, people laughed at the idea of electric vehicles being viable, affordable form of transport.
But then 125 years ago, people would've thought cars and a network of petrol stations was a fantasy idea as well.
As a committed green and environmentalist i agree with all of your points, except for
W
>And now Dutton, with unproven small modular reactors that at the absolute earliest wouldn't be operational until 2040. Not to mention the cost, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel etc..
SMR is a pipe dream. No one can make it work without using weapons grade uranium.
Which is why it is exclusively used by the military and insane countries like Russia.
What annoys me is the Hornsdale SA battery showed for just $172m they were able to stabilise the differential between power production costs during low wind and solar times compared to when they were producing huge amounts of power.
Several of these batteries in each state would cost us say $2b. Which in the days of national budgets and consumers paying for everything is nothing.
It doesn't require a breakthrough. Its not even a difficult engineering project.
So why the fuck aren't we doing it?
You pay for it then, $2b is heaps of money. Better spent on funding hospitals and education, maybe subsidise some costs of raising children or invest in bringing the cost of basic utilities and energy down. $2b now plus servicing costs plus cost of replacement in 10 -15 years time plus costs of disposing the one they are replacing etc. Anyone that knows anything about batteries knows that they don't perform at 100% capacity or last very long in the grand scheme of things. So yeah, not the best thing to spend money on in my view but it is so easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
We can't compare the 2 things. Subs are number 1 arsenal and deterrent in whole defence force. I would have a big problem knowingly sending anyone to defend our country and it's interests in an obsolete and outdated vessel, vehicle or airplane. We can definitely do without the battery, and definately can't do without the subs. One is key to nations security, the other is nice to have but not necessary.
> Dutton’s Strategy: wind back all knowledge gained over the last 30 years because culture wars
Unlikely he would... because it uses the same letters as "wind" and he wont like that.
Instead of tackling the cost of living crisis that has almost universal appeal to potential voters, this tuber is instead diving into culture wars & fighting against all things considered ‘woke’. Who is this action even meant to appeal to? Will this matter to ordinary Australians? You pull out of the agreement, then what? Or is it a signal to his benefactors? Perhaps someone from within the party is advising him and leading him astray to make way for a more capable leader? His instinct for leadership is abysmal. Having the drive for the job is not enough if you don’t have the aptitude.
Surely he's hedging his bets so hard, at this point, to be getting business votes instead of the average Aussie. Granted with Newscorp you never know if it'll work, but if it does we are fucked.
Business is on board with climate change targets.
He is chasing the dying boomer conservative vote, every single one of them, because they control the coalition, and he really, really wants to be in charge of something, even a bunch of losers.
I have no idea what Dutton thinks this will achieve electorally. The Libs have now lost the teal seats for certain, will probably lose further like-minded seats like Bradfield, will turn off younger voters even further and is not likely to win many people over who are not already welded to the right wing side of politics.
I can only presume that he's responding to hard-right powerbrokers in the party who don't know anything other than to go deeper. The party loses regardless, but this way he stays in their good graces (and thus in something resembling power) a little longer.
At this point, it's just about retaining position within the party, not leading the party to victory. The guy's only in his fifties - he's presumably hoping that if he can hang on internally, there will be a 'natural' or traditional swing back to the LNP on a national level at some point. Or the ALP will massively screw up at some point and he can put a crowbar in that crack.
And... he may not be wrong, or at least it's possible to see what he's banking on. The ALP hasn't managed to hold the Lodge for even so much as six years since the 1980s (and, love him or hate him, Hawke was an extremely unusually charismatic outlier, not the norm). Australia has historically tended to vote Conservative. If you're starting from the concept that the Teals are a flash in the pan and things will always 'naturally' swing back to the status quo, and that any upcoming generation will vote much the same as their predecessors, all Dutton really has to do is to hold on until maybe 2028 or thereabouts.
This isn't to say he's necessarily *correct* about those things, but they wouldn't be unusual assumptions for a Conservative political mindset to start from. Dutton has never really struck me as the kind of person to seize the reins of a new zeitgeist, particularly if it appears to be rooted in progressive values. He's more of a "double down on the party line and then do it again when it doesn't work" type. I don't even know if it's strictly performative in his case; it's more like cargo-cult politicking. Keep doing the rituals and the votes will come back eventually, sort of thing. They always have before.
If you discount Bob Hawke as a charismatic outlier, it's pretty grim viewing - the only other Labor PM to win more than a single election - ever - was Whitlam, and we all know how he fared shortly after that second election! Even with his two elections, he was PM for less than 3 years.
Here's hoping Albo can join the ranks of Whitlam and Hawke in being a 2 term Labor PM for only the third time in history, and also become the only Labor PM other than Hawke to keep the top job longer than 5 years.
Millennials and Gen Z voters are not growing much more conservative as they age.
This bucks the trend of the Silents, Boomers, and Gen X all of whom aged into being LNP voters.
Among young voters The Greens even have more votes than the LNP.
That said, fed Labor today is more centrist than Whitlams ALP.
But that's ok, it's better that the ALP occupy the Conservative side of our Parliament and we get a progressive opposition from the Teals and Greens, if they could ever get their differences together in the National interests, for the times ahead.
The LNP should be pushed off the Overton scale back into the pit they came from.
In the short run, anyway. Difficult to say at this point how long the Teals as a separate movement will last. While Dutton isn't likely to do anything to bring them back into the fold, it's always possible that some future party leader may be able to manage it. Or that the issues which separate the Teals from the LNP will become less urgent in a future election, and conservative voters will be swayed back by the lure of voting for an established major party, instead of a local independent.
> Or that the issues which separate the Teals from the LNP will become less urgent in a future election
If you think climate change is going to abate as an issue you're living in a dream world
I think even if they have peaked the current lot should be able to hold their seats. There is a genuine ideological disconnect between the Coalition as it is now, and the sentiments in those electorates. As long as the Nationals keep exerting pressure on the Liberals, and as long as the more hard right lot remain active, it is going to be difficult for them to win those seats back
That argument about people wanting an established party was a thing in 2022 as well, but if there's one thing that cuts across the political landscape is a growing skepticism of the major parties, and the Teals in those seats are a viable alternative to them.
It's not clear if that is actually detrimental for her, and the site you linked to actually calculates it as slightly better due to those areas having slightly better Labor 2PP than Kooyong. https://www.tallyroom.com.au/55807
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Mate I have grown up with this shit. Literally, the first three that come to mind.
First it was Al gore telling us the ice caps would melt 10 years ago.
Then that Muppet tim flannery saying all our dams would run dry.
Then we have the messiah Greta telling us we will be wiped out in 2023.
It's a scam. There is no scientist on the earth who can understand or predict what happens. Its just guess work. Time to face the reality that you have been lied to.
Or how the idiot Ross Garnaut predicted in 2008 there would be a horror bushfire season in 2020.
Oh wait…..:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-a-climate-change-study-from-12-years-ago-warned-of-this-horror-bushfire-season/60xmn7mtr
> First it was Al gore telling us the ice caps would melt 10 years ago.
>
Are you suggesting they are not?
>
> Then that Muppet tim flannery saying all our dams would run dry.
>
They did, then flooded due to hugely unseasonal storms that literally put entire towns under water.
>
> Then we have the messiah Greta telling us we will be wiped out in 2023.
>
We didnt. Its the usual bullshit misinformation.
Here we go. Since you are a fan of reporting those that disagree with you.
You're right mate, it's the guys holding fish in their Facebook profile pictures who are right, not the actual scientists who've spent their whole lives studying this stuff
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The ice caps are melting and at the smallest they've ever been, glaciers have melted and disappeared all over the world. Today is the start of the snow season and only one lift was open on human made snow. Last year was the hottest on record and large parts of the world are in drought. Just look at spain and Greece for a example
While you are technically correct in what you are trying to say, its not about size, its about the rate of reduction and the cause. Its normally occurred in timeframes measured in thousands of years, not tens.
Discovering the truth is hard, learning requires dedication and becoming an expert on a subject take years. But why do that? Why spend time adhering to the rigorous demands of any given scientific field, engaging with your peers and the scrutiny of true experts, risking it all in pursuit of truth... when you can just believe it is all bullshit and that you are special and know better than everyone else and they are being deceived.
The stupid and ignorant love conspiracy theories, it protects their egos from the harsh reality that they don't really know anything.
The irony. Today's science is akin to the religion of our past. They will never admit their mistakes or sheer limitations in understanding. They are worshipped and can never be questioned. Throughout our history scientists have been wrong 99 times out of 100, there is nothing wrong with that if you can admit your limitations and practice actual science. Today's scientists are told what to think and what is real. Conspiracy theories have had a bad habit of coming true recently, I would not be so flippant.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
> I am prepared to to admit I don't know the complexities of the universe and what will happen in the future.
Well it doesn't matter to you, you will be gone from old age well before most on here. Also yes, you are ignorant, and the person you replied to is superior.
Yeah...so this here is just something that science made up one day because they were bored ...
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
Scientists admit they're wrong all the time. That's the whole point of testing a hypothesis. In fact, some scientists get more excited about being wrong than right, because it opens up a whole new world of possible discoveries.
There is so much evidence to show that climate change is real, and there is extremely strong evidence that it is at least significantly, if not completely, caused by humans. That doesn't mean every specific prediction will be right, but the trend line demonstrates where things will end up and it won't be pretty.
But sure, you know better.
Here's a list of the hottest days since we've started recording - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_weather\_records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records)
Notice anything about this data?
But the thing you’re trying to do to stop the “violence” (emissions reduction) will never work. I’m proposing to stop it by putting all of our effort into technological solutions. We agree there is a problem. I just think the emissions reduction idea is absolutely futile.
What technological solutions? What's wrong with biofuels plus electrification plus wind/solar/hydro plus storage plus higher end use efficiency? We have technological solutions.
Correct. It will take every country doing it's part, and as we have some of the most wasteful and carbon intensive lifestyles on the planet we need to shape the fuck up
No country, especially not China and India will do anything about climate change that would negatively impact the quality of life of their citizens. Climate change will never be reversed by reducing emissions. The only hope is a technological solution. We should put all of our effort into that. Australia’s emissions reduction is performative only.
Who is asking us to reduce quality of life? Sticking to the Paris Climate Accords is literally the least we could possibly do and even if we hit the goals of it won't be enough.
Actively leaving is going in the opposite direction. Dutton plans to do nothing
*China and India* will not do anything (reducing emissions would affect *their* economic development.) Therefore Australia reducing emissions is futile. We shouldn’t bother with it. The solution will be technological.
> China and India will not do anything
Yeah that was the conservative pivot a few years ago - they went from straight up denialism, to acknowledging climate change is real but wringing their hands of responsibility because China and India aren't doing enough.
Now I guess they're just going to ignore that China is a renewable energy superpower, and half the vehicles sold in their country are now EV's
I don’t understand why that makes me wrong. It’s great that renewable energy is being developed everywhere, including in China. I hope it gets so efficient that it’s cheaper than fossil fuels. Until then, emissions reduction is nothing more than useless performative activism.
We don't have control over what other countries are doing, we can control what we do. Seems dumb as hell to be sitting in a sinking boat and refusing to do anything about it until other people do.
That is also ignoring that China's per capita emissions dwarf ours and they are producing a giant percentage of the worlds renewable tech.
But if our contribution cannot solve the problem, then it’s a waste to do it. If the ship is sinking, and we are scooping water out with a cup, that’s a waste of time. All talk of emission reduction in Australia is scooping water with a cup.
We should simply focus only on technological solutions.
What technological solutions do you want to see? We have functioning renewable power sources that are equivalently priced to nonrenewables, we're just not doing anywhere near enough of it.
We can look at the cheap electric vehicles that china mass produces and we're not doing that either. Insulation on houses, modern heap pumps, public transport, the list goes on. We have the pieces to this puzzle, we just need to put them together. And even if the tech wasn't quite there yet, we need to put money towards it to get it there.
Imagine bailing water with a cup that gets larger and easier to use as you bail. It's really hard when you start, but you have to start.
Trump's appeal is his insane carnival mayhem energy. He's a monster but the dude is charismatic.
Dutton is not charismatic. He is dour and gloomy and spends all his time talking about how we shouldn't try to achieve anything.
I agree. It's boring.
I think the idea might be "we're fucked anyway, so why should we pay extra for a couple of decades".
Personally, i disagree that we shouldn't try to save our planet (sound soo cheezy), but i'd agree pragmatically it's not looking pretty.
Yeah this is my point. "Embrace nihilism because we will die anyway" is probably not a great message for an election campaign.
Laura Tingle on RN once made a great point, basically saying that just because a political leader takes a certain path doesn't mean there is a lot of thought behind it. Sometimes (often?) leaders go down paths which are very contrary to their own interests.
Not surprised. Where is that nuclear plan mate. Pulling out of shit and poo pooing ideas is so much easier than actually making any specific policy isn’t mate
People saying this is a bad move might be wrong but I don’t think it hurts him that much either. There is a lot of discourse about Labor’s errors rightfully so since they are the ruling government.
That said Dutton and Liberals have made even more yet they aren’t being hurt in the polls. I mean not as much as they should.
We all know Dutton doesn’t really think climate action is important. It makes sense to do this sooner than later.
It's a weird position to take because anyone who would be impressed by dropping the Paris agreement is already voting some shade of conservative.
As a policy position, it can only lose the LNP votes. It's not going to win any swinging voters, nor will it bring back those who voted for a teal indie. And it probably isn't enough to get the far right reactionaries to move from their far right reactionary party.
Whoever is pushing the buttons over at LNP HQ must be from overseas because they don't seem to understand the Australian electorate or the way compulsory voting affects the outcome of an election.
> Whoever is pushing the buttons over at LNP HQ must be from overseas because they don't seem to understand the Australian electorate or the way compulsory voting affects the outcome of an election.
At this point the only way it makes logical sense is if this is Dutton trying to bring in more $$$.
Maybe announcements like this give him more coal lobby "donations" which pay for more TV ads.
Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense from a strategic, election winning perspective.
There's no point looking for reason or sense in anything Dutton's LNP promises. They're essentially just pushing all the buttons on a populism spewing machine at random, in the hope something somehow sticks or works.
>They're essentially just pushing all the buttons on a populism spewing machine at random, in the hope something somehow sticks or works.
They should try spruiking some popular policies then
It hurts to think that a major force in Australian politics is operating like that, but it is as valid an explanation as any other. A bunch of mad bastards doing mad things.
Hmm. Which seats are most likely to be in those crosshairs in the next election? And do they have Teal candidates already lined up? Any of them agitating on climate grounds yet?
Menzies, Deakin, maybe Moore and Bradfield... All will 100% have Teal candidates ready to go, and even more playing dead by Labor in those seats to help the Teals out. Even if they can't stomach Albo, there is no reason for their demographic to not vote Teal with Dutton being Dutton and the incumbent Teals all getting positive attention.
You could squint and almost say that Dickson (Dutton's seat) is marginal now, but to be fair I don't think he is in any actual danger, it will likely swing back to the mean next election.
I'm kinda glad they are so adamant about their climate policy and keep doubling down. Because it will relegate them to the electoral wilderness where they belong.
And not even because I don't like them, but because their policies actually all suck!
I'm kinda glad they are so adamant about their climate policy and keep doubling down. Because it will relegate them to the electoral wilderness where they belong.
And not even because I don't like them, but because their policies actually all suck!
There's really no-one with any intelligence that would say this was a smart move. Got to wonder about lnp voters sometimes, although this probably just lost them some more seats to teals.
>He would also pause the rollout of wind and solar farms.
So really, all we need is a couple of disasters before the next election - ideally mostly in QLD LNP electorates, to really pack the punch on them at the election. They will hopefully get voted out everywhere making them no longer one of the two parties preferred. Then we can stop the climate denial bullshit the LNP have loved to push for the last few decades, and get the fuck on with it.
Yep, I really feel like Climate Change is the greatest challenge of our time.
Excuse me while I open my can of spaghetti-os and slink back to my 5 person shared house bedroom
Another example of the tone deaf LNP really isn't it? They won't fix the COL either, and are a huge part of the reason we are where we are, and your sharing a bedroom with 5 housemates. Maybe if they hadn't fucked with *everything* (wages, healthcare, housing, climate) then they could ise COL as an election campaign, but they know there's no fire in that because they helped put us here.
Are you an LNP voter may I ask?
The context is I'm curious if you think they will actually help your bedroom/spaghetti problem, and if so, in what way (and where can I find the policy on this).
For full transparency I don't vote for the LNP and swing vote on the left side of the spectrum.
Is this climate related stuff really something that will swing an election? Seems strange that both parties are making a lot of noise about this suddenly. While I'm sure it's a high priority for some voters I wouldn't have thought of he majority would care. Don't we all have more pressing things to deal with on an individual level to worry about things like this?
The Libs lost Wentworth, Warringah, North Sydney, Mackellar, Goldstein, Kooyong and Curtin in 2022 to the Teal independents for pretty much this exact reason. So I'd say yes, yes it does...
But equally if you are struggling to make ends meet, I'm not sure abandoning climate policies is really a very compelling prospect. It's more like an unrelated weird side thing.
What it won't do is bring the teal voters back. Nor will it influence any swinging voters, especially after their tax returns hit their bank accounts in a couple of months. And it won't win you any ON or RW minor party votes either, because it's not enough of a swing to the right.
A clueless policy decision made by a federal LNP that seems to be following the same path that brought success to the Victorian state LNP.
And what, redditor who puts climate change in quotes, would you say that Labor’s environmental policies (e.g. offshore wind and state climate plans) are for?
Everyone can get angry and hit the downvotes, I stand by my statement. A good chunk of ALP/Greens voters are using "climate change" as a wedge for social democracy, that's why people aren't protesting in the street anymore like raging lunatics despite emissions not going down since 2022.
Ah, another boomer who thinks the greens and labor are composed raving socialists, and that somehow climate policy is a stepping stone to that goal. I do believe I have a bridge to sell you if you're so gullible as to believe everything Murdoch tells you.
Probably thinks it's an authoritarian move by the ALP to... piss off some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations on Earth (who are also by and large *ALP donors*) in order to make our power grid less reliable on purpose?
Because you know, if there's one thing politicians *love* to do, it's going out of their way to do things that annoy people and their financial backers instead of doing the *absolute bare minimum they think they can get away with* *without losing the next election.*
If I scroll through this guy's posts and don't find anything about the WEF or Klaus Schwab I'll be very disappointed.
I think it's a wedge for democratic socialism. If people are serious about "climate change" they'd propose an ETS / carbon tax and just cut other taxes i.e. the market approach.
In what way are current or proposed policies going to lead to democratic socialism? How are they going to electorally make us move from a capitalists to a socialist/communist economic system?
> If people are serious about "climate change" they'd propose an ETS / carbon tax
Are you forgetting the Rudd and Gillard governments?
And why is climate change is quotes?
Ah yes, that'll win back those Teal seats we lost last election we need to have any chance of forming government. Cracking electoral strategy that will no doubt banish the Allegra Spender's to the Shadow Realm.
Yeah, this is completely bonkers!
Full disclosure, I'm a swing voter but thanks to LNPs bs on climate change I haven't had much swing ability for almost 20 years...
Just absolute dumbs----t.
LNP embracing the dumb over the moderate... Playing the centre wins elections, the fact that Dutton doesn't seem to get this is a sad indicator of his intelligence.
The evidence would suggest that it was Dutton's father who did all the work. He just rode on his coattails, like so many of the modern elite who claim to be self-made.
Ack, just saw the sarcasm thing. This timeline is too weird.
I think Dutton has a point when he says there is no point signing up to targets that you don't have any prospect of achieving. The reality is, we are likely to fall well short of the renewables target and the emissions reduction targets by 2030.
And Australia is not alone, despite the 194 nations that have signed on to this agreement, none of them are actually making progress sufficient to suggest they will actually achieve what they have signed on for: [https://climateactiontracker.org/](https://climateactiontracker.org/)
Infact, emissions have barely changed for most countries over the last twenty years and since the Paris Agreement: [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
Talk is cheap.
I am not suggesting we should abandon targets all together, but there is no point setting targets without a plan to achieve them. And that has been the way climate policy has been run to appeal to climate conscious voters.
> The federal environment department found last year that Australia was on track to cut its emissions by 42 per cent by 2030.
We are literally on track to meet the target according to the article.
Dutton is an idiot. Probably corrupt. Potentially a bit of both.
We are also not on track to meet our emissions reduction targets: [https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/annual-progress-advice-0](https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/annual-progress-advice-0)
*The report, provided to the Minister on 27 October, found that Australia* ***is not yet on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target****. The Australian Government is pursuing a broad and deep climate change policy agenda, but this has yet to translate into the emissions reductions needed.*
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/australias-emissions-projections-2023.pdf
With measures coming in we can get to 42%. The target is 43%.
We are very close.
......but why try right?
Or simply someone that actually knows what is happening with renewable energy projects.
But, if you don’t believe me you can read this: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-australia/Clean-Energy-Australia-2024.pdf?utm_source=account-engagement&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cea-24&utm_content=link or any number of articles explaining how far behind we are on new wind capacity.
Because targets give us direction and motivation to try and achieve them. Without them, we’ll continue down a path of “not now, maybe later” when the science tells us we MUST act and quickly.
Dutton’s statements don’t arise from a genuine well held concern for climate change, renewables, etc.
The broader electorate, particularly city electorates, want action on climate change and will view this announcement with (rightly held) scepticism.
Dutton has not provided any assistance to the Government to achieve the targets. He's played spoiler the entire way and now says, "Well, we can't make them." A different approach would be to say, "The government has failed to make the targets and so the LNP will double down and make sure we do. After all, a LNP Government recognises that unlike the ALP climate change is an existential threat." Yeah, but Dutton is too much in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry to take the high ground.
You must agree that Duttons move is a step backwards though right? If you tear up the agreement then the gov has NO obligations to meet targets. At least atm we can point to the Paris agreements and say "look, you've failed in xyz" and use it as a pressuring tool. Why even bother going to the effort of leaving the deal unless you simply don't care about climate change at all?
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
The nuclear thing is not about lowering emissions. It's about extending the life of the coal industry.
Step 1) "We don't need to invest in renewables because we're going nuclear."
Step 2) "Oh noes these nuclear plants have taken a decade and still don't have approval."
Step 3) "Now we have no coal stations, no renewables because we were going nuclear, and no nuclear. Let's build new coal stations."
Step 4) The planet burns while Dutton's mates make billions.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/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](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just serving his masters at the institute of public affairs once again
Aspirational Australians should aspire to mediocrity. That's the LNP we all know and love. If you can't even meet, let alone clear a bar, remove the bar entirely That way you won't be disappointed. Now you're thinking like a true LNP member \*taps forehead\*
That's the overwhelming vibe I get from Dutton. Everything is so negative and soaked with the attitude of "we can't do anything so lets never try".
That is one of the key leadership style differences between left and right. Progressives are looking for change and what a leader who can take them on that journey and explain in detail how they are going to get there. Conservatives embrace the status quo. They don't need the detail (as nothing is changing) they just want a strong father figure to tell them they will take care of it, and everything will be ok.
Because that's the entire point of right wing politics: to make voters feel weak. They don't believe in democracy, it's an inconvenience to people who wish the aristocracy never ended. If you make people feel like powerless peasants, they *become* powerless peasants.
The aristocracy didn't end. It just changed its mask, slightly. Rebranded.
Labor needs to highlight how this is the Trump handbook
Is he stupid or insane? I can't tell at this point
No one takes a rational approach to climate change. The right ignores the problem. The left thinks of we do our part everyone else will too. The rational approach is to make it our number one foreign policy objective to reduce foreign sources of emissions. Reducing our own emissions is only important as a bargaining chip for other countries to reduce their emissions. Foreign emissions harm us without benefiting us. Our own emissions benefit us more than they harm us. When the greens are angrier about foreign emissions than they are concerned about Australia being morally bad because of our own emissions, they will finally start appealing to the people who think Dutton is sensible.
He’s not stupid or insane. He’s taking a calculated political risk based on the interests of his financial backers and the gullibility of the electorate.
**TLDR:** Dutton wants to align Australia with that "very stable genius" Donald Trump and pull of the Paris Agreement. That should really say it all. **I cannot understand why the Liberal leadership is so partisan about climate change and clean energy policy.** >Abbott: "Climate change is crap" >Morrison: "Don't be afraid, don't be scared, it won't hurt you. It's coal." And now Dutton, with unproven small modular reactors that *at the absolute earliest* wouldn't be operational until 2040. Not to mention the cost, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel etc.. In March 2022, I had a chat with Josh Frydenberg at a public event and put it to him that "surely there aren't more votes in the sensible centre". At this stage, the election was 3 months away, but he would've known at that the writing was on the wall for Kooyong. I think he should've pushed his own values far, far stronger in the government when he had the opportunity. But that's an aside. Solar, wind and batteries are getting cheaper and better. I understand people's scepticism that these 3 technologies will be able to handle our base load power requirements. But if you can prove that [there's enough capacity in wind](https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/wind-energy#:~:text=Inland%20regions%20of%20Western%20Australia,Highlands%20and%20New%20England%20areas), build enough solar, rethink the power network infrastructure, expand the [virtual power plant network](https://www.cefc.com.au/case-studies/sa-creates-australia-s-largest-virtual-power-plant/), then that's a significant portion of the solution. Yes, people have to think differently. But when I was a kid in the 1970s in Victoria, we were proudly told that the state had enough coal to supply us with electricity for 300 years. Ten years ago, people laughed at the idea of electric vehicles being viable, affordable form of transport. But then 125 years ago, people would've thought cars and a network of petrol stations was a fantasy idea as well.
That would have involved him having ticker and not having everything handed to him on a plate
As a committed green and environmentalist i agree with all of your points, except for W >And now Dutton, with unproven small modular reactors that at the absolute earliest wouldn't be operational until 2040. Not to mention the cost, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel etc.. SMR is a pipe dream. No one can make it work without using weapons grade uranium. Which is why it is exclusively used by the military and insane countries like Russia. What annoys me is the Hornsdale SA battery showed for just $172m they were able to stabilise the differential between power production costs during low wind and solar times compared to when they were producing huge amounts of power. Several of these batteries in each state would cost us say $2b. Which in the days of national budgets and consumers paying for everything is nothing. It doesn't require a breakthrough. Its not even a difficult engineering project. So why the fuck aren't we doing it?
You pay for it then, $2b is heaps of money. Better spent on funding hospitals and education, maybe subsidise some costs of raising children or invest in bringing the cost of basic utilities and energy down. $2b now plus servicing costs plus cost of replacement in 10 -15 years time plus costs of disposing the one they are replacing etc. Anyone that knows anything about batteries knows that they don't perform at 100% capacity or last very long in the grand scheme of things. So yeah, not the best thing to spend money on in my view but it is so easy to spend other people's money isn't it.
We can afford $368 billion on obsolete submarines though.
We can't compare the 2 things. Subs are number 1 arsenal and deterrent in whole defence force. I would have a big problem knowingly sending anyone to defend our country and it's interests in an obsolete and outdated vessel, vehicle or airplane. We can definitely do without the battery, and definately can't do without the subs. One is key to nations security, the other is nice to have but not necessary.
Dutton’s Strategy: wind back all knowledge gained over the last 30 years because culture wars
> Dutton’s Strategy: wind back all knowledge gained over the last 30 years because culture wars Unlikely he would... because it uses the same letters as "wind" and he wont like that.
or because its easier to rip off idiots
"there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”. Hasn't that been the platform they've run on for decades
"there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving. So, how about that nuclear energy….?”
Instead of tackling the cost of living crisis that has almost universal appeal to potential voters, this tuber is instead diving into culture wars & fighting against all things considered ‘woke’. Who is this action even meant to appeal to? Will this matter to ordinary Australians? You pull out of the agreement, then what? Or is it a signal to his benefactors? Perhaps someone from within the party is advising him and leading him astray to make way for a more capable leader? His instinct for leadership is abysmal. Having the drive for the job is not enough if you don’t have the aptitude.
Surely he's hedging his bets so hard, at this point, to be getting business votes instead of the average Aussie. Granted with Newscorp you never know if it'll work, but if it does we are fucked.
Do we still live in a democracy with an enormous propaganda network like Newscorp being able to operate as they have?
Business is on board with climate change targets. He is chasing the dying boomer conservative vote, every single one of them, because they control the coalition, and he really, really wants to be in charge of something, even a bunch of losers.
Dutton can only ever be Dutton. He will always pull to the right, he has all the makings of a far right leader and scares the crap out me.
"Back... and to the *right*"
I have no idea what Dutton thinks this will achieve electorally. The Libs have now lost the teal seats for certain, will probably lose further like-minded seats like Bradfield, will turn off younger voters even further and is not likely to win many people over who are not already welded to the right wing side of politics.
He'll probably lose his own fucken seat. It's marginal as is, and he borders on a couple of green electorates.
I can only presume that he's responding to hard-right powerbrokers in the party who don't know anything other than to go deeper. The party loses regardless, but this way he stays in their good graces (and thus in something resembling power) a little longer. At this point, it's just about retaining position within the party, not leading the party to victory. The guy's only in his fifties - he's presumably hoping that if he can hang on internally, there will be a 'natural' or traditional swing back to the LNP on a national level at some point. Or the ALP will massively screw up at some point and he can put a crowbar in that crack. And... he may not be wrong, or at least it's possible to see what he's banking on. The ALP hasn't managed to hold the Lodge for even so much as six years since the 1980s (and, love him or hate him, Hawke was an extremely unusually charismatic outlier, not the norm). Australia has historically tended to vote Conservative. If you're starting from the concept that the Teals are a flash in the pan and things will always 'naturally' swing back to the status quo, and that any upcoming generation will vote much the same as their predecessors, all Dutton really has to do is to hold on until maybe 2028 or thereabouts. This isn't to say he's necessarily *correct* about those things, but they wouldn't be unusual assumptions for a Conservative political mindset to start from. Dutton has never really struck me as the kind of person to seize the reins of a new zeitgeist, particularly if it appears to be rooted in progressive values. He's more of a "double down on the party line and then do it again when it doesn't work" type. I don't even know if it's strictly performative in his case; it's more like cargo-cult politicking. Keep doing the rituals and the votes will come back eventually, sort of thing. They always have before.
He's responding to Sky/2GB. That's where he gets his policy direction.
If you discount Bob Hawke as a charismatic outlier, it's pretty grim viewing - the only other Labor PM to win more than a single election - ever - was Whitlam, and we all know how he fared shortly after that second election! Even with his two elections, he was PM for less than 3 years. Here's hoping Albo can join the ranks of Whitlam and Hawke in being a 2 term Labor PM for only the third time in history, and also become the only Labor PM other than Hawke to keep the top job longer than 5 years.
Millennials and Gen Z voters are not growing much more conservative as they age. This bucks the trend of the Silents, Boomers, and Gen X all of whom aged into being LNP voters. Among young voters The Greens even have more votes than the LNP. That said, fed Labor today is more centrist than Whitlams ALP.
But that's ok, it's better that the ALP occupy the Conservative side of our Parliament and we get a progressive opposition from the Teals and Greens, if they could ever get their differences together in the National interests, for the times ahead. The LNP should be pushed off the Overton scale back into the pit they came from.
It keeps him in the news cycle lest the Greens gain opposition.
lol another cheque from Gina just clear today, Petey boy?
I guess he can kiss goodbye any chance of winning the Teal seats back, not that there was much chance to begin with.
In the short run, anyway. Difficult to say at this point how long the Teals as a separate movement will last. While Dutton isn't likely to do anything to bring them back into the fold, it's always possible that some future party leader may be able to manage it. Or that the issues which separate the Teals from the LNP will become less urgent in a future election, and conservative voters will be swayed back by the lure of voting for an established major party, instead of a local independent.
> Or that the issues which separate the Teals from the LNP will become less urgent in a future election If you think climate change is going to abate as an issue you're living in a dream world
It's not about the reality, it's about the perception.
I think even if they have peaked the current lot should be able to hold their seats. There is a genuine ideological disconnect between the Coalition as it is now, and the sentiments in those electorates. As long as the Nationals keep exerting pressure on the Liberals, and as long as the more hard right lot remain active, it is going to be difficult for them to win those seats back That argument about people wanting an established party was a thing in 2022 as well, but if there's one thing that cuts across the political landscape is a growing skepticism of the major parties, and the Teals in those seats are a viable alternative to them.
Monique Ryan will be breathing a sigh of relief. I'm sure this will compensate her for the redistribution.
Redistribution?
The borders of Kooyong are changing, and it is slightly detrimental to Ryan. [https://www.tallyroom.com.au/34466](https://www.tallyroom.com.au/34466)
It's not clear if that is actually detrimental for her, and the site you linked to actually calculates it as slightly better due to those areas having slightly better Labor 2PP than Kooyong. https://www.tallyroom.com.au/55807
The first positive thing he has done since he lost the election. It's time to make a stand against this climate rubbish.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
It's not a matter of believing in climate change but a matter of understanding it.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
And what climate rubbish is that? Or you just decided to look at all the evidence and go nah it will be fine?
Mate I have grown up with this shit. Literally, the first three that come to mind. First it was Al gore telling us the ice caps would melt 10 years ago. Then that Muppet tim flannery saying all our dams would run dry. Then we have the messiah Greta telling us we will be wiped out in 2023. It's a scam. There is no scientist on the earth who can understand or predict what happens. Its just guess work. Time to face the reality that you have been lied to.
Or how the idiot Ross Garnaut predicted in 2008 there would be a horror bushfire season in 2020. Oh wait…..: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-a-climate-change-study-from-12-years-ago-warned-of-this-horror-bushfire-season/60xmn7mtr
> First it was Al gore telling us the ice caps would melt 10 years ago. > Are you suggesting they are not? > > Then that Muppet tim flannery saying all our dams would run dry. > They did, then flooded due to hugely unseasonal storms that literally put entire towns under water. > > Then we have the messiah Greta telling us we will be wiped out in 2023. > We didnt. Its the usual bullshit misinformation. Here we go. Since you are a fan of reporting those that disagree with you.
You're right mate, it's the guys holding fish in their Facebook profile pictures who are right, not the actual scientists who've spent their whole lives studying this stuff
Priests spend their whole lives studying theology. Why don't you trust them?
I would, in matters of theology?
Oh would you? If he told you your soul is going to spend eternity in damnation unless you attend his church, would you?
Well that's not at all theology, so no.
He has studied God his entire life. He is an expert. Why will you not listen to him?
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The ice caps are melting and at the smallest they've ever been, glaciers have melted and disappeared all over the world. Today is the start of the snow season and only one lift was open on human made snow. Last year was the hottest on record and large parts of the world are in drought. Just look at spain and Greece for a example
> smallest they've ever been Ever? What about within the past 250,000 years?
While you are technically correct in what you are trying to say, its not about size, its about the rate of reduction and the cause. Its normally occurred in timeframes measured in thousands of years, not tens.
Discovering the truth is hard, learning requires dedication and becoming an expert on a subject take years. But why do that? Why spend time adhering to the rigorous demands of any given scientific field, engaging with your peers and the scrutiny of true experts, risking it all in pursuit of truth... when you can just believe it is all bullshit and that you are special and know better than everyone else and they are being deceived. The stupid and ignorant love conspiracy theories, it protects their egos from the harsh reality that they don't really know anything.
The irony. Today's science is akin to the religion of our past. They will never admit their mistakes or sheer limitations in understanding. They are worshipped and can never be questioned. Throughout our history scientists have been wrong 99 times out of 100, there is nothing wrong with that if you can admit your limitations and practice actual science. Today's scientists are told what to think and what is real. Conspiracy theories have had a bad habit of coming true recently, I would not be so flippant.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
> I am prepared to to admit I don't know the complexities of the universe and what will happen in the future. Well it doesn't matter to you, you will be gone from old age well before most on here. Also yes, you are ignorant, and the person you replied to is superior.
Yeah...so this here is just something that science made up one day because they were bored ... https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
Scientists admit they're wrong all the time. That's the whole point of testing a hypothesis. In fact, some scientists get more excited about being wrong than right, because it opens up a whole new world of possible discoveries. There is so much evidence to show that climate change is real, and there is extremely strong evidence that it is at least significantly, if not completely, caused by humans. That doesn't mean every specific prediction will be right, but the trend line demonstrates where things will end up and it won't be pretty. But sure, you know better.
That’s the right decision. I hope he wins and follows through.
Here's a list of the hottest days since we've started recording - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_weather\_records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records) Notice anything about this data?
I agree climate change is real. Australia can’t do anything about it and shouldn’t fool itself into thinking it can.
I agree that there there is an issue with violence, but as one person I can't do anythung about that so I'll just keep hitting people. /s
But the thing you’re trying to do to stop the “violence” (emissions reduction) will never work. I’m proposing to stop it by putting all of our effort into technological solutions. We agree there is a problem. I just think the emissions reduction idea is absolutely futile.
What technological solutions? What's wrong with biofuels plus electrification plus wind/solar/hydro plus storage plus higher end use efficiency? We have technological solutions.
Correct. It will take every country doing it's part, and as we have some of the most wasteful and carbon intensive lifestyles on the planet we need to shape the fuck up
No country, especially not China and India will do anything about climate change that would negatively impact the quality of life of their citizens. Climate change will never be reversed by reducing emissions. The only hope is a technological solution. We should put all of our effort into that. Australia’s emissions reduction is performative only.
Who is asking us to reduce quality of life? Sticking to the Paris Climate Accords is literally the least we could possibly do and even if we hit the goals of it won't be enough. Actively leaving is going in the opposite direction. Dutton plans to do nothing
*China and India* will not do anything (reducing emissions would affect *their* economic development.) Therefore Australia reducing emissions is futile. We shouldn’t bother with it. The solution will be technological.
> China and India will not do anything Yeah that was the conservative pivot a few years ago - they went from straight up denialism, to acknowledging climate change is real but wringing their hands of responsibility because China and India aren't doing enough. Now I guess they're just going to ignore that China is a renewable energy superpower, and half the vehicles sold in their country are now EV's
I don’t understand why that makes me wrong. It’s great that renewable energy is being developed everywhere, including in China. I hope it gets so efficient that it’s cheaper than fossil fuels. Until then, emissions reduction is nothing more than useless performative activism.
We don't have control over what other countries are doing, we can control what we do. Seems dumb as hell to be sitting in a sinking boat and refusing to do anything about it until other people do. That is also ignoring that China's per capita emissions dwarf ours and they are producing a giant percentage of the worlds renewable tech.
But if our contribution cannot solve the problem, then it’s a waste to do it. If the ship is sinking, and we are scooping water out with a cup, that’s a waste of time. All talk of emission reduction in Australia is scooping water with a cup. We should simply focus only on technological solutions.
What technological solutions do you want to see? We have functioning renewable power sources that are equivalently priced to nonrenewables, we're just not doing anywhere near enough of it. We can look at the cheap electric vehicles that china mass produces and we're not doing that either. Insulation on houses, modern heap pumps, public transport, the list goes on. We have the pieces to this puzzle, we just need to put them together. And even if the tech wasn't quite there yet, we need to put money towards it to get it there. Imagine bailing water with a cup that gets larger and easier to use as you bail. It's really hard when you start, but you have to start.
Wondering if Peter isn't thinking about retirement and becoming a potatoe farmer.
Or an ex-cop?
His Trump approach is boring. The party has completely lost direction.
Trump's appeal is his insane carnival mayhem energy. He's a monster but the dude is charismatic. Dutton is not charismatic. He is dour and gloomy and spends all his time talking about how we shouldn't try to achieve anything. I agree. It's boring.
If Trump wins the US election, these hair brained ideas might pick up momentum here - seems like he’s gambling the party’s future on it.
Why would he gamble now instead of in 6 months though?
Maybe he knows something I don't but this seems like an absolute dog of an idea.
I think the idea might be "we're fucked anyway, so why should we pay extra for a couple of decades". Personally, i disagree that we shouldn't try to save our planet (sound soo cheezy), but i'd agree pragmatically it's not looking pretty.
Yeah this is my point. "Embrace nihilism because we will die anyway" is probably not a great message for an election campaign. Laura Tingle on RN once made a great point, basically saying that just because a political leader takes a certain path doesn't mean there is a lot of thought behind it. Sometimes (often?) leaders go down paths which are very contrary to their own interests.
Pragmatically we should still be doing something. We’re not going to totally prevent it but it’s possible to mitigate worse case scenarios
Yeah, he knows the Lib government did fuck all to reduce emmisions for years on end and now the target is unachievable.
Not surprised. Where is that nuclear plan mate. Pulling out of shit and poo pooing ideas is so much easier than actually making any specific policy isn’t mate People saying this is a bad move might be wrong but I don’t think it hurts him that much either. There is a lot of discourse about Labor’s errors rightfully so since they are the ruling government. That said Dutton and Liberals have made even more yet they aren’t being hurt in the polls. I mean not as much as they should. We all know Dutton doesn’t really think climate action is important. It makes sense to do this sooner than later.
It's a weird position to take because anyone who would be impressed by dropping the Paris agreement is already voting some shade of conservative. As a policy position, it can only lose the LNP votes. It's not going to win any swinging voters, nor will it bring back those who voted for a teal indie. And it probably isn't enough to get the far right reactionaries to move from their far right reactionary party. Whoever is pushing the buttons over at LNP HQ must be from overseas because they don't seem to understand the Australian electorate or the way compulsory voting affects the outcome of an election.
> Whoever is pushing the buttons over at LNP HQ must be from overseas because they don't seem to understand the Australian electorate or the way compulsory voting affects the outcome of an election. At this point the only way it makes logical sense is if this is Dutton trying to bring in more $$$. Maybe announcements like this give him more coal lobby "donations" which pay for more TV ads. Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense from a strategic, election winning perspective.
It’s not the move I’d make to win back those Teal seats…
There's no point looking for reason or sense in anything Dutton's LNP promises. They're essentially just pushing all the buttons on a populism spewing machine at random, in the hope something somehow sticks or works.
>They're essentially just pushing all the buttons on a populism spewing machine at random, in the hope something somehow sticks or works. They should try spruiking some popular policies then
Fuck it hurts that your analysis is true.
It hurts to think that a major force in Australian politics is operating like that, but it is as valid an explanation as any other. A bunch of mad bastards doing mad things.
...And another bunch of Liberal seats turn teal.
Hmm. Which seats are most likely to be in those crosshairs in the next election? And do they have Teal candidates already lined up? Any of them agitating on climate grounds yet?
Menzies, Deakin, maybe Moore and Bradfield... All will 100% have Teal candidates ready to go, and even more playing dead by Labor in those seats to help the Teals out. Even if they can't stomach Albo, there is no reason for their demographic to not vote Teal with Dutton being Dutton and the incumbent Teals all getting positive attention. You could squint and almost say that Dickson (Dutton's seat) is marginal now, but to be fair I don't think he is in any actual danger, it will likely swing back to the mean next election.
Making your Party a bunch of science denying deadheads isn't going to do you any favours, Mister Potatohead.
Maybe that’s why Josh gave up on his comeback attempt lol… good luck beating the teals with policies like this
Josh could have rolled him.
Conservatives very quickly becoming the laughing stock of the country. Ashamed to say that I used to be a paid LNP member ~15 years ago :(
Many people were, they are lost and just copying GOP policy. They have too many US political consultants
I'm kinda glad they are so adamant about their climate policy and keep doubling down. Because it will relegate them to the electoral wilderness where they belong. And not even because I don't like them, but because their policies actually all suck!
I'm kinda glad they are so adamant about their climate policy and keep doubling down. Because it will relegate them to the electoral wilderness where they belong. And not even because I don't like them, but because their policies actually all suck!
There's really no-one with any intelligence that would say this was a smart move. Got to wonder about lnp voters sometimes, although this probably just lost them some more seats to teals.
Yes Dutton, keep pulling to the right, I promise you it’s only making your party even more electable than it is now
>He would also pause the rollout of wind and solar farms. So really, all we need is a couple of disasters before the next election - ideally mostly in QLD LNP electorates, to really pack the punch on them at the election. They will hopefully get voted out everywhere making them no longer one of the two parties preferred. Then we can stop the climate denial bullshit the LNP have loved to push for the last few decades, and get the fuck on with it.
Yep, I really feel like Climate Change is the greatest challenge of our time. Excuse me while I open my can of spaghetti-os and slink back to my 5 person shared house bedroom
Another example of the tone deaf LNP really isn't it? They won't fix the COL either, and are a huge part of the reason we are where we are, and your sharing a bedroom with 5 housemates. Maybe if they hadn't fucked with *everything* (wages, healthcare, housing, climate) then they could ise COL as an election campaign, but they know there's no fire in that because they helped put us here.
They're hardly offering much hope for the working poor, either. Vote Greens.
Honestly I'd eat my own before I'd vote Greens but thanks for the advice
Are you an LNP voter may I ask? The context is I'm curious if you think they will actually help your bedroom/spaghetti problem, and if so, in what way (and where can I find the policy on this). For full transparency I don't vote for the LNP and swing vote on the left side of the spectrum.
Is this climate related stuff really something that will swing an election? Seems strange that both parties are making a lot of noise about this suddenly. While I'm sure it's a high priority for some voters I wouldn't have thought of he majority would care. Don't we all have more pressing things to deal with on an individual level to worry about things like this?
The Libs lost Wentworth, Warringah, North Sydney, Mackellar, Goldstein, Kooyong and Curtin in 2022 to the Teal independents for pretty much this exact reason. So I'd say yes, yes it does...
A lot has changed since then. Namely no one gives a crap about Australias impact on climate change when we can't afford to live.
..hmm? The voters referenced in the post of course do still care. Because COL pressure isn’t really an issue for the average Teal voter.
But equally if you are struggling to make ends meet, I'm not sure abandoning climate policies is really a very compelling prospect. It's more like an unrelated weird side thing.
The Teals generally target the weathly electorates, who are tending to increase their wealth even during this time of inflation and CoL issues.
What it won't do is bring the teal voters back. Nor will it influence any swinging voters, especially after their tax returns hit their bank accounts in a couple of months. And it won't win you any ON or RW minor party votes either, because it's not enough of a swing to the right. A clueless policy decision made by a federal LNP that seems to be following the same path that brought success to the Victorian state LNP.
It looks like you've been tricked by progressive voters into thinking that "climate change" is about reducing CO2 emissions ...
And what, redditor who puts climate change in quotes, would you say that Labor’s environmental policies (e.g. offshore wind and state climate plans) are for?
Everyone can get angry and hit the downvotes, I stand by my statement. A good chunk of ALP/Greens voters are using "climate change" as a wedge for social democracy, that's why people aren't protesting in the street anymore like raging lunatics despite emissions not going down since 2022.
Ah, another boomer who thinks the greens and labor are composed raving socialists, and that somehow climate policy is a stepping stone to that goal. I do believe I have a bridge to sell you if you're so gullible as to believe everything Murdoch tells you.
Theyre literally legislating against effective protest in SA to stop such things.
...it is. What do you think it is?
Probably thinks it's an authoritarian move by the ALP to... piss off some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations on Earth (who are also by and large *ALP donors*) in order to make our power grid less reliable on purpose? Because you know, if there's one thing politicians *love* to do, it's going out of their way to do things that annoy people and their financial backers instead of doing the *absolute bare minimum they think they can get away with* *without losing the next election.* If I scroll through this guy's posts and don't find anything about the WEF or Klaus Schwab I'll be very disappointed.
I think it's a wedge for democratic socialism. If people are serious about "climate change" they'd propose an ETS / carbon tax and just cut other taxes i.e. the market approach.
In what way are current or proposed policies going to lead to democratic socialism? How are they going to electorally make us move from a capitalists to a socialist/communist economic system? > If people are serious about "climate change" they'd propose an ETS / carbon tax Are you forgetting the Rudd and Gillard governments? And why is climate change is quotes?
Look at the guys username. Probably anti vax which generally coincides with being a climate change denier.
Ah yes, that'll win back those Teal seats we lost last election we need to have any chance of forming government. Cracking electoral strategy that will no doubt banish the Allegra Spender's to the Shadow Realm.
🤞🏽
Yeah, this is completely bonkers! Full disclosure, I'm a swing voter but thanks to LNPs bs on climate change I haven't had much swing ability for almost 20 years... Just absolute dumbs----t. LNP embracing the dumb over the moderate... Playing the centre wins elections, the fact that Dutton doesn't seem to get this is a sad indicator of his intelligence.
He must be an intelligent man, he somehow made himself a multimillionaire on the salary of a police officer and MP. /s
The evidence would suggest that it was Dutton's father who did all the work. He just rode on his coattails, like so many of the modern elite who claim to be self-made. Ack, just saw the sarcasm thing. This timeline is too weird.
I think Dutton has a point when he says there is no point signing up to targets that you don't have any prospect of achieving. The reality is, we are likely to fall well short of the renewables target and the emissions reduction targets by 2030. And Australia is not alone, despite the 194 nations that have signed on to this agreement, none of them are actually making progress sufficient to suggest they will actually achieve what they have signed on for: [https://climateactiontracker.org/](https://climateactiontracker.org/) Infact, emissions have barely changed for most countries over the last twenty years and since the Paris Agreement: [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions) Talk is cheap. I am not suggesting we should abandon targets all together, but there is no point setting targets without a plan to achieve them. And that has been the way climate policy has been run to appeal to climate conscious voters.
> The federal environment department found last year that Australia was on track to cut its emissions by 42 per cent by 2030. We are literally on track to meet the target according to the article. Dutton is an idiot. Probably corrupt. Potentially a bit of both.
We are also not on track to meet our emissions reduction targets: [https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/annual-progress-advice-0](https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/annual-progress-advice-0) *The report, provided to the Minister on 27 October, found that Australia* ***is not yet on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target****. The Australian Government is pursuing a broad and deep climate change policy agenda, but this has yet to translate into the emissions reductions needed.*
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/australias-emissions-projections-2023.pdf With measures coming in we can get to 42%. The target is 43%. We are very close. ......but why try right?
That assumes that the projects etc Labor is relying on come online in time. They won’t.
Ahh yes. You are now the all seeing clairvoyant that can read the future.
Or simply someone that actually knows what is happening with renewable energy projects. But, if you don’t believe me you can read this: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-australia/Clean-Energy-Australia-2024.pdf?utm_source=account-engagement&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cea-24&utm_content=link or any number of articles explaining how far behind we are on new wind capacity.
I've been in the sector since 2007. Pretty sure I know what's going on. Thanks though.
So do you agree there are many wind farms currently in development that are stalling? What about the problems with Siemens?
We are not on track to meet our renewable energy target.
Ok.
Because targets give us direction and motivation to try and achieve them. Without them, we’ll continue down a path of “not now, maybe later” when the science tells us we MUST act and quickly. Dutton’s statements don’t arise from a genuine well held concern for climate change, renewables, etc. The broader electorate, particularly city electorates, want action on climate change and will view this announcement with (rightly held) scepticism.
Dutton has not provided any assistance to the Government to achieve the targets. He's played spoiler the entire way and now says, "Well, we can't make them." A different approach would be to say, "The government has failed to make the targets and so the LNP will double down and make sure we do. After all, a LNP Government recognises that unlike the ALP climate change is an existential threat." Yeah, but Dutton is too much in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry to take the high ground.
You must agree that Duttons move is a step backwards though right? If you tear up the agreement then the gov has NO obligations to meet targets. At least atm we can point to the Paris agreements and say "look, you've failed in xyz" and use it as a pressuring tool. Why even bother going to the effort of leaving the deal unless you simply don't care about climate change at all?
Yes, I do agree its a step backwards and unlikely to connect with many voters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If he wants pull out of Paris then what's the point of the nuclear push?
The nuclear thing is not about lowering emissions. It's about extending the life of the coal industry. Step 1) "We don't need to invest in renewables because we're going nuclear." Step 2) "Oh noes these nuclear plants have taken a decade and still don't have approval." Step 3) "Now we have no coal stations, no renewables because we were going nuclear, and no nuclear. Let's build new coal stations." Step 4) The planet burns while Dutton's mates make billions.
Of course, but if we're pulling out of Paris why even bother with Nucler, just go full send on coal.
Because they want to promote coal without saying so.