Morrison commits Australia to climate disaster

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was on the hustings last night with more divisive rhetoric, this time on climate change, as the world moves toward the Biden administration climate summit:

  • The Morrison Government has “all but” committed Australia to net zero emissions by 2050.
  • “We need to change our energy mix over the next 30 years on the road to net-zero emissions. We will not achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities. It will not be achieved by taxing our industries that provide livelihoods for millions of Australians off the planet, as our political opponents sort to do, when they were given the chance. “The key to meeting our climate change ambitions is commercialisation of low emissions technology.” He said.
  • The Government won’t lift its carbon reductions from 26 per cent to 28 per cent over 2005 levels by 2030.

This is all empty rhetoric. A carbon price does exactly what Morrison says he wants, by explicitly promoting lower carbon technologies by making those technologies that do pollute pay for doing so. That’s all it does. The market does the rest.

If he won’t allow such a market mechanism to work then all he has left is direct government interventions in chosen sectors to produce the same outcome. In Morrison’s own terms, these are nothing but discriminatory “taxes” that will decide which technology lives and which dies.

For a guy that couldn’t put a few vaccines on a few trucks, this is one giant leap of policy self-confidence. Some might say arrogance. Others might say the entire thing is marketing balderdash.

Weighing in for the latter conclusion is this:

  • The Biden administration will outline its ramped-up plan to cut emissions before it hosts a virtual 40 leader world summit.
  • The new target may 40-50% cuts by 2030.
  • Morrison is “trying to fly under the radar”.

It is not just about making a target for 2050. It matters what you do along the way. The scientific consensus is that the world and Australia will need to cut emissions by 45-65% by 2030, roughly double the Morrison Commitment to avert 2%+ global warming.

Obviously, the longer that you stuff around with culture wars, the sharper the later cuts will need to be, setting up either economic disaster or target failure or both.

In short, the new uncommitment from the Morrison Government guarantees policy failure such that Australia will experience the worst effects of climate change. It divides the polity while giving his rentier mates control over policy.

The only thing missing from this classic Morrison policy unprocess is some sheilas to assault along the way.

Then again, we all live on Planet Earth so tick that box as well.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. Arthur Schopenhauer

    It’s also creating an industry and manufacturing disaster. He is ensuring that all renewable technologies will come from offshore and all Australian renewable research will benefit offshore companies.

    Strategically blind. Tactically nasty. Economically idiotic.

    But hey, Mates!

  2. Ritualised Forms

    His basic issue is that he is front man for a party which has never ever got the whole concept of human activity induced climate change……..Never accepted the data, never accepted any need to do something to address it, never accepted that doing nothing poses a risk, never accepted that the manifestations of climate change risk in Australia – the bushfires, the heatwaves, the algal blooms, the desertification – are manifestations of climate change, but have always been an environmental factor of living in Australia and hence nothing in particular needs to be done about it other than toughening up the locals.

    He and his party have never understood complex mechanisms for pricing carbon in industry – their mindset right from the Abbott era has been one of ‘it’s a tax’ and that therefore it is bad.  He and his party have never understood that the biggest single driver of climate change in Australia – particularly given that we have largely deindustrialised ourselves – is the population Ponzi which runs at the core of contemporary era Australian economic policy.

    He himself has actually carried a lump of coal into parliament. He does not get it at all.

    • It’s not just that. Even the ones who do get it – or are at least prepared to consider the possibility that basically every relevant scientist on the planet is right – believe that the truly catastrophic changes won’t happen within their lifetimes (and they’re generally right on that), and even their kids will suffer relatively little due to their wealth (potentially right on that as well).

  3. Remind me again how much the Covid economic support package cost?

    How many solar farms, wind farms, pumped hydro facilities and batteries could we build and replace existing fossil fuel systems per annum for that same spend, adding to the productivity and health of the nation?

    Hell, all that “Jobs and Growth™” might actually create some wage growth and inflation! F me!

    We may even be able to create a manufacturing sector to supply some of these new projects in the not too distant future. Perhaps even export the products competitively given just the right amount of government subsidisation? Strike me pink! What a day that would be!

    Hell, we might even be able to have a local EV manufacturing sector. Imagine making cars in Australia again… I can see the first Toyota Wombat SUV rolling out through the gates now! Can’t wait for the zippy little Holden Gumnut to run about town in. Perhaps they could do a Enid Blyton special edition?

    Struth, this is all so exciting to think about I may just have to duck off to the gents with an old photo of Dawn Fraser! BRB.

    • Preferred PM is a bullsh*t figure that tells you nothing about who is going be to win govt. Keating was preferred PM over Howard when the libs won in a landslide…

  4. The Liar-in-chief also made this statement in that Business Council speech:

    “Our domestic emissions have already fallen by 36% from 2005 levels“

    Hardly anyone in the MSM has called him out in this.

  5. The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor run started to catch us up and even to nudge us ahead of the rest of the world. A $13,000,000 bloodless coup, which Labor also played its part in, got rid of Rudd and then allowed Abbott to leverage the message of chaos. We have since gone backwards at a remarkable rate and whomever decides to actually move Australia into the 21st century has an unenviably difficult task.

  6. bolstroodMEMBER

    I wonder what the USA sponsored Climate hook up might reveal later this week.
    John Kerry has already called out Australia as a recalcitrant player.
    The USA /China climate agreement last week would have been noted in boardrooms around the country.
    PS just to hand
    Fair go, The Scrotum must be wondering what will hit him next.

  7. 1. Renewables need more government mandates and subsidies because they’re cheaper than fossil fuels.
    2. Global warming is such an imminent threat that we can’t use the safest form of energy: nuclear.
    3. We need to open our borders for immigrants because we’re overpopulated.
    4. We need to divert money from roads to public transport because we need to subsidise electric vehicles.
    This is what your average Greens voter actually thinks.

    • Display NameMEMBER

      I think you have 1 wrong. It is the fossil fuels that are getting big subsidies now. Thats the “gas transition” BS that the the Gas Cartel has purchased from the LNP.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      The Japanese are preparing to dump millions of tons of highly contaminated radioactive waste water into the pacific ocean, and they will have to continue to do this into the future due to the continuing meltdown of 4 reactor cores which they cannot control.
      This is the legacy of Nuclear power.

    • TheLambKingMEMBER

      1. Renewables need more government mandates and subsidies because they’re cheaper than fossil fuels.

      National tax-based subsidies that encourage fossil fuel production and consumption add up to a whopping $12 billion every year, approximately $468 for each Australian.,approximately%20%24468%20for%20each%20Australian.

      2. Global warming is such an imminent threat that we can’t use the safest form of energy: nuclear.

      So safe that if not for a few individuals sacrificing themselves a large chunk of Europe would be un-inhabitable for a few hundred years? And so safe that they are predicting about 4000 people to eventually die from the radiation fallout?

      And Solar+Wind+Batteries today is cheaper to build (given the 10 years to commission the nuclear power plant and the $10bil to build)

      3. We need to open our borders for immigrants because we’re overpopulated.

      (I don’t support the Greens or are a member, but)
      Skilled migration programs that do not substitute for training or undermine wages and conditions in Australia.
      The current level of population, population growth and the way we produce and consume are outstripping environmental capacity.
      So it is not an open border policy

      4. We need to divert money from roads to public transport because we need to subsidise electric vehicles.

      You do know that public transport trains are electric vehicles? And it is not an either/or. It is replace ICE’s with EV’s AND spend more money on public transport.

      This is what your average Greens voter actually thinks.

      At least they think

      • For someone who claims not to be a greens member or voter you sure do seem to be far too invested in someone pointing out their nonsensical policies.
        Virtually all those “subsidies” you reference aren’t subsidies – excise rebates are available to all who use fuel for off-road purposes because fuel excise is raised to pay for public roads.
        Nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation, even when including the meltdowns in Ukraine and Japan. Nothing else comes close to the amount of energy produced per death.

  8. David WilsonMEMBER

    More Climate Catastrophe drivel.
    Why do we think we can save the planet from global temperature increases by closing 15-20 coal fired power stations in Australia when the rest of the world is building and or planning another 1160 coal fired power stations.
    David states “Australia will need to cut emissions by 45-65% by 2030, roughly double the Morrison Commitment to avert 2%+ global warming.” actually the climate catastrophists claim we will get 2-3degree temp increase by the end of this century or a 20% increase from the current average planet temperature of 14.9 degrees, what a farce.
    Perhaps we should realise that each year since 2016 our planet has been cooler and I suspect this year will also be cooler due to natural cyclical declining sunspot variation, a well known scientific fact also forecast by NASA.
    The so called “Greenhouse Effect” of CO2 has been over blown in all modeling and as time goes on is proven to be a massive fraud on us all.
    Yes climate is changing , it always has and will and only drongoes think we can change this well known reality.
    The most frightening thing is we are been fleeced at every turn with massive expenditure on renewables when we know clean coal, gas, nuclear and hydro are the way to go and anybody who thinks massive ugly heat generating solar fields are the answer are crazy and wind power is also incredibly unreliable and ugly despoiling our landscape.
    Yes we want clean air etc however embracing renewables other than hydro is expensive and massively unreliable without more huge unnecessary expensive investment in battery storage which has a very short life cycle (10-15years at best) .
    CO2 will not destroy our climate, it is good for us, good for plant and forest growth and has been shown to be up to 4 times higher than today’s 415ppm during ICE Ages.
    Are our politicians all bloody mad suckking up to pressure groups promising renewables, bugger the cost, bugger the economic damage, bugger the long term unemployment outcomes and bugger the tax payer.