Labor 50% RET “aspirational”

Crikey it’s pathetic, from Tristan Edis:

11_370When questioned yesterday by Andrew Bolt about Labor’s 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, Labor frontbencher and a public critic of the Renewable Energy Target several years ago, Joel Fitzgibbon, said: “it’s not a policy – it’s an aspiration”.

Shadow Environment Minister Mark Butler effectively confirmed that they were not committed to achieving the 50 per cent target by lifting the target embedded within the existing Renewable Energy Act which obligates electricity retailers to purchase renewable energy or pay a fine. Instead, Butler said, Labor “has an open mind about the best way to get to 50 per cent” from the 23.5 per cent share expected by 2020 under the existing legislation.

A spokesperson for Butler explained that they wished to seek advice from the industry and the finance sector on the appropriate policy mechanisms, with Butler stating publicly that they would ensure any policy changes were put through “in good time before 2020” when the current RET scheme reaches its peak.

What? Ten years, two Garnaut Reviews, two and half prime minsters is not enough consultation?

Now we have a Direct Action policy that has no money and a 50% RET that has nothing at all. What exactly are we supposed to vote for?

 

Comments

  1. pyjamasbeforechristMEMBER

    A- The Greens

    Doesn’t matter anyway, Solar cheaper than Coal + Batteries cheaper than Petrol is just over the horizon.

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      Agree. No need to engineer a political backlash at this point, just remove the subsidies to the coal powered generators and any other obstacles in the system.

    • Electric cars will create more demand for cheap off peak energy created during the night, ie coal.
      Solar is not cheaper than coal once you factor in energy generation efficiencies, although solar does at least help with peak energy generation in Aus. Hydro still makes 85% of renewable energy despite all the billions spent.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Id like to see Nuclear power stations built, as an alternative to coal fired power.

        But like building a big dam, heavy upfront political and actual costs with the benifit to many election cycles down the road.

      • EPlumbing, nuclear is most definitely NOT the way to go. Massively expensive and builds take a decade or more (which we do not have) and always run very late, unknown solution to storage of waste, and decommissioning costs are always socialized (and go on for decades). It’s just not the right way to go, at all, in a country blessed with the best solar insolation in the world, and ample wind resources too.

      • Hydro still makes 85% of renewable energy despite all the billions spent.

        Billions spent on what, fossil fuels? Are you perhaps referring to the massive subsidies that fossil fuels get?

      • Josh MoorreesMEMBER

        I’m a physicist and a big fan of nuclear but even I would say nuclear has had it’s time. It should have been mass adopted 50 years ago to phase out coal with funding being pumped into fusion. We could have had unlimited clean energy by now but instead we decided to subsidise the fossil fuel industry. Now raw economics has caught up and solar really seems like the way to go for domestic consumption with wind/hydro/gas as backup.

  2. The ‘electricity tax scam’ slogan has them running scared. Pathetic, show some leadership ffs!

    • hey… are you picking on three word slogans again?

      all you linguistic tyrants, what do you have against a cunning linguist with a penchant for 3 worders?

  3. Good.

    Do you know how much an absurd amount of renewables would have cost?

    There’s a lot of cheaper ways to reduce emissions!

  4. Melbourneguy, cheaper way is depopulation. No humans no breathing no emissions . It’s the next step many people are more then happy to impose unemployment on their fellow citizens death is the next step .

    • ….Or some people could give up their third car, second house, boats and other high carbon consumables?

    • Actually, humanity not consuming animal protein would make a stupendous difference in reducing emissions and improving water use/land use and ensuring plentiful carbohydrate food source.

      • PlanetraderMEMBER

        tmarsh

        Ensuring plentiful carbohydrate will almost assuredly produce a massive burden on the health system in future years as it and sugar are the main causes of many health and obesity problems today. Give me fatty animal protein over carbs any day. There are much better ways to cut emissions than cull a few cows.

  5. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Ignore Fitzgibbon. He’s a coal industry lackey from way back. Also the guy that said families on $250k are struggling. Irrelevant dickhead.

    Butler sounds like they’re still running scared of Rupert and ABC misrepresentation…or is BS already doing that…

  6. Ronin8317MEMBER

    When the RET 50% target first came out, I was skeptical, and believe it was a direct response to stop ‘Carbon Tax’ from popping up in the next election. Now I am proven correct.
    Bill Shorten, like Tony Abbott, does not care if future Australians suffer or humanity perish. They just want to get elected as PM, which is apparently what it means to be a “professional politician”..

  7. “Aspirational” is perfect. Fits with the what-if maybe perhaps possible we don’t really know language of global warming.

    • No doubt you’d also find the language of evolution vague enough to dismiss as probably untrue. Like most laymen, you do not understand why science is deliberately couched in (seemingly) vague terms. 🙄

  8. Well considering not one member of Labour has any background in science and would not know the difference between a Mega Watt and a Giga Watt it really is laughable. No costing but that is OK because it is an “Aspiration” what a bunch of dreamer idiots. Sooner this green madness ends the better. Germany is walking away, Spain is Walking away even the UK is cutting its renewables subsidies. Many US states are curtailing their spend. Polls now show Global Warming to be not this low an order issue in the US since 1989. Eventually sanity will prevail

    • And why is the UK cutting renewable subsidies, other than having a brain-dead Tory government? Could it be, as the Tories say, that “the higher than expected uptake of the Feed in Tariffs (such as solar panels on roofs) and a faster than expected advancement in the efficiency of the technology, mean renewables are projected to generate more electricity than previously projected.”?

      So in other words renewables are doing so well that they feel they don’t need to help them so much. Hardly jives with your daft statement of “the sooner this green madness ends the better” statement, does it?

      Well considering not one member of Labour has any background in science

      You’ll be surprised to hear that Ian “Chainsaw” MacFarlane, the LNP Minister for Science and a peanut farmer, has no university qualifications AT ALL. 😯

    • The Coalition is brimming with canon lawyers and scientific advisers like Maurice “The Combover” Newman

    • Yer and guys like like Dennis Jenson with a PHD in physics and worked for the CSIRO. Reality is whenever I ask warmest friends the most basic of science questions they have no idea. All they can do is rattle off opinions and I have changed many of their minds as the are smart enough to realise when they are out of their depth and been had. Also I would far prefer my minister have no uni degree at all than be another failed lawyer like the rest of them on both sides of the house.

      • Jensen is 100% arseh*le. He once proposed stringing a giant shadecloth between orbiting satellites to combat global warming. He also advocated spreading nuclear waste thinly across the desert centre of Australia as a solution to radioactive storage.

        Pure comedy gold!

        (Jensen later conceded in 2007 that his “shadecloth between satellites” idea was uncosted & would require four satellites over hundreds of square kilometres.) 😛

      • Heisenberg,

        How is it you can wave Jensen’s degree as support for his position on GW, yet he has never studied climate science and then totally ignore the mountain of Phds who have studied the field for decades with the likes of NASA, NOAA, US/UK Academies of Science ALL saying the science is valid. Your position makes no sense.

      • Climate science is a complex field, encompassing a huge range of disciplines. You can have all the The NASA et al PHDs are no more qualified than Jenson. The best, most qualified person to comment on climate science is Piers Corbyn. Both a metorologist and an astrophysist. What is more he does not accept money from Big Green and therefore not conflicted. He has his own business which provides long range weather forecasting. He lives and dies by his predictions – which are often right. All the NASA et al guys would of died a long time ago if held to account for their dud predictions.

      • The best, most qualified person to comment on climate science is Piers Corbyn

        Corbyn? Now you’ve gone fullest retard on me. From wikipedia:

        Corbyn asserts that earthquakes can be triggered by solar activity, and hence that he can to some extent predict them. In an article in Wired popular technology magazine entitled “The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction”, Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, accused Corbyn of “cherry picking” and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were “faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such”.

        Corbyn has said:

        “Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so.”

        This while 2015 is so far the hottest year on record 😯

        Piers Corbyn is climate change denying ‘mad professor’ weatherman

        And BTW he is NOT a PhD astrophysicist.
        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Piers_Corbyn

        Heisenberg, you are deeply foolish and your comments here are not worthy of replies.

      • So you are saying “there won’t be future generations” and 2015 will be the hottest year on record (which it will not be) and yet I am deeply foolish. Good luck continuing to prosecute your argument – you will need it as the public is catching on this doomsday rubbish from idealogues, not the informed

      • Also I followed your link. The daily mirror is your source. This really is becoming comical. As for Piers’ credentials I never said he had a PHD and it would not make him any better at his job if he did

    • How do you know it is not feasible? I have not read the underlying assumptions behind his proposals but I do know he is more qualified to make such statements than anyone on the Labor side. Think he got it pretty right on the Joint Strike Fighter

      • It may even be feasible (cough-doubtful-cough) but it’s uncosted. I’m guessing many, many billions to a trillion or more. Cheaper to put solar panels on every house and outdoor dunny in Straya, and indeed the world, and stop using fossils fools for good! 😎

    • Agreed Heisenberg, made similar points yesterday. As for lawyers and the failed collective at Parliament House, a blight on society.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      Calm down, the hysterics aren’t needed.

      It’s an aspirational target, and it seems like a perfectly rational aspiration to want our power to come from renewable sources. The timeframe discussed makes the aspiration unlikely to be met, but what is the alternative? Do we just give up and continue digging up our fuel sources leaving future generations to find increasingly remote and expensive extraction areas?

      Seems like that would be intergenerational theft.

      • leaving future generations to find increasingly remote and expensive extraction areas

        There won’t be future generations the way we’re going. This is an existential challenge that, so far, we are failing to meet 😯

      • “There won’t be future generations” listen to yourself. Doomsday propagandists have been around since time and memorial and they are ALWAYS wrong. This will be no different

      • Doomsday propagandists have been around since time and memorial and they are ALWAYS wrong. This will be no different

        You need to read some Nassim Nicholas Taleb. You’re a victim of complacency trance and groupthink

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        @R2M You’re as bad as the global scientific conspiracy crowd, just the polar opposite. It’s the extremists on both sides that constantly steer these issues away from sensible discussion. Please stop.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Doomsday propagandists have been around since time and memorial and they are ALWAYS wrong.

        I wonder if there were any on Easter Island ?

      • So my opinion runs counter to the views of all the sporting codes (who come out with CO2 evangalism), countless public and private companies, an endless supply of green rent seeker industries, effectively the entire education system from primary through to tertiary, the UN, nearly all political parties, countless NGO’s and thousands of scientists yet I am a victim of group think.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        So my opinion runs counter to the views of all the sporting codes (who come out with CO2 evangalism), countless public and private companies, an endless supply of green rent seeker industries, effectively the entire education system from primary through to tertiary, the UN, nearly all political parties, countless NGO’s and thousands of scientists yet I am a victim of group think.

        No, champ.

        Your view runs counter to pretty much everyone who is involved in the science. Consequently you are a follower of “groupthink” rather than “evidence”.

        Like, say, Creationists. Or people who think there’s no link between smoking and cancer.

  9. turncoatMEMBER

    The problem I have with Labor’s ambitious target is that it does not consider the alternative uses of the roughly $70 billion required to achieve it. e.g. NDIS, Gonsky, South Australian subs etc. Plus it sees renewables as the objective when surely it is to reduce carbon emissions in the most cost effective manner?

    Where is Bjorn Lomborg when you need him?

    • “Where is Bjorn Lomborg when you need him?”

      Clearly not advising the Coalition.

      http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/27/ets-would-be-more-cost-effective-than-higher-renewables-target-analyst-says

      The author of the $60bn price tag for Bill Shorten’s new renewable energy goal – cited by Tony Abbott as proof the scheme is unaffordable – says an emissions trading scheme like the one the Coalition abolished would be more cost-effective than either the coalition’s “Direct Action” plan or Labor’s new goal.

      ACIL Allen Consulting chief executive, Paul Hyslop, told Guardian Australia his $60bn cost estimate of Labor’s goal to have 50% of Australia’s electricity generated by renewables by 2030 was based on a quick calculation of how much extra renewable capacity would be required, and the cost to deliver it though wind power.

      He said a carbon price would be much more cost effective than either a specific electricity sector goal, or the government’s own “Direct Action” plan.

      • turncoatMEMBER

        Yes – I think an ETS or even a tax is preferential to the current Government and Opposition schemes and ambitions. That said, if forced to choose, I would go for direct action because it is technology neutral and focused on carbon abatement rather than supporting a specific sector. It should therefore be significantly cheaper.

      • “That said, if forced to choose, I would go for direct action because it is technology neutral and focused on carbon abatement rather than supporting a specific sector.”

        Implemented properly, perhaps. As legislated, it’s just an unaccountable giveaway to farmers and big business.