PMs and generals unite against Morrison climate fail

It is a full-court press against the climate spoiler Morrison Government today. Leading us off are former PMS Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd united in anger. They say:

  • The Biden administration has dramatically reset the climate agenda.
  • US, Japan, Korea and Canada will announce new and deeper 2030 targets.
  • Australia is doing nothing. Its targets are a joke.
  • CCA and AEMO are demanding much more. 45% cuts by 2030 not 27%.
  • Renewables could supply 75% of energy in five years.
  • In the way is a “toxic” Murdoch press and the Morrison Government.
  • The gas-led recovery is more expensive than renewables.
  • Carbon border taxes are coming to smash exports.

All 100% fact. Which is why the military has also weighed in:

  • Former chief of defence Admiral Chris Barrie awake leads the new Australian Security Leaders Climate Group of 30 seniors strategic thinkers.
  • “Climate change is a fundamental threat to the security and prosperity of all Australians”.
  • We are being left behind on action.
  • Flooding in Asia will drive “tens of thousands” of boat people to Australia. [Try hundreds of thousands].
  • We have no action plan.
  • The group includes Royal Australian Air Force Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, AO, and former Defence Department director of preparedness and mobilisation Adjunct Associate Professor Cheryl Durrant.“The first duty of the Australian government must be the safety and security of its citizens. Today, the government is failing to address the growing impacts of climate change and therefore failing to protect its own people. Unlike the pandemic, we cannot quarantine ourselves from climate change and there is no vaccine.”

And the Morrison response? Sigh:

  • Stick $540m of taxpayer dough in hydrogen and clean coal technology (CCS).

That’s it. CCS may have had a chance if the carbon price were kept ten years ago. But today it’s far too expensive to compete.

This is a great example of what I was talking about yesterday. CCS is also a carbon tax, in terms of Morrison, one that you will have to pay directly forever because it is only viable with public subsidy. Even without CCS, coal can’t compete. CCS ads 2-4 cents per kWh. :

Australian energy costs compared

And it’s going to get worse:

Price of solar and batteries over next 5 years

Much, much worse for gas and coal:

Price of solar and batteries over next 5 years

We’d be much better off with subsidised nuclear which I would support if it guaranteed zero-emissions swiftly.

This is more of the same Morrison unprocess. Protect your mates, toss them some more pork, bully some sheilas. Lie about it all.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Admiral says can’t do anything about nuclear war but can about climate change. What a fool. We can influence china about climate change as much as we can about a nuclear war.
    If you actually care about climate change then buy tesla shares and cut the red tape so Elon can do his thing. He will have this sorted in 5 years. The rest of us are just practising communication.

      • David i understand you probably spend yourself thin covering many areas. Just ask yourself, where would EVs be without Elon. My guess is about 3 to 5 years behind where they are now. The ICE manufacturers had no incentive at all to move to electric, it was Elon who lead the way.
        Its amazing to me that people always bemoan the rich as selfish and greedy. Now here is the richest man in the world dedicating himself to climate change and still people want to bring him down.

      • Watch the movie limitless and tell me Elon didn’t find that drug.
        Tesla, Space X. Will be the 2 biggest company’s in the world plus his others

    • The roadblock to addressing climate change is not “red tape”, it’s all the people who think it’s not real, and more importantly the other people paying and paid to misinform them.

      • Wrong drsmith. Have a look at the red tape around teslas gigafactory in Berlin. Trouble after trouble and hold up after hold up in thus progressive area. Now have a look at the Texas gigafactory. A conservative state and its full steam ahead saving the planet. As I say if we could only get out of the peoples way who have the ability and resources to save this world then well will be carbon neutral in no time.

  2. Just invest in nuclear power for the immediate future and fusion research for a more distant future. The unit cost should come down with mass production, like it did in the 1980s in France.

    • 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.
      Besides, the time frame for developing and building Nuke reactors is 20 yeras.
      That’s 20 years we don’t have.

      • Both the negative impact of radiation and the negative impact of nuclear waste have been blown out of proportion by the scaremongers.

        The radiation from a nuclear reactor is so small compared to the environmental background radiation. There is a good reason for this – the earth has lost most of its heat it had when it first formed billions of years ago. But the contemporary geothermal energy is still very large, as volcanos show. Where did the earth’s geothermal energy come from? It turned out that the earth is full of radioactive elements that have been decaying all the time, generating heat along the way. In other words, if you view the earth as a giant nuclear reactor, you are not far off.

        As for nuclear waste, nuclear waste cannot be more radioactive than the uranium ores from which the waste has been generated – because energy has been extracted out of it for power generation. So, if you are really worried about nuclear waste, we can mandate the uranium miners to carry the nuclear waste in their return fleet (that carried the uranium ores in the other way) and put the nuclear waste back to where the uranium ore came from. But humans are more ingenious than that and know better ways to deal with the waste.

        So, the Japanese are *not* about to dump millions of tons of *highly* contaminated radioactive waste water into the pacific ocean. It is impossible to dump “millions of tons” of “highly radioactive” waste water for the same reason (you cannot have both ways). If that were possible, you could build a perpetual motion machine of the first kind from nuclear waste.

        • Yay! Someone gets it! Good for you Dumpling.
          We should ask the scaremongers to draw their problem on a piece of paper. They can’t.
          Also, they should describe how eating a couple of ripe bananas feels, because that’s about as much radiation that these dills would be exposed to even if they lived right next to a nuclear power plant.
          I guess we should be nice and say that they don’t understand this, so they will be afraid of what they don’t understand. But that would be too kind.
          Think about the amount of uranium, mercury and cadmium spread by coal fired plants, the latter two will stay in the environment forever, unlike isotopes, but they will still drink wine from the Hunter Valley. Makes you wonder.

          • It looks like the fake left’s strategy comes in 4 stages;

            (1) Disrupt and sabotage the historical development of energy transitions (https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/04/why-its-time-to-move-your-assets-offshore/#comment-4106765) by constant propaganda of scaremongering and divert a massive amount of capital to their nostalgic pet projects.
            (2) After the facts caught up to them and it became increasingly difficult to deny that diverting the massive amount of capital away from the historical development of energy transitions was a monumental mistake, they shift their argument that we should stay on the wrong course because there won’t be enough time to go back to the right course.
            (3) To keep the sense of urgency alive and boiling, they ensure that the local climate council publicizes only the most sensational aspects of the latest IPCC reports and leave out all the limitations in the contemporary climate models that are spelt out in the same IPCC reports.
            (4) To shore up their increasingly untenable position, they compare the 1950s technologies of nuclear power to the 2020s technologies of solar/wind, not comparing the 1950s technologies of nuclear power to the 1950s technologies of solar/wind or comparing the 2020s technologies of nuclear power to the 2020s technologies of solar/wind.

            The Strayan Greens are the living testament to what is wrong with the fake left; they are good at pretending to care about what they actually don’t (the environment for the case of the Strayan Greens) so many gullible people have been fooled. And numbers, misguided or not, count equally in a democracy. I think, in 100 years from now – or perhaps in 150 years or 200 years – people will look back to this era of the 1950s to the 2020s and wonder what the heck we have been thinking.

        • As for nuclear waste, nuclear waste cannot be more radioactive than the uranium ores from which the waste has been generated

          Apparently the waste is more radioactive than ore. Apparently when it is used in a reactor, its radioactive “breakdown” is accelerated. Hence it would be dangerous to return it to the same hole is came out of.

          • That is only true for the Generation II reactors that were designed more than half a century ago. Generation IV reactors like the TWR are much more efficient in harnessing the nuclear power.

      • Display NameMEMBER

        The japanese are only dumping highly radioactive water used to cool the melting down cores into the Pacific. Its not the radioactive waste but will have enough trace radioactivity to be detected well beyond japans shores. So no big deal.

        But the waste??

        To produce energy, a nuclear reactor splits 235U nuclei into some lighter elements (this is the source of power, not its radioactivity). Almost all of the resulting elements are radioactive themselves, with their own radioactive properties. This is only part of the origin of the radioactive materials of a reactor’s waste.

        The other part appears from a process known as activation. By this process, previously non-radioactive materials from the fuel rod will also become radioactive.

        Combined, the waste result of a nuclear reactor is far more dangerous than the input fuel. As a matter of fact, when the fuel is inserted into the reactor, workers handle it directly, just using special gloves (not necessarily too thick or with a lot of protective material as lead). However, removing it from the reactor must be done remotely.

        • It may still be possible to build a perpetual motion machine of the first kind from nuclear waste then (just kidding).

          (1) All the existing nuclear power plants harness the nuclear energy thermally.
          (2) The fission produces a range of high-energy particles that will lose their energy with time. The process also produces new radioactive materials like the reactor walls as by-products that will also lose their energy with time.
          (3) Some lose their energy faster than the others do, but all the energy initially released by the fission will eventually become heat. Some of this heat will be harnessed by the nuclear power plant.
          (4) Once the heat generated by these initially high-energy materials becomes too low to be useful for the generation of power, the remaining energy in these materials becomes a waste. The waste nonetheless continues to lose what is left of the initially high energy and produces heat in the process.
          (5) Returning this waste back to under the ground will add a tiny amount to the massive reserve of geothermal energy.

      • Absolute nonsense. It’s water with traces of tritium in it. Tritium is a weak beta emitter and naturally forms in the upper atmosphere via cosmic rays.

  3. We are all going to pay a heavy price for the last 8 years of coalition corruption and craziness. When the worlds acts to implement definitive changes and we are suddenly found to be a pariah, I won’t be surprised nor bitter about that , I will just be one of the many baying for LNP blood.

    • What are you talking about. We can turn this ship around on a dime if we get left behind.

      • Lol! First we have reduce the LNP to a tiny fringe party and that will take the loss of many lives and fortunes from the coming climate and economic disasters. With stupid being in much supply, that is not happening any time soon.

    • It is all in the Plan.
      The Clot from Cronulla is going to make Australia the Fossil Fuel Theme park of the world.
      When everyone else are driving EV’s, enjoying pollution free renewable energy,
      Australians will be driving dirty Diesel motors, racing V8’s around Oran park, digging even bigger holes in the landscape.
      UH oh what do you mean the world won’t make ICE vehicles after 2030 ? They are trying to ruin your weekend.
      No worries says SFM we will build them here like we used to. Oh bu&&er , give Tony a call

      s

    • The people of Queensland voted scomo in because of Labor climate policy. How is following the will of the people a dictator? People through words around with no care for their meaning when they don’t get their way.

      • Not so Col. A solid majority in Qld viewed climate change as serious (Fig 4.15)
        The result is instead due to “Two factors help to explain the swing to the Coalition in Queensland. First, the One Nation Party and the United Australia Party both polled well, and the bulk of these votes returned to the Coalition via preferences. Second, a convoy of climate change activists travelled to Queensland from Tasmania to protest against a coal mine financed by Adani, an Indian company. The protest attracted considerable local opposition in Queensland from miners and their families, who were dependent on coal mining for their livelihoods.”

        i.e. not Labor.
        https://australianelectionstudy.org/publications/

  4. reusachtigeMEMBER

    I hope Scomo holds strong on this as the coal industry is very important to this nation and needs to be protected!

  5. Forrest GumpMEMBER

    Flooding in Asia will drive “tens of thousands” of boat people to Australia. [Try hundreds of thousands].
    We have no action plan.

    Understatement of the year.

    Dr James Hansen (NASA scientist) shows empirical evidence the sub continent of Bangladesh and parts of India of which is marginally above sea level- will be decimated by rising sea levels.

    Even before the sea level inundates urban areas, the rising salt levels will kill off most of the agriculture of which will starve the nation, pushing the farmers and communities off the land in search of food- on boats to Australia.

    If Morrison is unhappy with 2 Sri Lankan parents and their 2 aussie kids living in Biloela, he’s gonna phuckin’ shit himself with 200,000+ desperate hungry farmers and city dwellers landing here.

    • Keep pushing the fear train to manipulate and get what you want. You catch more bears with honey.

  6. Ritualised Forms

    Australia’s ambition on climate change is held back by a toxic mix of rightwing politics, media and vested interests
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/21/australias-ambition-on-climate-change-is-held-back-by-a-toxic-mix-of-rightwing-politics-media-and-vested-interests

    Is it just me or am I seeing something akin to epic hypocrisy from these guys now becoming a double act progressive du jour vis Murdoch and climate change?

    When all is said and done did either of them actually do anything about as leaders of their respective parties about the rightwing politics, media and vested interests

    You could give them points for action on climate change, Rudd for carbon pricing and Turnbull for initially trying to push it within the Liberals as opposition leader – although he was a feather duster on the subject as Prime Minister.

    But on so many other issues driven by exactly the same phenomena – rightwing politics, media and vested interests – Australia’s ambition is either outright denied or deformed into something that the people of Australia know inherently is not in the national interest……

    Lets start with

    Superannuation
    Free Trade Agreements
    Taxes
    Contracting of and provision of Public Services
    Casualisation of employment
    Immigration numbers
    Energy Policy
    Water usage
    House Prices
    University costs

    And on and on and on……

    Like it is great that two of our ex PMs can get together on climate change, but if they are pointing to ‘rightwing politics, media and vested interests’ Australia’s entire political canvas for a generation is up for a look

    • Australia’sThe World’s ambition on climate change is held back by a toxic mix of rightwing politics, media and vested interests.

  7. kierans777MEMBER

    So all these climate refugees can die of dehydration like the rest of us due to living on the (second) driest continent on the planet with complete corruption around water mis-management. Great^^

    • Denis413MEMBER

      By that logic, why would they come here? Wouldn’t they flee to the welcoming China…

      • kierans777MEMBER

        A lot of people, both foreign and domestic don’t understand Australia’s precarious water position. I (and most of my generation) were taught to turn the tap off when you’re brushing your teeth and other water conservation measures. Talking to numerous people from other countries these concerns are completely foreign because they simply don’t understand the issue.

  8. If renewables and batteries are cheaper than fossil fuels then what’s the worry about government doing nothing?

  9. That’s all very well, but nobody has the intelligence to look at system wide costs on all these sources. Look at the externalities with so-called “renewables”. A simple one is that they have one quarter to one third the asset life of nuclear. There are many others. A study by Nuclear for climate, an Australian group and others in the US puts “renewables” at 7-10 times the cost of nuclear over the life of the asset. All this renewable stuff sounds good, but look at the externalities that the zealots don’t tell you. I think they are called “renewables” because you have to keep renewing them.

  10. happy valleyMEMBER

    “This is more of the same Morrison unprocess. Protect your mates, toss them some more pork, bully some sheilas. Lie about it all.”

    It’s hard to think of any worse Strayan PM in living memory?