It’s time to say NO to renewable energy targets

‘How will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them you didn’t do anything about climate change?’ If you’ve engaged in any kind of climate change or energy policy debate, you will have no doubt heard this question asked. The point of course being that the only moral course of action is to reduce our use of fossil fuels drastically by switching to renewable energy post-haste. If you disagree with this outlook you are a ‘denier’, ‘dinosaur’ or a fossil fuel shill. The reality though is that forcing us onto unreliable renewable energy sources before they are viable is expensive, destructive and morally bereft.

Apart from financing climate change initiatives globally, Australia has committed to the RET which aims for 23.5% of our national energy production to be renewable by 2020 and represents a doubling of our current levels of renewable energy production. Bill Shorten’s Labor has announced a policy to up this target to 50% by 2030 without any explanation of how this target will be achieved, how much it will cost or what level of energy security it represents. It has been estimated that in 2016 renewable subsidies, including state schemes, were close to $5 billion dollars with renewables providing only 14% of total energy production. How much would they amount to per year in a 50% renewables market?

If we were somehow able to make the 50% RET by 2030, what will we have achieved? Seeing as Australian CO2 emissions make up only 1.4% of total CO2 emissions globally probably not very much. Even the Garnaut Report concedes that any attempts within Australia to mitigate future global warming will have zero impact. The most that can possibly be achieved from climate action in Australia is that we are acting in solidarity with other developed nations and perhaps leading by example. Seeing as the developing world are exempt from reducing their emissions for another 15 years, then even that influence won’t amount to much more than very costly virtue signalling that has no effect on the temperature.

When faced with this logic people will often say that we should be using switching to renewables now anyway so that we will be prepared for when fossil fuels run out. Fossil fuels are decades away from running out and today’s renewable energy technology will likely bear no resemblance to energy technology at the end of this century. By all means let’s continue to fund energy innovation and as the technology improves and becomes economically viable, including perhaps some form of advanced nuclear technology, we will see people naturally turning to it as an alternative to fossil fuel energy. Unrealistic renewable energy targets that are forced on us now, only result in more expensive and less reliable energy production.

When debating energy policy, it’s helpful to realise that arguments for and against emissions reductions measures like the RET are based on two different moral philosophies. Some have an environment-centric moral framework that prioritizes a pristine environment as the ultimate goal. Within this framework human impact on the environment is seen to be detrimental and must be minimized. Others prioritise human flourishing over a pristine environment. Within this framework, human flourishing and well-being are the goal and in order to achieve this the environment is modified and improved.

Of course human well-being is dependant on a healthy, functioning natural environment so if human well-being is your ultimate goal then well-managed forests and fisheries for example are a priority. The difference though is that this moral framework makes room for modifying the environment to provide us with resources and energy and prioritises prosperity and growth as a means of ensuring that human beings lead long and fulfilling lives. It also recognises that wealthy countries treat the environment better than poorer undeveloped countries and are better equipped to deal with climate catastrophes.

If our moral framework is based on human flourishing, then it’s obvious that policies that reduce energy cost and promote prosperity are of most benefit to humanity. If your moral framework elevates a pristine environment over human flourishing then you will support policies that reduce human impact on the environment by making energy more expensive, increasing poverty and reducing our capability to adapt to and survive climate catastrophes. We owe it to future generations to make the most of our natural resources like coal and gas to produce low cost energy, and quit wasting billions of dollars chasing futile renewable energy targets that drive up energy costs, slow down progress and ultimately slow down the generation of new ideas.

The irony of course is that the poorer we are, the less able we are to protect the environment and less equipped we will be to withstand climate related catastrophes. We will spend more time surviving and less time researching and innovating. If that is your preferred outcome then I hope you are willing to look your grandchildren in the eye when they ask you why you supported policies that reduced their wealth and their ability to withstand and adapt to a changing climate, in the name of patting yourself on the back for ‘doing something’ while achieving no change in the temperature whatsoever.

This original LibertyWorks article was also published in The Spectator Australia, February 2, 2017.

Nicola Wright
Follow me

Latest posts by Nicola Wright (see all)

736 Comments on "It’s time to say NO to renewable energy targets"

  1. I used to live at Crookwell NSW. There were a number of these wind turbines on the town outskirts. They are cool but often they were not working. I’d imagine if they break down it would cost and absolute fortune to fix & as they are mechanical they will break down.

    I think solar energy is different and has the potential to surpass the burning of coal to generate electricity without the need for subsidies.

    • Solar breaks down also . and only last 5 years before dropping on production . let alone the cloudy days .

    • Actually solar panels lose 20 percent of its maximum producing capability in the first year.

    • Energy Returned on Energy Invested ratios for the various generation technologies (higher is better) :

      Hydro electric 100:1
      Coal (no ccs) 80:1
      Nuclear (centrifuge enrichment) 75:1
      Wind 18:1
      Solar pv 6:1

  2. this is the stupidest thing ive ever read, dont you understand its in the interests of capital to have a world and a functioning society?

    • We’ve just put forward the logical proposition that scrapping RETs, which don’t reduce global warming, is good for humanity. You disagree?

    • LibertyWorks please show evidence that goals for reducing emissions dont work and demonstrate that using renewables makes us materially poorer….

    • Aiden Bedford if Australia contributes 1.4% of global emissions, how much do you think future temperatures would be reduced if we stopped all emissions from today (an impossible feat but for argument’s sake)?

    • LibertyWorks Aiden can’t tell you

    • LibertyWorks We are amongst the highest polluters per capita. From a moral position we have a duty to do our part in the fight against climate change.

    • Aiden at this present moment there are over 200 active volcanoes spewing out more green house gasses in one minute than the entire human race could ever achieve in a lifetime. .. please boy. Stop being spoon feed

    • Juan Avendano you realise we calculate the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases of combusting coal, oil and gas by measuring the molecular weight of these fuels sources and the resulting emissions from combustion and analysing the amount of these fuels purchased – it is evident from a scientific perspective that we do greatly contribute to because the volume of output generated – like you realise the scale of our global energy usage yeah? like 35 billion barrels of oil is alot man, 6.5 billion tonnes of coal per year – like do you understand the scale involved?

    • nah man volcanoes though….

    • Aiden Bedford so like we said in the article, it’s very expensive virtue signalling (AKA ‘moral duty’) that achieves no change in future temperatures. We believe our moral duty is to prosper for the sake of future generations.

    • CO2 is a necessary gas man… stop painting it as evil

    • LibertyWorks how is it very expensive – when renewables are cheaper than subsidised coal energy generation, the price per kilowatt hour for solar is tiny relative to coal fired plants (hence why they are closing down, and 3.2 trillion dollars has been divested from coal by investment firms all over Australia)

    • This guy has more than enough data to dispell your theories aiden.

    • Its a hoax ou choose not to question

    • Aiden Bedford name one thing that the AGW fraudsters predicted has happened is the Himalayas being ice free, the Arctic and Antarctic being ice free, please just give me ONE thing that you warmies predicted

    • Juan Avendano “yeah like Co2 is a necessary gas, stop painting it as evil” this is the stupidest argument ever

    • “if you breathe in high concentrations of oxygen for too long you can go blind” – “nah man its a necessary gas, stop painting oxygen as evil”

    • Volcanoes Juan Avendano? Really? Direct CO2 emissions of CO2 from active volcanoes release about 200 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. Latest research shows there MAY be leakage of a similar amount from non-erupting volcanoes.

      Compare that with 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions from human sources – you’re basically talking $#!t.

    • coral reef bleaching, ocean acidification, decreasing sea ice in the arctic and antarctic, the break up of major ice shelf’s, higher average temperatures you can literally see photos going back 50 years demonstrating the shrinking of glaciers…

    • So hows those cruises workin out for ya Rob….. nice way to pollute the planet….

  3. I don’t think so.

    • Thomas homer Dixon has disqualified this poster on “3 strikes”. Go to his website and see what he says. The creators of the poster have I assume never seen huge steel mining Euclid trucks , or mile long steel coal trains running day and night on steel rails taking coal to equally enormous steel shipping terminals to load gigantic steel ships to take coal from Australia to Korea or China to put it into huge unloaders and into miile long steel trains day and night ultimately used to render Chinese air unbreathable! Every day every day every day! The Chinese know it can’t go on. Liberty seems to not know. Btw I am a scientist involved in energy education also with a patent in rapid recycle energy storage systems. But it works with coal flavoured electricity too.

  4. the reason the federal liberal party are saying that is because they have never had a renewable energy policy ..

  5. I would actually think AIR and WATER are of most benefit to humanity. Bit hard to exist without either of those – unless you’re actually an alien.

  6. The desal plants won’t operate without a secure power supply.

    • the desal plants aren’t working anyway!! They scared people into building by telling them there’d be no more big rains during the drought…nothing but flooding ever since!!

  7. WtF. Renewables are proving to do exactly that you morons

    • Bullshit!! Prices have gone through the roof!! The only ones getting ahead are the power companies…costs them less to produce power costs us more to buy it…more profits!!

  8. Who are Liberty Works?Sounds like some weird religious group & just as dangerous.

  9. Coal, gas and oil are the most subsidised resources on the planet.
    They also create the largest “externalised” costs of any industry.
    Do the maths and stop reading Murdoch media.

    • I disagree. Economies of scale is a significant driver of cost in energy generation and the cheapest way to generate that energy is large hydro, coal or nuclear. Energy Returned on Energy Invested also disagrees with you.

  10. climate change by humans is fake news. get over it

    • Geez, Lawrie: you do need to bring “evidence” to support your minority position against accredited giants like, err, NASA.

    • if you want evidence don’t look at companies that receive money for saying rubbish. look at the climate? if your figures are true ( which if you look are changed every few years) we should be already the last 100 years between china and the rest of the world. we have put more carbon into the air than all the years man has been on this earth. Your figures show a slow rise over thousands of years , no major increase in the last hundred years. What are your figures have you researched the figures your self. or are you a sheep which follows the the big corporations every word. If they are making money on false hoods, would they lie? ( yes they would). you call your self a protector of the planet? ( stop listening to corporations which make money from what they say) and do your own research. You do know that we are carbon based, the planet we are on is carbon based??? the moon and the earth itself can do more damage to the environment than man has ever done. You sound like a puppet following the beliefs of the rich, so they can make more money. i feel sorry for you . tisc tisc

    • When I read a study on 2014 that nearly 70% of adult Australians had the scientific literacy of an early primary school child I didn’t believe it. After reading Lawrence’s argument above I now see it was true!

    • hahahahahaha you funny. have you ever studied how the earth works? how it movies through space? the ice ages we have had? How the lands are moving so many millimeters per year? Have you looked at videos about the earth? ( there is a lot off videos out there). All you got to do is look them up. Stop listening to people who lie to make money. You sprout fake news, which other people have made up, and the sorry thing is you believe them ? with out finding the FACTS YOUR SELF. And you call me uneducated.

    • Paul Matthew Allen don’t 70% of Australians believe we are doomed because of human induced climate change? There must be a bit of an overlap there.

  11. Please, Please don’t follow this course, Climate change and mans impact on the planet is real and a very serious issue, it is 2 minutes to midnight and we have no more time for this nonsense. Renewables are now cheaper to construct and use than fossil fuels and just as reliable, The day of coal is almost over and it is well past time we adapted, moved on and restructure our economy so we can live without it.

    • It is late and perhaps you haven’t had time to read the article. If you had you would have noticed that we do not question the science of warming. We state that renewable energy targets make no impact on reducing warming. As having targets does reduce prosperity without achieving any of their objectives, logically they should be removed. Just to be clear, whether we have then or not makes no difference to warming.

    • We will not meet emission targets by digging up more coal!
      If you think that going down the renewable energy path will make our power too expensive, just wait and see how much climate change soon starts to cost us if we don’t!.

    • Loved you work on 18c however, got a few good rants in.

    • Renewables will need investment to develop. RET is a good nudge in that direction.

    • Too right Aaron, no time to F#*k around, we have got lots to work with, time to it, but I am not sure we can get their in time.

    • Whether we meet our emissions targets or not is also irrelevant. Ask yourself, by how much does global warming reduce by reaching the targets?

    • Only one way to find out. Even if you don’t think it’ll change the pace of warming, the guaranteed benefits are cleaner air and more developed technology.

    • I speak to some pretty intelligent amazing people at markets, including scientists who regularly visit the south pole, and one told me if all fossil fuels were stopped being used today global temperatures would still increase for the next 8 years. In other words we are already doomed for extinction, as most of the world’s glaciers are forecast to be gone in 10 years, a third of the rice growing regions of the world are already starting to be impacted, sea level rise is our biggest enemy.

    • Mathew Norton Norton, we obviously agree that there’s not much point trying to stop whatever warming is coming but we’re certainly not doomed. Far from it. Prosperity has risen at its fastest rate throughout the world during the past 70 years or so of warming and it will continue to rise. And the more prosperous we are the greater our ability to adapt, as we have done for thousands of years. We’re in a golden age that will continue for long long time provided we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot pursuing economy destroying policies that don’t do anything.

    • I’d argue that investing in coal is a much better way to blow your foot off economically. Renewables are the future and I want us to have all the patents.

    • Mathew Norton Norton if humans could only survive on glaciers then yes it would be tough times ahead for humanity. However I don’t think many people live on glaciers out of choice.

    • I can’t believe the sheer stupidity of the position of LW. Because we’ll apparently be more prosperous, we’ll be able to handle whatever eventuates…?!? So we can irrevocably fuck the planet, but she’ll be right because we’re in a better economic position to handle that…? You guys seriously are the worst possible argument for the abolition of restrictions on free speech…shut up while you think you’re ahead. The majority of scientists worldwide are telling us directly that we’re about to reach a point where the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere will be irreversible – you don’t stick more petrol on a fire when you want to put it out, and you have directly admitted that warming is happening. If anyone is advocating the complete fucking of our kids’ futures, it is you. Money into renewables, make it profitable, and cap the pollution. You think that won’t work? Make it fucking work!!!

    • Kent Gibbins, Australia’s renewable energy targets achieve nothing towards reducing warming. Ranting and shouting at us about that fact doesn’t change anything. Whether we meet our emissions targets or not makes no difference to warming but renewable energy targets do reduce our prosperity and ability to adapt to changing climatic conditions. Sorry for the reality check.

    • The problem is energy storage for non hydro renewable energy technology. Unless the periodic table of the elements suddenly changed overnight then we are stuck with what we already know, and that is battery technology is not viable. The energy available from a molecular bond, and the density of appropriate “energy storage” material have firm limits. The only appreciable cost driver is plain old economies of scale.

      The supreme irony being that the same sorts of people championing “democratised”, distributed energy supply through renewables, storage & microgrids tend to be the same ones who reject centralisation of production at industrial scales – precisely what is required for economies of scale.

    • Benjamin Frith saw a fasinating show on TV the other day that stated we already have all the technologies required to produce electricity reliably at a lower cost then coal today. The fact is Australia is addicted to coal which is our largest export and biggest employers [we will all miss the money agreed], and this is the only reason given by our Prime Minister [The CEO of Australia Inc] to destroy what remains of the Great barrier reef and send us all to an early grave.

    • The US Energy Information Administration has recommended that levelized costs of non-dispatchable sources such as wind or solar may be better compared to the avoided energy cost rather than to the LCOE of dispatchable sources such as fossil fuels or geothermal. This is because introduction of fluctuating power sources may or may not avoid capital and maintenance costs of backup dispatchable sources. Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy (LACE) is the avoided costs from other sources divided by the annual yearly output of the non-dispatchable source. However, the avoided cost is much harder to calculate accurately.

      Hydro electric and nuclear energy represent the best fossil free options with the best economies of scale.

    • Energy Returned on Energy Invested ratios for the various generation technologies (higher is better) :

      Hydro electric 100:1
      Coal (no ccs) 80:1
      Nuclear (centrifuge enrichment) 75:1
      Wind 18:1
      Solar pv 6:1

    • Benjamin Frith can you link me too your site as you collect a lot of great memes for me to share with my friends on facebook.

    • Benjamin Frith with a reply like this I cannot add to it you certainly know your stuff.

    • Benjamin Frith, as you apparently know your stuff, you are being disingenuous. You know full well that energy storage is not just about batteries. Nice also if you could quote your source on energy returned on energy invested.

  12. Policies that tackle global warming and promote clean air are of most benefit to humanity. And it is “emissions” not “immissions – such a basic error does not inspire confidence in the intellectual rigour of your arguments.

  13. Is LW shackled to big oil & Coal? Heads buried deep in the tar sands?

    • Shackled to logic and common sense.

    • Logic based on ideology & short term self interest. Laughable to think that blindly exploiting finite resources is good for future generations. The amazing black stuff should be saved for future uses that are far more important & valuable than carting stuff around & turning lights on. It will run out one day you know. I do however agree that the LNP direct action climate policy is a complete waste of public $. In good capitalist fashion there needs to be a price on carbon to create markets & cause transition to cleaner alternative while holding back precious remaining resources. Fresh air & water, a healthy environment and diverse ecology have a $ value that bloody economists & politicians rarely acknowledge. Future generations will appreciate us leaving this legacy not depleted resources from greedy, immoral & shot sighted behaviour.

  14. Just another lie

  15. How will you be able to look at your grandchildren and say, “We did nothing and now you are wearing the consequences.”

  16. More paid propaganda.. follow the money sheeple!

  17. Excellent well balanced article.

  18. they did 3 years ago when they lied about the banning of the carbon tax that was going to lower power bills to householders

  19. So what would you do to replace steel? Without the coke from metallurgical coal you can’t make steel, unless you cut down forests to make charcoal and therefore low grade cast iron. So no cutlery, nails, cars, steel buildings, concrete would have to be without reinforcing steel etc etc etc. Life as we know it would stop. We will always need coal for our lifestyle.

  20. How come we never hear about how many birds are killed by the wind farms?

  21. Coal is more useful that wind it stops then you have the sun goes out no power, coal all power with the Tec’ they have to day they can solve the smoke prob’, Jan Reynolds you are wright in what you say, the Greens would not own up to how birds been killed

  22. When will liberty works do a sponsored post demanding no subsidies for the fossil fuel industry? Seems you are only willing to pay for posts attacking renewables.

  23. LW, you morally void, lying filthy environmental vandals. Look out, or you’ll fall off the edge of the earth.

  24. Turbines the most useless out dated things ever ,they cost the erath to make and the only time they work is if the wind blows,even Europe dont have them or are getting rid of these wild life killers,but there again we always seem to be behind the rest of the world and with some of these people that have invested very heavily,they are bound to be jumping up and down.The next hoax after the global warming,and some fools are falling for it.

  25. Wrong. There is currently no other market mechanism to measure progress against carbon promises. Let’s get a grip on this issue. The free market only works for capital not for working people.

    • We only contribute 2% of greenhouses, there is no justifiable reason Australia should shoot itself the foot (economically) the overall result of us taking action vs not taking action is functionally the same.

    • Rufus T Barnum nobody saying don’t take action. Just leave the 1950s behind so working Aussies are not beholden to export pricing. It doesn’t work for majority of workers or farmers only capital. You investing in coal?

    • I did invest in coal and made $500 this year after i sold my shares. I dont have shares or any investments currently. You investing in solar?

      Im sorry but the best solution is remove all sunsidies (real ones) from all energy producers and allow the free market to pick a winner

  26. At it again with the pseudo economic words from your sponsors.

  27. It’s time to say no to wasting money on coal. $600 million spent on “clean” coal and we don’t have a working plant, or a working carbon capture plant.

  28. Crap….Spain is 100% renewable with a population of almost 50 million. Our future us renewable energy. Stop pissing in the pockets of the fossils who think fossils are the way to go.

    • This is completely wrong. Where did you get that info from??

      Spain, figures from around this time last year put energy generated from zero emissions sources at 69%. This includes close to 1/4 from nuclear and 1/4 from wind, but only 3.1% from solar sources.

      Spain is by far zero emissions and France still wins on much lower footprint basis but is almost all nuclear.

    • 1/4 + 1/4 + 3.1 = 53.1, where did you learn maths?

    • As of October last year 29 million homes in Spain are being powered by renewables and they are heading for 100% . We look like a going backwards into the dark ages. The more technologically advanced we become, the cheaper renewables will cost. This has been proven by ever droppjng cost of solar powered homes.

    • Peter, the remaining close to 50% would be from other renewable sources, mostly hydro electric.

      Where did you come up with Spain being 100% renew energy where the official figure for Mar 2015 is 69%? In fact that 69% is not renew but fossil fuel free so it is including nuclear energy. The renew figure is even lower, closer to 50%.

    • Yet you believe all the crap that liberty work throws at you. My info is as good as theirs.

    • You greenies seem quite delusional

  29. Climate change my arse, the Earth has been changing it’s climate for billions of years without our help.

    • Even if fossil fuels don’t contribute to climate change, it’s still probably not the best idea to pollute our air. That’s before considering how much cheaper renewables will get over time.

  30. Alternative energy is here to stay, until old fashioned dirty forms of energy production are phased out, then alternative energies will take over. In other words, new forms of energy production should be used in tandem with old energies till that happens.

  31. To not use alternative energies is akin to keeping your head in the sand.

  32. Coal and gas are great and we need to invest in them more.This is an unbiased comment.Where is my cheque?

  33. I’m saying no to coal. YES all the way with renewables of all sorts.

    • Why? You like wasting taxpayers dollars?

    • Haven’t we reached the point where coal is more expensive than renewables? If we haven’t already, it can’t be far away.

    • Why do we say no to coal when it is being dug out of the ground at an incredible rate in the Hunter Valley of NSW and Bowen Basin of QLD, to be shipped off and burned overseas.

      It’s kind of hypocritical to penalise burning coal in Australia while profiting from the burning of Australian sourced coal overseas.

      If the burning of coal is such horrible thing to do then perhaps reducing and eventually eliminating coal exports would have more positive effects than having all electricity consumed in Australia from renewable sources.

      Just travel to one of these places and see the mile long coal trains trundling down to the port. Then wait a few minutes to see another one. It’s an incredible sight & really makes one question why Australians are subject to all these regulations when it comes to electricity and the incredibly high prices electricity consumers have to pay.

      If burning coal was such a crime something would be done about the incredible amount of coal exported from Australia.

    • Can you list all the subsidies coal receives please

    • Shane Hatch if renewables are cheaper than coal and gas and are capable of supplying us with all our power needs in Australia, then we don’t need targets or subsidies anymore do we? That is our point, we against subsidies of all kinds. Let the free market decide.

    • Subsidies for coal definitely seem ludicrous. Subsidies for renewables probably aren’t a terrible idea while it’s relatively new technology. It seems like there’s definitely research required to get renewables to a point where they’re as reliable as fossil fuels, subsidies can’t hurt that. Long-term obviously coal will be a thing of the past – anyone who doesn’t see that has their head in the sand.

    • All energy subsidies should be eliminated. Full stop. Let those who need the energy pay for it out of their own pocket rather than someone else paying for it.

    • Liberty works you didn’t answer my question and are you going to hand back your subsidies since you are so opposed to them?

    • Megan Bartley what do you mean ‘our’ subsidies? Libertyworks don’t receive any subsidies. We know of no subsidies that the coal industry receives either, but if you find out about any let us know. We are against all corporate subsidies as we have already pointed out.

    • Megan Bartley that report classifies the fuel excise rebate as at subsidy which it clearly is not. Please look elsewhere on this thread for links to the billions of dollars the minerals industry has paid in taxes and royalties to governments in Australia. The figure is $117 billion between 2006/2013.

      Renewable energy schemes cost the federal and state governments almost $5 billion in subsidies in 2016 alone.

    • The obvious difference being that once solar panels and wind farms are built, the fuel is free. They’re also apparently cheaper than building new coal power plants. I’m really not sure why this is even a conversation.

  34. Saying no to clean energy is the same as saying YES to more floods, more severe cyclones, and more deaths.

  35. Renewable energy targets promote renewable energy, the energy of the future as the planet warms irretrievably from the burning of fossil fuels and you talk of wasting taxpayers’ dollars. What part of climate change don’t you understand?

    • The part where it affects coal industry profits.

    • whether we use renewables or not is irrelevant in terms of warming, it will occur anyway. It’s in the article.

    • So warming has nothing to do with fossil fuels? The article says that? Doubt if it is worth reading then. The science is beyond doubt.

    • So warming has nothing to do with fossil fuels? The article says that? Doubt if it is worth reading then. The science is beyond doubt.

    • So I got curious and I read the article – and every thing I have posted on this til now I 100% endorse – so Australia is only a small player on the planet? – per capita we are big abusers. If we don’t do our bit every other small players, and the big players too, could say stuff it, and the planet is buggered. To say that renewable technology is unproven is nonsense – look around the globe and get with it. Structural change in the mining industry is as inevitable as it has been in the manufacturing industry – retrain and relocate if nessary like so many others – not easy but part of the solution to the fossil fuelled global warming crisis.

    • If we meet our renewable energy targets, by how much does the earth cool?

    • LibertyWorks it’s more by how much less does it heat up

    • Yes and how much less will Australia, if it meets all of its targets, reduce in the heating of the planet?

    • Come on, Rufus – if we all turned selfishly inwards as you seem to be suggesting nothing would ever happen – we are each big users and polluters and need to do our small bit – and at least set an example for others to follow.

    • Yours Trevor.

    • Is that up or down, Tom. Why don’t you say what you mean? Pathetic, actually. 🙂

    • Is it just me or is there some really daft people (using the term loosely) on this post?
      Learn the difference between changing climates and pollution you pathetic idiots!
      Pollution is not good. There are methods that have been developed to mitigate that. Leaving the only argument- Global Warming.
      Righto boneheads. If our burning of fossil fuels has warmed the Earth so much why have both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps grown by 13% in the last decade? Why do you ignore historical climate change which happens naturally?
      Why do you even use electricity posting on fb? Drive cars? Go to medical centres and hospitals? Use hot water? Dare to drive on roads built by machines powered by fossil fuels? Use air con? Drink tap water? Buy groceries?
      You are hypocrites who kill 12 million people annually with your lies. By preventing them from having some of the basic, life-saving and extending coal-fired perks you have.
      Well done. Clap. Clap. Clap.

    • Trevor Harden the reality is that regardless of whether we take action or don’t action, our impact will be exactly the same.

      We should take a pragmatic approach to climate change, realise our contributions are tiny and avoid shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

    • A selfish inward looking view, Rufus, which assumes a lot about the economics, and I don’t happen to agree with you. In fact, the pragmatic approach may well be renewables and the sooner the better.

    • Jesse Bell, as a daft pathetic idiot bonehead lying hypocrite I find your arguments unconvincing, and so it seems do many many others. Could it be that you are wrong?

    • – but then again, I am only a daft pathetic lying hypocritical bonehead idiot and so maybe I have missed something 🙂

    • Trevor Harden, there’s confusion between the science, which we are not disputing, and the so-called solutions which we oppose because… well… they actually don’t solve anything. RETs do increase energy prices though, and cost jobs and increase debt and taxes so we think they should be scrapped. And not one person has been able to offer any answer to the most basic of questions, how much does our $5B per annum spend reduce warming? And there’s a good reason why, pretty well no one knows and the very few that do won’t tell you… but we will.

    • Whatever we can do to improve our kids future would be worth it. Renewable energy also creates lots of jobs, which probably aren’t included in your $5bn. Also if we didn’t have negative input like yours and people got up of their arses and embraced it, new industries and jobs would abound

    • LibertyWorks the only ‘confusion’ in the science is between the ears of those with ideological blinkers who will not accept the obvious – the planet is being overwhelmed by the activities of humans and the burning of fossil fuels has generated a 33% increase in CO2 levels – genuinely clean renewable energy is the obvious way to go. Your ‘arguments’ are specious and tiresome – the debate has already been had and clear conclusions reached. I know you won’t go away but fortunately I don’t have to engage here any more – there are more important issues to consider in this world as fascism rears its ugly head again.

    • Trevor Harden I will say what I mean, You are an educated Idiot.

    • 🙂 Have a great day, Tom

  36. Hey LibertyWorks, if you are so proud of the coal industry why give yourselves a touchy-feelly name that doesn’t even mention coal?

  37. I proudly tell my grandchildren that I use every argumet I can muster to change attitudes and alter public perception of your filthy and completely unnecessary product. I realise that whoever produces these posts is just a paid mouth-piece for the greed-driven filth who mine and sell this stuff and the governments who make money from it. But seriously, surely you can find clients with some morality and social responsuibility who aren’t willing to make the planet uninhabitable within 80 years purely for profit.

  38. As a mechanic in a coal mine I am proud of how much it gives to our community & it gives me a great well paid job …not to mention all the tax I pay so the forever outraged can live in the way they are accustomed too!

  39. No compatible against cyclones and hailstones, and much maintenance.

  40. I work almost daily outside and have a personal relationship with the climate,,. I know from first hand experience that the climate is changing … Everyone who denies what is obvious to people who live outside haven’t got a clue… If you are one of those people you either have a vested interest in denying the truth, or you are unbelievably stupid and probably both… And “NO” the earth is not flat… And “YES” smoking tobacco will cause you to have a shorter life…

    • You are using your personal experience to validate climate change, whilst calling other people stupid?

      I believe in man made climate change but your assertion is dumb.

    • Rufus T Barnum , my assertion may be lacking in social grace and showing an absence of communication skills, but that does not stop it from being the truth…

    • No your anecdotal experience of the weather doesn’t prove a thing about the climate. This article isn’t disputing climate change by the way, did you actually read it?

  41. I Read the article. So deeply misunderstanding of the current renewable energy industry , storage systems and real ROI available. Despite the ongoing subsidising of dirty energy (including no adequate environmental reparation ) massive use of thermal fossil fuel is on the way out. Btw I am an ex scientist and also have a patent on a small scale rapid fill and empty electrical storage system. (Works with coal flavoured electricity too ) BTW and it’s also distressing to hear Thomas homer Dixon totally misquoted elsewhere in the Liberty blog re wind. He has disconnected himself from the Liberty misuse of his work. Tighten up Liberty folks. Xx

  42. Remember these things?
    They are kerosene tins and seals. They used to be used for nearly everything, kinda like milk crates of today.
    Know why they aren’t around much anymore?
    Technology changes and better things come along.
    Think it was a smooth transition from kerosene to electric lighting…..well it wasn’t. All the l competing voltages, AC Vs DC, plugs, wires, and the equipment to use it.
    All the while the kerosene industry funded disinformation and confusion…….bit like now really!

    • So you’re pro innovation in a market economy. But that in no way explains why we should have renewable energy targets that waste taxes, increases energy costs and destroys jobs….?

    • Bahahahaha destroys jobs. Yet another Right Wing Nutjob.

    • Lance Cullen yet another person who likes to throw around names but doesn’t come up with any arguments.

    • I don’t argue with stupid. I’ll trust the economists and scientists in regards to renewable energy and how it is cheaper than fossil fuels when all the subsidies given to mining is taken into account (not to mention the multinationals not paying tax). Also how the research and development of new technologies would generate more jobs and investment than coal mining for electricity generation. The whole mining industry in Australia that everything (coal, gas, iron ore, gold, uranium, bauxite among others) is less than %7 of gdp. Don’t come at me with the raw prawn that the nation will fall over if we stop coal mining for electricity generation.

    • And the Australian Economy in a nutshell. Note mining is %7 of GDP including services to the mining sector.

    • Go enjoy your humble pie.

    • Lance Cullen if solar and wind are cheaper than coal and gas, then let’s remove the almost $5 billion dollars in subsidies per year for those industries and the renewable energy targets. Obviously we don’t need them.

    • Sure just as soon as the miners give up their subsidies and start paying taxes in the countries where the profits were generated.

    • I mean if mining fossils and burning them is so great surely you don’t need any money from the government either?

    • Frightened of the RET? Scared of new technology? It’s OK my grandparents were frightened of the Internet. May they rest in peace.

    • Lance Cullen absolutely. We don’t support any form of corporate subsidies. If you have some information on subsidies that the coal and gas power generation plants receive that would be very interesting. So far we don’t know of any.

    • I found these yesterday

    • They are the cap seals from kerosene tins.
      We don’t use them anymore as we transitioned to electricity.
      Thing is, the same suggestions were thrown around back them too.
      And introducing electricity back in the 1890s was far more complicated. Think tiny population, hugely long communication/transport times, different forms (AC Vs DC), different Voltage, different wires, the plugs and fittings different like android Vs apple today, and different incentive plans. Then there were the appliances. For what form, voltage, plugs, what fuses to use and each generator was different.
      Indeed, right into the 80s here in West Australia there were variations in the range if some AC in varying towns.

    • In society, some things change, done stay the same.
      -Canals V Railways.
      -horses V automobiles
      -Warfies V containers

    • Adam Indy Freeman isn’t the free market and technological innovation great? We’re all for it. Let’s remove all subsidies and targets and allow new energy technologies to compete in a free energy market without government interference.

    • Don’t know of any subsidies? Can I point you in the direction of the huge fuel subsidy that the miners get. They get diesel at the same rate as a primary producer. Like they need it like poor farmers whose rights to land control got tossed out the window so you and your mates can pillage the land and water through CSG.

    • Good point. But all industry grows through guided development prompted by incentives or subsidies. Currently both sides receive healthy doses of direct or indirect subsidies.
      Personally l would argue for improvements in transparency first, clear policies in which direction we as a society are heading and the incentives for that field.
      A classic is the toll roads over east. Introduced to fund the project, they are extended updated and made permanent. Another example of an area we……more accurately. You easterners should be becoming more militant in as well.

    • Nice one Lance Cullen. But it’s also quite complicated. The mine l work on nearly closed due to the plummeting iron price in part caused by the big NW miners deliberately undermining smaller ones like us. But this mine employs some 1400 people, and local jobs. Not in producing agricultural areas we provide the base wealth turnover and taxes that fund other areas. Cutting subsidies only makes it more expensive to mine, and contributes to a shut. Too many shutting blocks state revenue even though this mine is still, and will be running on credit for several more years.

    • The catch is to subsidise enough at the right time to preserve large industry at the very base of society, and use that base industrial wealth generation to subsidise small primary industry like farming and light industry. We need these to support infrastructure, the service, retail and housing industries.
      There will never be a complete solution!

    • Lance Cullen
      Fuel excise rebate is not a subsidy. Fuel excise is levied to pay for public roads and while they are operating their vehicles on their own private roads they are not contributing to wear and tear of public roads.

      You do realise that state governments receive billions of dollars of royalties from mining companies don’t you? In WA alone the Department of Mines and Petroleum received $5.3 billion dollars in royalties during the 2014-15 financial year.

      Overall the minerals industry has paid almost $117 billion in company tax and royalties since 2006-07 which eclipses the $18 billion over 6 years that The Australia Institute claim the mining industry has ‘cost’ us in the link you provided.

    • Can you prove the miners have paid over $100 billion in “royalties” and can you explain why the miners in Australia pay less than %5 on revenue when other nations take %30 and upwards and the miners still invest?

    • Hang on earlier you said there were no subsidies. Now you claim massive amounts of money provided in royalties. Can you show where and when this money changed hands?

    • Show me that the WA Barnet Government got $5.3 billion in royalties in one financial year and I’ll show you massive mismanagement of said royalties.

    • Lance Cullen Google is your friend.

      “In 2014–15, DMP collected more than $5.3 billion in royalties from mineral and petroleum producers in Western Australia.These royalty funds are paid to the State Government and used for law enforcement, education, health, roads and community development programs.”

    • So the industry says.

  43. Total waste of money on this global warmig? bullshit.

  44. Its time to raise the the target.

  45. It’s interesting to see just how many people can be influenced. To such an extended that they become passionate believers blind to reality. With absolutely no thought to the cost and who is going to end up paying for all this and the sacrifices they will have to make. Not having a affordable power supply will destroy what’s left of our industry already there are people who are to frightened to use aircons the mentality is frightening and should be of great concern to all

  46. I believe people have the right to choose. Those who want renewable should be disconnected from the main grid, and their gas also disconnected. Then they can organise their own energy. Sounds fair to me, they have what they want, and those of us who support coal will continue with what we want without these stupid do-gooders dictating to everyone.!!!!

  47. When I lived out bush we had solar panels enough to run the whole house was great . And yes you have to watch what you use with it . We had the batteries of course no mains power . A friend up the road had a wind generator as well as the panels but he found that it gave very little power even though it was turning all day every day . But if the wind dropped then it was even less he said it was a wast of money and they are not cheep

    • That’s all very well Julie but that won’t work for a major hospital, or to power industries.

      We’re not against renewable energy, just the unrealistic targets and the subsidies that were close to $5 billion dollars last year.

    • and how much did the OZ taxpayer give u in subsidies to keep the filthy coal industry afloat…HOW MUCH?

    • I know that Liberty works but what I was getting at was that the wind farms will not put out as much power as you think no where as much as solar panels if they want renewable power then go solar panels not wind farms

    • Julie Duncan agreed. Solar for off grid situations can be great. That’s the market working. What happened in SA was government policy failure.

    • Yes so let’s keep the coal fired power stations we have . In this day and age you would think they could have a filtering system on the stacks to stop the bad fumes in the air . But tell me why do they allways take pictures of the cooling towers which is steam when they are trying to bag the power stations

  48. Lol you’re losing the battle and you’ll lose the war. The smart money is on renewables. I’ve lived and worked in places that are off the grid before. It’s now cheaper to put in a good solar system for a house or about the same price, but probably less, than it costs to put in even one pole. One of the first things that happens down here in the South West of WA when we have fires, storms, high winds etc, is the power is cut. Unless of course you have access to alternative power sources NOT running off the grid. So it seems fossil fuels are more expensive and less reliable over the long term.

    • So you think every one can afford to put solar on there house . Get real

    • We can’t afford not to. It’s going to happen so you might as well get used to the idea. Fossil fuels are losing market share to renewables every day and it’s only going to get worse for the industry. Especially in WA, now that china can’t push through their forced acquisition of Noongar land.

  49. Exactly Julie, also the batteries, and the fuel for generaters are also expensive. My only issues is that most of the people who yap about about renewable energy are people who would have—coal fired electricty, and gas to their home. And will have one or two cars sitting in their drive way. I call that being a total hypocrite. I admire people like yourself who live their belief. Apart from solar panels, renewable energy is not successful. That has already been proven in SA. !!!!

  50. The Anthropocene. Do your research.

  51. Look at south oz ,highest power prices in the world , yep all because of renewable , and that is a fact

  52. How much coal fired energy does it cost to put up these windmills . . . ????. Answer – lots.

  53. Don’t Sell Our Coal And Gas To Overseas Country’s So They Can Have Cheap Power While We Pay Through The Nose

  54. when most of our coast line is under water what will we say we had a chance but chose not todo anything

  55. Time to advance ourselves & change to renewables to make them viable….if we don’t, they will never become viable & when we do run out of hydrocarbons, we will have nothing to replace them.

  56. What sort of brainless idiot writes this stuff. Coal and gas benefits humanity most. The only people it benefits are the coal and gas companies. WTF

    • Not coal and gas, prosperity. Prosperity benefits humanity the most. We’re not against renewables, we’re against renewable energy targets and subsidies that make energy more costly and more unreliable.

      An energy free market will lead to cheaper and more efficient energy production which leads to greater prosperity, more jobs, more innovation, higher standards of living and a greater ability to withstand any climate related catastrophes.

      Did you know that since the energy revolution (powered by fossil fuels) climate related deaths have plummeted?

    • LibertyWorks god you really do talk a load of rubbish. Not much point having prosperity if the planet is stuffed. Your last statement defies belief.

    • Graeme Dunkley agreed. Nobody wants the planet stuffed, including us. How can humanity prosper if the planet is stuffed?

      Our argument is that renewable energy targets WILL NOT achieve anything or ‘save the planet’. Please tell us how much future warming will be mitigated if Australia is running on 50% renewable energy for example. It will have zero impact.

      We can direct our resources in much more productive ways (that benefit the environment) without forced renewable energy targets.

  57. My power-bill is telling me the failure of wind and solar every three month. Get rid of wind and solar it makes no difference it just makes electrical power unavailable for the poor Australians. Make the 17th of March 2018 “BLACK OUT DAY” for the Labor government and the Greens in South Australia.

  58. I am ok with targets and renewables what I am not ok with is the religious nutbags who seem to be leading the cause

  59. What religious people would that be?

  60. High energy costs are destroying Australian manufacturing.

  61. Coal is critical to underpin unreliable so called renewables

  62. The saddest part is someone paid to have this fossil-fuel astroturfing appear in my feed. RENEWABLES NOW!

  63. Are you all fucking idiots? How did you get to be this ignorant and stupid?

  64. Did you know that you have to shut down a wind turbine at 37% otherwise it can burst into flames as the oil and bearings overheat. Plus the $500k per turbine costs $50k per year to maintain and has a life of 12 years. This is not renewable at all.

  65. Renewable energy sucks! And is very dangerous!

  66. Someone left the gate open in here.

  67. The carbon tax is not gone its now called direct action and we pay 2 billion a year for that. Thanks to tony abbot

  68. The cost of renewable energy is cheaper than it has ever been. The main issues that are pushing up costs are: privatisation of electricity generation and the need to pay increasing dividends to shareholders, the resultingseparation of generation, distribution and retail. lack of good implementation (renewables work best when paired with storage and non centralised distribution). Renewable energy targets are necessary to aid the move away from fossil fuels. Without them, our governments and corporate energy generators just don’t have the will to stop taking the easy way out.

  69. The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.
    Most know that the Liberal party are puppets to the fossil fuel and mining sector ,the high cost of power got to do with privatization policy another one of Libs policy the great conservative John Howard, in SA thank Jeff kennett for the high cost he sold most of the state out..

  70. Renewable is dangerous? Forgetting the health issues with coal fires power stations! Nuclear reactors! Oh and renewable energy isn’t just wind turbines. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro and Tidal are apart of the mix. These renewable energy sources can meet more than our needs when implemented correctly. Some countries in this world are using power generated from 100% renewables. I bet they breath easy. Stop being brainwashed by the coal and oil interests. They only care about profit! Not people or the environment. These industries are selling your future short.

    • How big are those countries “using power generated from 100% renewables”? Are they the size of Australia?

    • Australia is prime for renewables – Lots of wind and sun. Plus there are technologies allowing for storage of excess power generation for night time. You can still have gas fired power stations on standby. There’s no excuse to continue to use dirty and polluting technologies. Remember the coal fire in the Latrobe Valley? That caused deaths. Let alone all the chemicals and heavy metals released into the air when burning coal.

    • My interest? I care about humanity and its future. Buring coal and oil produces toxic pollution. Burning diesel produces cancer causing chemicals. You can ask miners about that. Burning coal and oil produces CO2, hydrocarbons and releases mercury and cadmium. Those heavy metals that damage human tissue and don’t leave the body. Oil is the basis of many of our technologies and is a finite resource. Burning oil is just crazy when you look at what the real value of oil is. The use of fossil fuels as energy is a major human and environmental disaster. The technology is now there to move away from it. Turning this into a right vs left argument is completely igorning the facts. Another fact,”It is cheaper to build a wind or solar farm of equivalent wattage than a coal fired power station!”.

    • Hey Paul Hocksenar don’t waste your time talking to these clowns. One of them is an adviser to One nation senator Malcolm Roberts, the most confused and hysterical climate change denier in the Senate. Liberty Works is an attention seeking operation frantically trying to get someone to take them seriously. A bit like Brickbart in short pants and fewer ideas. Unfortunately the more of the time the more of their ideas you hear the more you roll around the floor laughing.

    • Hey Richard, you have a point but I post here for the other people who might see the facts and reject the lies being propagated by the vested interests in oil and coal.

    • Paul, I don’t think many people come here looking for truth, looking for laughs more like. This site is like a convention for right wingnuts and wack jobs. With all the wacky ideas here it really has to be a satire. No one with any sense could take it seriously. This site is fake news city. “Hide, there’s reds under the bed and yellow peril in the renewables. Those greenies are going to eat your babies and then they want to build a wall and make the goverment pay for it. Just ask Prime Minister Trumble.” Panic and be frightened.

    • Valid points – Still can’t let lies go unchallenged.

    • Richard Atkinson, Paul Hocksenar – Renewable Energy Targets make no measurable impact on warming. Explain why you say this is a lie.

    • Who’s talking about warming? I’m talking about a sustainable clean energy future. Stopping global warming is the bonus. Targets provide the kick start to reaching this goal. Unlike diect action which is paying companies to do nothing. Instead of a carbon trading scheme which is what the experts say will work! Even John Howard and sellout Turnbull support the above.

    • stop it, you’re killing me. If you guys ane not careful comedians will take a class action out and sue for stealing all the good material. No global warming when we have just had the hottest January on record. Alternateive facts eh?lol.

    • Richard Atkinson who has said there is ‘no global warming’? Nobody on this thread…

    • I don’t take seriously anything you say on your website. You can take your statistical aborations and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

    • Richard Atkinson – Although I agree with you, direct attacks don’t win the debate. Don’t lose the high ground.

    • Not here to debate. ;;$#^)Liberty{{>+)_ Works*^%&)) seem so much more comfortable not being involved with sunlight, I thought they would apriciate it.

    • You guys are funny, thanks for the contribution 🙂

    • I’m serious and speaking facts not alt-facts.

  71. This is the worst form of visual POLLUTION posing as reliable green energy. Costing us millions. Bring back coal fired power stations…we have plenty of coal to cleanly and cheaply generate electricity and a pox on all the bed wetting greenie/left wing/enviro Nazis.

  72. Studied all the sciences and just solved all the world’s problems, 100% renewable energy such as Solar and Wind Generation technology hooked up to “pumped hydro” battery clouds, – that uses excess power generated during the day, to pump water from a lower dam up to a higher dam for storage and release at night to run turbines. Is the cheapest and most effective technology, we have today to provide base load power. Full Stop. Australia for skewed political and economic reasons has not invested in for 30 years. even though there are literally thousands of suitable dame sites [including existing ones] around Australia where this can be done, if the political will existed. Therefore all other arguments given about cost and reliability are bullshit, bullshit and bullshit.

  73. Its costing too much
    Australia emission a lot lower than the rest of the world

  74. Costing to much? You know how much building a coal fired power station costs? Power companies haven’t even been building them let alone cheaper renewable alternative.

  75. Let’s face it , you lot are against any renewable energy full stop with your heads in the bloody sand…

  76. so how is not having solar and wind power and or wave power doing that,then you only have coal and oil fired power generators left..

  77. Another site funded by the coal industry. More lies and fake news.

  78. The reduction in Co 2 targets can stay but no more Australian Tax Dollars ! The Wind towers have been built using Australian Tax Dollars and given away to foreign companies to operate and make Profit !! So no more,subsidies from Australian Tax Payer ! Renewable Energy must stand and operate efficiently without being propped up by Tax Payer ?? We all know that once the Renewable Energy has No Australian Tax Payer input and regulations that fine companies producing electricity using fossil fuel the Renewable Energy is to expensive ?? 🙂

  79. Don’t rush into change. By all means make change but in time that will make it affordable. Haste is costly to the consumer as we will pay for it in taxes to fund it and then pay the higher price when consuming it. Please have sense when making change. Please consider a cheaper and more reliable source such as nuclear power in researched safer plants.

    • The govt report on neucliar power found it ecenomically unviable to oroceed down the EXTREMELY expensive neucliar road. Dont fall for the old cheeper fuel con..yes once running it is cheeper per kw to produce per feul rod..but all other expenses make it the most costly form for australia.

    • John McGowan you work at the Department of Education? Look at your spelling!

  80. Australia’s emissions might only be 1.4% but our per capital CO2 emissions are some of the highest in the world 19.64 tonnes each compared to India of 1.38 tonnes per capita… We need to find some ways to justify our lifestyle at the expense of the third worlds population who are most impacted by climate change.

    • Well there’s still nothing Australians can do to reduce warming. Perhaps adaptation or other proposals can work, but renewable energy targets are not a solution.

    • They are however a start..they are however a message to the world that australia is trying to be part of the solutiin…they are however not just parroting particular views of a wealthy lobby group who will benefit financially from continued use of old technology.

    • John McGowan a very expensive and morally bereft ‘message to the world’. The message is that we are willing to create energy poverty, reduce the wealth and prosperity of future generations in order to pat our ourselves on the back about how good we are, even though we are achieving no change in future global temperatures.

  81. I am no “greenie” and the tree-huggers quite frankly annoy me lol. That being said, when around 90% of climate specialists say climate change is real and is human influenced surely you have to at least listen. If the sceptics are right then we will pay a “relatively” small short-term cost but we get a cleaner world anyway. If the sceptics and industrialists are wrong then our grandkids have no future.

    • That’s a false statistic. It comes from the Cook study where the researchers just picked papers from a list that they’d preselected and disagreed with the authors of those papers about what they meant most of the time.

      The Uni threatened to sue anyone that tried to get their research methadology or anything to vet the study. When it all finally came out a group working for Lord Monkton looked at their data and found that based on their chosen sources only 0.3% of experts believe humans are the driving impact of global warming.

      Also consensus in science means nothing. Every famous scientist you can think of is famous specifically because they went against the consensus and discovered something totally new.

    • Dylan Asmus – Lord Monkton is a conservative sceptic with no academic status who deniers trot out to support their views. The deniers also use half-truths and unsubstantiated figures when it suits. And finally, even if they are correct, the worst that will happen is we tidy up the planet a little. If they are wrong and their views prevail it frankly won’t affect me, I’m nearly 60 & I’ll be long gone but god help people to come.

    • The truth lies somewhere between left and right. Tge greenies tell plenty if wild porkies to. The traditional energy has an adjenda to continue producing. If tge renewables are the way forward then honesty should prove it. Some shocking untruths lately from the greens. With all the half truths it comes back to money driving these issues. Fossil energy lie to support there money. Greens lie to get a slice of the money

    • As the article makes clear, we don’t question the science of warming. We simply explain that Renewable Energy Targets make no impact on reducing warming yet they damage lives through job loses, increased energy costs and increased taxes. Given that, they should be removed….

    • Colin Kellett Do you doubt the findings? They looked at Cook’s sources and found a few dozen that specifically mentioned global warming being influenced by humans. He didn’t pick the sources, he didn’t write them and he didn’t argue with the authors of papers about their content.

      Funny how anyone who questions global warming is an automatic shill for big corporations but the scientists whose entire income and funding relies on warming existing are pure and uncorruptible.

      Remember the 80’s-90’s when they said we’d be in an Ice Age? Remember Al “I have a mansion but don’t you dare drive a car” Gore and his Melting Ice Caps by 2010?

  82. New coal plants are the MOST EXPENSIVE option.

  83. Time to leave coal in the ground and use renewable energy as cost of renewable energy is getting cheaper just look at the Netherlands or Denmark

  84. leave coal in the ground and put up more of these useless and very dangerous noisy turbines? What idiot would advocate that?

  85. Plenty of robot comments on this propaganda site. To the real comments from sensible thinking folks, you are not bed wetting greenies you are the majority

  86. I agree: lets go back to windmills, waterwheels, horses, etc.

  87. Its time to say no to u you moron

  88. if you add the CO2 from cal exported you will get a truer picture of Australia’s emissions.

    • Those coals emissions would be occurring in other countries. Whilst i know we shouldn’t neglect it, the fact is the coal is being purchased because those countries need it. If we did anything to hinder that export like a tax or tariff, countries who buy our coal would just go and purchase coal from another country at a cheaper price.

      Or as an example, China recently shut down its coal mines & now imports most of its coal from other countries. If we and all other countries tarrifed our coal; the largest polluter in the globe would simply reopen its coal mines.

  89. Don’t forget sun mirrors and stored heat

    • Those coals emissions would be occuring in other countries. Whilst i know we shouldn’t neglect it, the fact is the coal is being purchased because those countries need it. If we did anything to hinder that export like a tax or tarrif, countries who buy our coal would just go and purchase coal from anothet country at a cheaper price.

      Or as an example, China recently shut down its coal mines & now imports most of its coal from other countries. If we and all other countries tarrifed our coal; the largest polluter in the globe would simply reopen its coal mines.

    • Renewable energy is now cheaper than coal power. So this old argument of yours no longer holds water. No if we want a planet that is habitable we need to stop burning coal NOW

    • Phil Jenkinson if it is now cheaper than other sources then we don’t need renewable energy targets that force us to use it and we don’t need renewable subsidies that amounted to nearly $5 billion dollars last year. If it is so cheap then let the free market decide which energy source we use.

    • i just realised my original comment is supposed to be a reply to a comment above yours Phil Jenkinson

    • Unfortunately the free market has no direction other than to make money. So if we dont want to destroy the planet we need to direct ourselves in this way using subsidys. it helps new technology get development funding etc. And to get it going generally. There is not enough renewable energy in Australia so we need to subsidise it for a little longer.

  90. the world is changing.. in a smart world you guys will not exist.. why would we produce energy with pollution when we can do it without? i run my property with solar panels, i produce more than i use and i have no bills all year around! when tidal power kick in will render your industry useless.. its time to accept that

    • It’s nice that you feel good about your energy consumption. But whether you use renewables or not is irrelevant to warming, even if all of us did the same as you, it makes no difference.

  91. The age of pollution energy is finally starting to die and I just hope it happens before we do.
    It’s time to move on and leave it behind or you will miss the air conditioned green bus and end up with the struggle of a long hot uphill walk.

  92. Agnotology by Big Fossil Fuel lives on.

  93. As more and more people turn to personal solar power and storage technology gets cheaper, the cost of coal-fired power will go ever up as less and less users are on the grid. The Carbon Price that ABBOTT screamed about as a “Tax”, had polluters PAYING US- under the LNP system, WE PAY THEM and prices have still gone up. If this double-whammy isn’t a “TAX”, i don’t know what is…

  94. If the decisions were made logically or even just economically then the RET would be unecessary. The problem is the decisions are not being made that way, a recent report by bloomburg with CURRENT technology had replacement of old coal power stations which will close down with a mixed system including a lot of renewables as cheaper, less poluting, more flexible and more robust than a completley or mainly coal derived system. A major part of the problem is invested interests cherry picking (or outright falsifying) data, most of that is on the fossile fuel side as they have both the motive and the money.

  95. to be polite about this [email protected]#K off

  96. Why is this shit propaganda coming up on my Wall ?? If I want to read right wing crap, I’ll go get a copy of ‘Mein Kampf’, thank you very much !!

  97. Coal is the way to go also turbines

  98. It’s obvious that living off non-renewable resources is stupid.

  99. This post is saying choose energy based solely on lower costs & more money for you.
    It ignores environment impact.
    It ignores future costs on generations to come!

    In that respect it appeals to our bottom line NOW only.
    Clever, but snide!

    • No it doesn’t. This is all about our future prosperity and impacts on future generations. Increased future prosperity means increased ability to protect the environment and withstand climate related catastrophes. Did you actually read the article?

    • Read your article! Let me quote, “We owe it to future generations to make the most of our natural resources like coal and gas to produce low cost energy, ”
      Why do you exclude the natural resources of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro?
      “and quit wasting billions of dollars chasing futile renewable energy targets that drive up energy costs, slow down progress and ultimately slow down the generation of new ideas.”
      Your claims here are overblown! “futile renewable targets”
      increased costs, slow progress, slow new ideas”.
      Wow, slow new ideas seems to be what you are preaching.
      As for costs, new developments initially cost more but ultimately become the norm.
      Many earlier comments say that new coal power stations are too expensive to build now.

    • Whether we are forced, through taxes and regulation, to embrace renewables makes no impact on warming. Therefore, there’s no point doing it. Unless of course you can’t feel good about yourself without those taxes and regulations…

    • When the goal is to reduce atmospheric pollution, taxes & regulation are blunt tools to push that goal, meant for otherwise reluctant starters.
      The endpoint of reducing pollution is achieved and infinitesimally global warming is reduced.
      Your claim “…makes no impact on warming” is wishful thinking, or perhaps an “alternative truth”!
      Who are LIbertyWorks? Supporters of whom?

    • LibertyWorks What? Embracing renewables makes no impact on warming? From where does
      that fatuous statement come?

    • Pamela Forte how much will future warming be reduced if Australia were on 50% renewables for example?

    • Ah sorry LibertyWorks, but you must not reflect that question back on others. How about you answer it, you are the ones promoting that we not join a Global effort.
      What I like least in that attitude is letting the rest of the World make the effort without our encouragement, even if our contribution is small.

    • Kevin Close the answer is that the amount is so tiny that nobody can calculate it. It’s insignificant.

    • Kevin Close thank for your comment, I was so gobsmacked at their comment, I just couldn’t think of a short, succinct answer. However you have provided me with my own thoughts.

    • LibertyWorks : so your answer of ‘it’s insignificant’ to Kevin Close is obviously another way of saying, ‘let’s do nothing to help the rest of humanity, because they don’t matter?’

    • Pamela Forte, no, our answer is the answer we gave. But if you’re concerned about humanity, stop driving up the cost of energy for poor people, stop the job losses, stop the debt build up for future generations. And please also stop pretending you’re morally superior simply because you believe in something that simply doesn’t work.

    • LibertyWorks how am ‘l’ driving up the cost of energy for poor people, how am ‘I’ causing the job losses, how am ‘I’ building up debt for future generations? I have NEVER thought myself morally superior to any one or anything. You have no idea what I do in and with my life.

    • Oh dear LibertyWorks, your thinking has strange twists.
      I think you imply that rooftop solar panels are driving up energy costs for poor people, killing jobs & adding to the debts of future generators.
      How much of that is true?
      Solar feedin tariff is cheap, about 25% of what anyone pays for energy. Who is making it too costly?
      Renewables are a growth industry employing more people!
      Future power generators will cost more because they are being delayed. Truthful, but the fault of increased costs, not from wages, they are steady, but from huge elite salary rises.

  100. Are you people who run this post stupid. Climate chnage or no climate change, renewable energy is just a great idea.

  101. ugly as sin, which one,eh?

  102. Well no it’s not obvious. When you look at cost, you cannot look purely at the cost of production as well as supply and demand. The cost of production for coal doesn’t consider the millions of years of production, or the continued rarity of the commodity (only current cost of production and, supply and demand) or the cost of the impact the pollutants cause by burning the. There are some pretty silly comments from some saying that humans impact on climate change is negligible and there is no cause and effect evidence. Well sure, the evidence is not 100%, science rarely is, not many things are proven (Gravity is still only a theory but who would deny it exists). But there is correlation between the variables and considering the stakes include the survival of the human race this is not something that can be ignored because electricity prices will go up 10%. We just need to be sensible and consider the solution will also resolve an issue with non renewable resources that will eventually need to be solved. In addition, the technology that will be developed will also have so many other positive impacts on our society.

  103. Damn straight. And junk what’s already there.

  104. The fact is the that renewable energy equipment is produced in China. That means the carbon cost appears on China’s books and not ours. Our books look clean, but it is all nonsense. Carbon emitted in China is all the same to the hydro-sphere.

  105. What!? Look to Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Costa Rica. They are swimming. Where is rubbish coming from?

  106. The renewable energy revolution is here and you are scared, very scared, as you know coal is dying.

    • Why would that scare us? We are against corporate subsidies of all kinds. By the way if coal is dying then why do Japan, China and India continue to commit to new coal fired plants on a scale that dwarfs anything that Australia requires? Japan has turned to natural gas and coal to replace its nuclear generation. Why is that do you think?

    • We don’t care about coal “dying” but we do care about ripping $5B per annum off taxpayers, job and higher energy prices which hurt the poor. Renewable Energy Targets cause these issues but don’t decrease global warming and therefore should be scrapped.

    • Coal and oil industries are massively subsidised, far more so than solar. At the rate of cost decrease we are seeing in solar, wind and battery, coal will very soon be redundant. If you are so keen on no subsidies, why is Addani being gifted billions in loans that they can’t get on the open market, at tax payers risk!!!

  107. Australian cost support for renewable energy targets now exceeds $3bn cost p.a. New coal powered plant in NQ study under Gillard projected social benefits approaching $1bn.

  108. CO2 warming hoax/hysteria is just that. 120 year temperature evidence is ~0.8degK and when compared with CO2 PPM increase over the period it does not stack up.

  109. fuck off….propaganda at its finest or worst….u choose….

  110. Despite the prediction that we would have a severe water shortage 2015 / 2016 in South Australia, I have noticed that I have not felt the need to water my lawn this year?

  111. we need renewable s energy and I would go gas before I went to so called clene coal

  112. Renewables cannot replace coal until the technologies improve – the subsidies are outrageous and they are only making us poorer

  113. Currently the capital cost of renewables is less that that of coal-fired generators, even the “clean” ones (read “slightly less dirty”).

    • Hmmm made from steel which uses coal smelters and they leave a huge carbon foot print and when their life is over they will sit on our hills and rot but never mind.

  114. That’s double Dutch to me because energy producers charge whatever they fucken want and the only ones getting prosperous is the corporations

  115. Your article is interesting, but doesn’t address one issue – which is the big con-job being put out by Governments and Renewable Energy activists and rent-seekers, and which has been stated by many respondents here and at your article’s comments. The argument is that renewables are cheaper than coal fired and gas fired plants, as evidenced by the fact that such plants are closing down, and industry don’t want to invest in them anymore.

    That argument is made in ignorance of the economics of power production. What happens is that base-load power producers don’t make much money running their plants during off-peak times, but make most of their money in peak hours, and especially when they get the “cream” prices from very high energy demand at various times.

    But the way the market has been utterly distorted is that by law, the power grid has to take all the energy from renewables at peak and “cream” times first – so that they make the most amount of profit. The base-load operators produce and get paid for the remainder of the power at lower prices. Coal-fired plants have to shed energy that they can’t put into the grid (and obviously they don’t get paid for it), as they can’t turn off their plant. Gas-fired plants theoretically can turn off their plants when the renewables are providing all the expensive power at peak times, but they too usually find it uneconomic to do so.

    To summarise, Renewable Energy can be three or four times dearer to produce than fossil fuel energy, but it doesn’t matter – since they get paid more by always getting the higher prices at peak demand period. Meanwhile, the coal and gas fired power stations that make the cheapest energy, only get minuscule returns because the governments make the Renewables get the best prices for their power.

    End result – consumers pay an awful lot more in power prices and not much coal or gas is actually saved from having gone to renewables, because those coal and gas plants have to keep running. The coal and gas usage is only reduced when those plants are shut down – leading to cases like South Australia being dependent on Victoria, and most of Western Europe being dependent on nuclear power plants in France.

    What Mr.Shorten and the Greens never explain about their proposed Renewable Energy Targets, is exactly who will be Australia’s France to provide the back-up power when the renewable supplied power inevitably stops being supplied?

    • Excellent point thank you for commenting. I don’t think many people realise that the coal and gas plants continue to generate even when renewables are providing power during peak times, and also that the energy market is rigged in the way you described.

    • Well said. Some truth to the debate. The greenies wont even read the truth

    • LibertyWorks – No problem, I am only summarizing from a big article written by an expert describing the pricing structure in a major newspaper, from about three or four years ago. If I can find it, I’ll provide the link.

    • Renato Alessio that would be great thank you.

    • Yes, I agree completely. Renewable energy is simply “window dressing”. It is amazing the dullards I hear speaking enthusiastically about stuff like solar power. None of the alternatives are economic and in no way can replace fossil fuel. And fossil fuel finally does become uneconomic. We can kiss goodbye to this nonsense called civilisation forever.

    • LibertyWorks – I am still trying to find that link, which was provided in the Ice and Space forum for astronomers, but it’s a bit like the needle in the haystack because when I type my name and try find the post where I thank the chap who provided it, i get linked to threads rather than posts – and I’ve been going bleary-eyed going through them.
      I did find one article that explained the end result quite well, from Nick Cater in the Australian, as follows.
      “Wind farms may be ugly but they are certainly not cheap, nor is the electricity that trickles from them. No one in their right minds would buy one if they had to sell power for $30 to $40 a megawatt hour, the going rate for conventional producers.

      But since the retailers are forced to buy a proportion of renewable power, the windmill mafia can charge two to three times that price, a practice that in any other market would be known as price gouging.

      As if a $60 premium were not reward enough, the transaction is further sweetened with a renewable energy certificate that they can sell to energy producers who insist on generating power in a more disreputable manner.

      The going rate of $40 a megawatt hour means the total income per megawatt for wind farms is three to five times that of conventional power, and unless the government changes the scheme that return is only going to get better.

      In an act of rent-seeking genius, the renewable lobby managed to persuade the Rudd government to set the 2020 target as a quantity — 41 terawatt hours — rather than 20 per cent of overall power as originally proposed.

      Since the target was set, the energy generation forecast for 2020 has fallen substantially, meaning the locked-in renewable target is now more like 28 per cent.

      That will send conventional producers scrambling for certificates, pushing up their price beyond $100. It’s a mouth-watering prospect for the merchant bankers and venture capitalists who were smart enough to jump on board, … but of little or any benefit to the planet.

      The cost of this speculative *financial picnic will be about $17 billion by 2030 or thereabouts, *according to Deloitte, which produced a report on the messy business last week”

  116. Renato, you say the Renewable Energy producers “get paid more by always getting the higher prices at peak demand period.” The “feed-in” tariff from my rooftop solar panels is fixed far below what I am charged for Peak KWh.
    Perhaps you are talking about big Renewable Energy producers such as wind farms

  117. Yep, this pic is the way to beat those insanely ugly towers, why they don’t even make beautiful smoke, damn them, welcome Bulga, Hunter Valley

  118. note the nearly invisible open-cut Liberty coal mine vastly overshadowed but the noisy hugely visible tttturbine in the middle distance,SEE IT? I stutter just trying to say their obscene filthy titles) dominating the visual perspective for 100’s of square kms, YA THINK!!!!!!!!!!

    • and your point is?

    • Hundreds of square kilometres. Bit over the top. Very green coment. Point taken on the look. When these operations are given permision the company must put aside funds to repair the site. Our pollies who approve these projects get rewards to forget about the end result. Needs changing

  119. climate change is a mafia invention to rob us and our pighead polititions areinvolved

    • are you sane? are you saying that every scientist that believes the”empirical data” is wrong? they have no idea? you prove to me to that the earth ISN’T warming up. every climate indicator has gone through the sharpest spike for hundreds of thousands of years in the last 50. prove me wrong

    • No climate change is not an invention. The average global surface temperature is indeed increasing. It was well understood immediately post WW2, mainly due to the acquisition of Nazi research. The Nazi’s were ahead in most fields of science and technology. But after all, they are the master race! It never gained public notoriety until the 1980’s. However do not confuse scientific predictions with facts. They are merely predictions based on modeling. They might prove true and they might not. Not that any of it matters. For nothing worthwhile will be done about climate change. Humanity will not give up their industrial goodies, their SUV’s, etc. For no-one! All that will be done is window dressing that accomplishes nothing. Humanity will always firmly believe, that they can have their cake and eat it too! The CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv. If by chance it ever reaches 1000 ppmv. Then all the ‘advanced mammals’ including man will face extinction. On this you can take my personal guarantee. Even though the theory is true. The efforts are hardly noble. The socialist-humanist faction seizes upon it as a justification for increasing their political power. Scientists grab for research funds from the public pocket, for the livings they offer. The international capitalist faction is opposed to it and they wouldn’t have a clue about the science. None of them are seriously interested in doing anything worthwhile about the subject. Their only interest is power and money! You are living in the twilight of your world….enjoy! The only race which has a chance of surviving this is the master-race, since they alone posses the abstract intelligence and mental discipline required for survival. The rest of humanity is certain to go extinct.

  120. If the only way you can judge the viability of a peoject is by the cash value, your criteria are sadly lacking.

    • Actually no, if you read the article you will see that isn’t quite true. We place a priority on human flourishing which believe it or not includes prosperity. Prosperity is the reason you live the lifestyle you do. Wealth is what has given you cars, aeroplanes, the internet and medical breakthroughs. We value those developments. Prosperity and wealth mean that we look after our environment better than developing nations do. So it’s not about ‘cash value’ but what wealth actually provides for humanity.

    • That sounds like the credo of somebody whose god is money.
      It’s about as valid as the ‘trickle down’ doctrine.

    • Mark Eckermann so you’d rather live in a third world country?

  121. So whose pockets are you pissing into??

  122. The proof is always in the pudding! If any of this nonsense was indeed viable, then they would be already closing down the coal mines and oilfields. But they don’t, so you know it is all a pack of lies! It is all in the same spirit as the fable of “Stone soup!” Have you seen residential houses disconnecting from the grid? They don’t because their solar power has limited application. It is amazing how people will believe in this nonsense when they see not an ounce of proof! The public questions nothing and believe anything, if they are told what they want to hear!

  123. SERIOUSLY. So I guess killing the planet is good for humanity?
    Your stupidity is only exceeded by your greed.

  124. a person only has to look at what’s happened to South Australia to realise why at this time there’s no substitute for coal; anyone who thinks coal is inefficient needs to look at the facts with an open mind, and educate themselves

    • Please check the facts – you are quite wrong about renewable energy being the problem. Oh, and nobody thinks that coal is inefficient – it is just generally outmoded and dangerous.

    • Cassie, the outage problem in SA was due to transmission towers failing connecting the power sources to the load centres. ie, no wires between generators & people.

    • Soooooo Cassie, not having coal power caused the storm which blew over the towers and caused the blackouts. I guess you saw it all happen from Gladstone in Queensland, where 70%v of Australia’s coal is exported from. Bahahahahaha.

    • Yep. Wrong software settings combined with some lines coming down equals shutdown of the interconnector. Not a fault of the technology, but a combination of human error and storm damage.
      Look back over the last 60 years and you’ll see how blackouts have become increasingly rate. Weekly occurrence in many places back in the ’70s. You never had it so good and yet still with the whingeing about that “dangerous renewable energy”. Sad.

    • you poor ignorant souls; I cannot possible give your opinions credibility; so sorry I even bothered gto read your comments!

    • Cassie knows best.

  125. If Australia didn’t have vast deposits of coal we would be seeing solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. As it is we are stuck with coal because the coal industry has so much power and influence over the governments

  126. Time to “NO!” to LibertyWorks!

  127. Who wants those useless turnbines that only work when the wind blows,and even then they are so expensive to make and never pay for themselves,as for the Climate change NOTHING BUT A GIANT HOAX THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN,so I will look my grand children in the eyes and tell them that we had a corrupt government that was paying the UN vasts amount of money for nothing,only to make them rich.

  128. Fucking morons.

  129. More lies from a person that has a personal relationship with fossil fuels renewable energy can come from other sources than wind

  130. Yeh, right! 40 degree temps all around today. It’s time for the fossil fuel lobby to fuck off and die.

  131. ‘How will you be able to look your children in the eye and tell them you did nothing to stand up to the greed and self-interest of the fossil fuel lobby while the planet fried??’ How fucking dare you!!

  132. Is this rightwing foil hat trolling… or a juvenile student prank trolling the left? If you’re sincere, you’re also a bit simple…
    But I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume this is another bit of corporately sponsored nuttery.

    • Didn’t read the article?

    • Oh come on, is that the best you can do? Almost every reference on your feed is about the mad Left or hysterical Greens, and how new industries are just pushing up electricity prices. If this was 1904 you’d be running a line about petroleum unfairly disrupting steam. All I really want to know is who provides you the cash injections- Santos, or is it Adani?

    • LibertyWorks, your article left me admiring the clever slides from one thing to mean another. I asked you some specific questions which you have ignored.
      You saying, “didn’t read the article”! How about be fair & face up to fair criticism

  133. It is not only fuel problems we have with humans on earth. It is overcrowding and over population, clearing land for development causing erosion and land slides, mining causing subsidence and river pollution causing marine life problems to name a few. Stop putting all the eggs into one basket for blame of problems of earth. As for climate change. It started off as global warming but when some temperatures were lower than normal it was changed to climate change. I don’t think anyone truly knows what is happening but I think if all were honest it comes down to cycles. Ice age melting. Are you saying all the things we have today apparently causing these climatic changes existed back then?

    • About climate change, the best presentation I have seen is a year by year plot of Global temperatures. Yes, global temperatures are rising. I’ll try to find it for you

  134. Australia is one of the sunniest places on the planet … Wake up and figure out solar energy

  135. Flawed & self contradicting argument!

  136. Time to stop fossil fuels and go 100% renewables.
    The technology is there already.

  137. if you have not got a renewable energy policy ..which this federal liberal government does not have will never reach any kind of target is as simple as that …

  138. Wrong wrong wrong

  139. Renewable energy doesn’t destroy jobs. Renewable energy creates jobs – from plant development, construction and operation, to producing and installing solar panels.
    Detailed modelling from Ernst and Young showed that 50% renewable electricity by 2030 would create more than 28,000 jobs nationwide – nearly 50% more than a business as usual scenario.
    There are now more jobs in renewable energy than in coal in Australia. And worldwide, there are now more than 8 million people employed in renewable energy. So if jobs are the main game,
    renewable energy is a winner.”

  140. Renewable energy is FAR FAR cheaper, and has the side affect of not causing the ocean to pour in over your harbourside mansion. Get with the 21st century you absolute self serving deceptive mongrels. Coal and gas aren’t just the energy from last century, but rather the energy from 2 centuries ago. Now be good people and go see the witch doctor (where your level of development is) and get a powder. Preferably Cyanide (oops sorry, Vitamin B 17)

    • Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you could make your point without the name calling and suicide recommendations?

      If renewable energy is so cheap, we don’t need subsidies or targets do we? We’re not against renewables we’re against $5 billion dollars of everybody’s money propping up the industry and unrealistic targets.

  141. if the above comments are true, why does SA have the highest electricty prices and the most blackouts? the post is not saying no to renwable energy, just NO to handouts!

    • The SA problem is not exclusively a result of renewable energy. Our government sold our utility to the Chinese bringing our costs to become the most expensive electricity in the world AND due to recent storms and outages a report shows the network is poorly maintained and lack of crews to rectify the storm damage situation. Meanwhile the Chinese are taking huge profits and business is taking huge losses and leaving the state. Don’t blame renewable energy. And yes, solar still requires the grid as independent systems are still too expensive. Bring on the Tesla home battery!

  142. Every single day this year, Rupert Murdoch’s paper ” The Australian” has run prominent smear pieces littered with “alternative facts.”
    In Murdoch’s wacky version of reality, renewable energy caused the South Australian blackout, the Renewable Energy Target (and not gold-plating by power companies)
    is behind electricity price rises, ‘clean’ coal is an economically and technologically feasible option (Yeah right pull the other one) and solar power is destabilising the grid. Of course, LOL
    all of this is easily disproved claptrap. But relentless lies can have real-world consequences.In his National Press Club address the Prime Minister confirmed that his government
    has no plans for renewables post 2020, saying the Target was “never intended to be perpetual”, and warned against state governments’ “mindless rush towards renewables.
    What’s more, today’s headlines are saying that the PM and key ministers aren’t ruling out using public money from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to fund building so-called ‘clean’ coal power plants. These bizarre announcements have been met with incredulity from peak business groups, with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group restating support for the Target and declaring ‘clean’ coal a dud investment The big three energy retailers are just as bamboozled, with AGL, Origin and Energy Australia indicating they have no intention of building any new coal plants in Australia

  143. One only needs to look to see which way to go Japan 23 although I was corrected to43 new coal fired power stations India also not sure how many. They have done their home work have you

  144. Yesterday it was Vanstone on ABC Radio National talking about nasty old solar panels using an example of a spill from abandoned chemical drums from 5 years ago in once of the least regulated countries on earth, China. No mention of pumping up to 600 chemicals into the ground for fracking, many of which are not listed on the National Chemical Register. No mention of the sick families in the gas fields, just more attacks on renewables when the rest of the world is going at pace to transition. Australia looks like a dinosaur and we will go the same way as they did if we don’t hurry up and transition. Of course the hottest summer on record and freak weather events have nothing to do with climate change. Examine your souls if you work for this company.

  145. No way keep it going stuff the lnp

  146. Clean Coal Technology is the only solution…renewables are good for people who want to feel good by thinking that it’s going to make one iota of difference to the man made climate conspiracy…the climate would change even if mankind wasn’t here

  147. You must be kidding!

  148. ignorant moron, all the evidence out there says otherwise,typical denial Libtard

    • What evidence is there that our Renewable Energy Targets have reduced warming?

    • FAKE propaganda. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, frankly admitted that the overarching goal of the “global warming/climate change” hoax is to reorient the world’s economic model away from capitalism.
      This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
      The United Nations; it’s become nothing but a cesspool of Left-wing activism that is destroying entire nations.

    • Ross Purves, your answer to the above question?

    • And I suppose you are doing your bit by not using any fossil fuels? or products made from or used to make everything you own , get real ROSS.

    • Ross Purves Please enlighten us with some empirical evidence that Global Warming is Man Made.

    • Ross Purves BTW. More than 30,000 scientists who have publicly declared their disagreement with the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.)

    • there are probably 5 million god bothers that still think the earth is flat,from all walks of society with all sorts of Cereal box qualifications. I’ll listen to the other 170,000 scientists and make my own observations which I’ve been doing for decades.If you did some serious research your self [ its called the internet ] and shut down your denialist gene for awhile you will see there is an overwhelming majority of scientists that agree with man accelerated warming to an ever increasing dangerous degree, ocean acidification [ which will decrease oxygen generation,which is also the main producer of oxygen on the planet, and a myriad of other catastrophic events, not to mention millions of square klms of Tundra thawing out releasing billions of cubic metres of methane that have been trapped there for 100’s of thousands of years or longer. It annoys me trying to convince the denialists because there are just so many news articles from scientists examining ice cores, from records going back through industrialization,4000 year old tree rings and countless others. I can only put it down to IQ or God/ denial gene .Its to mentally taxing to keep up with the stupidity of morons,I’m not going to respond any more,I just hope one day you clowns might just see the forest for the trees[ pun intended ] but there’s not much of them left ,and I won’t be holding my breath, you can’t help stupidity. I could probably bet that you would be agreeable with nuclear power, if that’s the case you might be able to enlighten Japan as to how to stop 300 tons of highly radio active waste[ with the radiation rapidly increasing due to the fact the core has eaten thru the arse of the reactor and they have no idea how to deal with it ],from pouring into the Pacific every day,but then again you might be able to listen to the 30,000 scientists that say its not happening. As for, if the renewable targets are working, no idiot thinks you can just cut coal out of the equation,any one with half a brain knows we will always need extreme heat for metallurgy, but you have to start somewhere and the transition won’t happen over night.I won’t be responding to replies , I’m just over stupid ignorant sheeple

    • Tom Molnar I have over 300 acres of virgin forest for more than 34 years and planted 100’s of trees, used LPG in my vehicles for the past 25 years,my conscience is clear as to my, and my families impact on the climate,and your argument has no relevance as to do with whether the climate change is man made or not.

  149. A bloody beautiful panorama eh??? That’s the way your government likes it I SUPPOSE THAT’S WHERE THEY CAN TIE THEIR ARK UP TO WHEN IT FLOODS THERE.

  150. this is just a site set up by the fossil fuel industry to fool the sheep and the fkhds with the denial /greed gene

  151. More crap from the Murkin/coal robber barons!

  152. Sounds like you believe in the economics of globalisation?

  153. Solar and batteries way to go

  154. I cant believe the morons sayings renewables are cheaper, fairdinkum dont let the truth get in the way of your ideology. Unbelievable! The government should just say ok no drama as of tomorrow we are shutting down all the coal fired energy sources. Lol watch the squealing then

  155. What a fucktard. Ever heard of the difference between short and long term benefits

    • Please explain why we have renewable energy targets?

    • We have renewable energy targets to force carbon producers to lower their emissions. If it’s left up to business to do the right thing nothing will happen. If we don’t lower emissions global warming will continue to accelerate

  156. Written spoken and authorised by Fossil Fuels Australia and the Mining Industry Association.

    • Didn’t read the article?

    • Oh I read it. I thought little of the arguments presented and concluded that it’s little more than fossil fuel industry propaganda.

    • False conclusion. We support cheaper energy for the poor, less tax and debt for our children, and jobs. We do not support any particular energy providers and if you read that in the article I would respectfully suggest you read it again…

  157. Time to say no to you Libertyworks

  158. Fake, rubbish, that is what that commercial is. Yes, cigarettes are healthy and carry no risk. Oh and yes, scientists are wrong about it all.

  159. We have to keep burning coal because the rest of the world will wake up to the environmental costs, divest from coal and dump it on the market. Then coal will be crazy cheap! The coal companies won’t be able to give it away. What else are we going to do… lead the world in renewables, ha that would take courage, Australia doesn’t have that!… we have coal, and sunshine, hot dry rock, wind, wave, and space to put that stuff in.

  160. There are so many cucks and douchebags thinking they are ‘informed’ on this it is absolutely laughable.
    Developing renewables should be the domain of the free market. There is nothing stopping you social justice warriors from donating to said development and pursuit.
    Global Warming is a myth. Debunked time and time and time again yet you Communist cucks continue to scream whilst wearing clothes, driving cars, using phones and computers, watching tv, visiting doctors in lit surgeries, using tap water….the list goes on.
    One “quote” has 97% of scientists supporting Global Warming. There are two reasons for this:
    1) They are quoting the exact same fudged data; and
    2) To say otherwise would lose them their funding.
    By the by it is nowhere NEAR 97% nowadays.
    Impoverish yourselves putting your money where your mouths are and stop forcing others to pay.
    By the way the most comprehensive study conducted yet (look up Lord Monkton) shows 12 million a year die thanks to this myth. Well. Done. Leftards.

  161. this government has no policy so of course they would say no .fools

    • If you’re referring to the federal Libs, their policy is to maintain for the moment a 23.5% renewable energy target. This is bad policy as it does nothing to reduce warming yet robs workers of their hard earned, increases energy prices and costs real jobs. The LNP targets should be scrapped, as should the Greens and Labors….

  162. So because we only contribute 1.4% global co2 emissions, we should do nothing? Idiot, if everyone thought like this, no one would do anything about sustainable renewable energy.

  163. How interesting, another Nazi contribution.

  164. All you climate change loonies are all hypocrites…all using products made from fossil fuels, driving cars or taking trains or buses, even push bikes…you want to talk the talk….walk the walk…or shut the hell up

  165. Andrew Cooper you asked for my comments on the article.

    First, of all the Renewable Energy Target (RET) is bad policy, and I oppose it. It was number 2 on my list of the wrong policy approach to climate change.

    The main argument in the article is the cost-benefit analysis, however this is *also* an incorrect policy approach (number 5 on my list).

    The example that Ed Dolan uses in “TANSTAAFL (There Aint’ No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) – A Libertarian Perspective on Environmental Policy” is about stealing a bottle of champagne, but I usually use building a swimming pool.

    Say you live in an apartment block that builds a swimming pool out the back, but in the process the machines mess up the rose garden of your next door neighbour.

    Claiming that the pool is more valuable to the apartment than the rose garden is to the neighbour is *not* a reason to avoid paying for the damage done.

    Cost-benefit analysis might be a justification for going ahead with the project, but it is still unfair if the neighbour is not compensated.

    The other issue mentioned is that we are only a few percent, so why bother.

    Well, if the neighbouring rose bed costs $1,000 to replace, and there are 50 apartments, again the claim that you are only 2% responsible is *not* a valid reason for not paying.

    If you believe in private property rights, then you should still pay the neighbour your $20, even if the other apartment owners don’t, and even if it isn’t enough to replace the entire garden.

    (In fact, a better thing would have been to each put in $2, and spent $100 on some temporary construction fencing to stop the machinery driver from causing the damage in the first place.)

    In summary, although the RET is wrong, from a private property principle approach the article is also wrong.

    The principle that if you cause damage then you should pay for it doesn’t change, and the arguments put forward (cost-benefit and small portion) are not valid defenses.

    Note that the issue of whether damage has been caused or not is a separate thing; whether you believe there is damage or not doesn’t change the principles, or why the article is wrong.

  166. Get rid of all targets, and get your own solar and wind!

  167. most people I know surport Renewables

  168. If this happens your grandchildren and life as we know it will be extinct. There is no such thing as Clean Coal, the words alone are Trumpism at it’s best

    • There’s absolutely no suggestion from anyone that global warming is a threat to the human race. Where did you get that from, Al Gore?

  169. I’d rather not live in a world governed by greed 

    • As in greedy people seeking to rob millions of taxpayers of their own money to support their pet renewable energy projects?

    • Renewables can provide more people with electricity quicker and cheaper than building a new coal-powered generator
      As the cost of ren ewables comes down it will e even more economical.
      You talk about using tax-payers’ money, what sbout the subsidies paid to the miners?
      If they were paid to the renewables companies, electricity would cost the houswholders very littke. Certainly a lot less than they are paying now.

    • You mean the billions of dollars in taxes paid by miners instead of the leeching green schemes

    • Are you sure they do pay rax?
      What about the billion offered to Adani?

    • Mark Eckermann the minerals industry paid $117 billion in royalties and taxes in the period between 2006 and 2013. Google is your friend.

    • Vic Starwalker tell us how much future global warming will reduced by Australia’s renewable energy targets. Elephant in the room?

    • The climate religion will never answer what difference spending billions on crazy green schemes will make to any temperature

  170. Absolutely, I agree. We should replace it with a broad spectrum carbon price, so we can achieve lowest abatement costs across all carbon emitting sectors. I believe this will be a better policy than the RET to achieve the economic transformation we need to avert dangerous climate change, which I assume Liberty Works would support, right?

    • If there was any possibility of carbon pricing reducing warming in any measurable way then we would consider that. But there isn’t any chance… it will also have no impact on warming so the costs of carbon pricing can’t be justified either. We need to realise that adaptation, preferably from a position of economic strength, as the only response available to us.

    • Do you mean ‘carbon pricing in Australia’ or simply ‘carbon pricing’ more generally? I would argue the second would almost certainly slow warming (and eventually arrest unmanageable climate change) and the first would strongly impact the global policy environment to achieve the same result. To not take domestic mitigation action is at best a dereliction of our role as a leading economy in the global arena and at worst a morally reprehensible thing to do, which will inhibit fair and equitable distribution of development opportunities. We don’t want to be a nation of leaners, do we? (Yes, we probably do, sadly.) Adaptation should of course be pursued in parallel, but how do you suppose Bangladesh adapts to an accelerating emissions, in part caused by Australian prevarication, and a world of 4 to 6 degrees over pre-industrial temps? Will Australia be opening its doors?

    • Re carbon pricing, clearly Australia’s contribution is meaningless but there’s very little analysis of the reduction in warming even if all countries meet their Paris commitments. Bjorn Lomborg, a believer in warming science, estimated that if we took the worst case scenarios from the IPCC and assumed that all countries meet their commitments, then warming would be reduced by around one third of a degree. I think there’s a reason no one talks about these numbers…. the cost is enormous with a rounding error result.

      Despite the uninformed abuse we seem to generate, we don’t question the science, we simply believe we’re on the wrong path. Adaptation should be our logical path, something the human race has proven very good at. And if the Bangladeshis have access to reliable cheap energy, they are much more likely to become prosperous and be more capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions then if we force then to remain poor.

    • There’s plenty of analysis from a number of sources on the adequacy (or otherwise) of the Paris agreement, so Lomborg is in esteemed company. That INDCs as they stand are unlikely to meet the agreement’s goals, is not an argument against further attempts of mitigation, but rather in support of it, surely, as continuing emissions will continue to make the planet warmer. What would you have us adapt to? 3 degrees, 6, 8? But of course, the Paris agreement has mechanisms built into to encourage countries to continue to broaden and deepen their commitments, to meet the 2 degree goal.

      I used Bangladesh as an example, as (a more wealthy Bangladesh, brought about through reliable, renewable, distributed energy systems, in the hands of the people, rather than major energy companies) may adapt to and tolerate a sea level rise associated with a 2 degree rise, but 4, 6 or 8? It doesn’t stand a chance. We could move the populations of Kirribatti to Western Sydney (saying sorry about the loss of their homeland as we did so), but are we going to relocate the hundreds of millions in low lying areas and absorb the staggering huge capital losses associated with ‘moving Mumbai’ somewhere else?

      No one likes abuse, and for this I don’t envy your organisation. (And I have tried to remain courteous.) To help avoid this, I would advise you disclose your donors on your website, so you are open with both your supporters and detractors. (For my part, I am a self-employed consultant.)

    • >> “If there was any possibility of carbon pricing reducing warming in any measurable way then we would consider that.”

      Andrew Cooper this is an example of the type of position the wrong policy principles end up with.

      The whole statement is based on the goal of “reducing warming”, which is not a goal that the government should have.

      The government should be interested in protecting private property rights, and ensuring that where damaging warming is likely that those causing the damage pay for appropriate adaption and mitigation (or if they don’t, become liable for the property damage they cause).

      With the correct policy principles, the goal of “reducing warming” becomes irrelevant; maybe warming should not be decreased, e.g. if the benefits of the energy are more than the cost of paying for adaption.

      If the cost is high (as experts tell us it is), then warming may be reduced compared to the situation where they remain external costs, but this is a side effect, not a goal.

      The new goal becomes maximising benefits for all.

      When protecting property rights, Australia should pay it’s fair share of the adaption costs/damages on principle, irrespective of the side effect on warming.

  171. They Have Not Told You That They Need Diesel Engines To Start all These Turbines and To Position The Solar Panels

  172. False fear mongering by the coal industry

    • we will be down the creek without a paddle if it were not for the coal industry, renewable energy are the bloody scare mongers.

    • there is a place for both. it is much better to debate without calling people names

    • Hi Robert Arkinstall there is a place for both. I think it is much better to debate without calling people names

    • Robert Arkinstall, the coal industry was a wonderful thing in the seventeenth and eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But the damage it causes to our future has been accumulating, and is no longer sustainable. It’s time is past.

  173. More alternate truth.. another complete crock. I know what the grandkids will be saying & it won’t be “Thank you fossil fuel industry”.

  174. how are wind farms renewable energy. made of steel and copper (mined from the ground) are mounted on massive cement columns bored into the earth with disturb ground water movement . and in the case at Edithburge SA limestone cave networks were destroyed by filling the up with cement. wind farms are massive maintenance. And has the looney left seen a lithium mine which batteries for smart cars are made????? halfwit morons

    • You dont have a clue do you. not a clue

    • Lyndon polgreen, wind power is far less maintanence then pil and coal. I mean have you seen the amount of money and damage coal pollution has cost?

      Have yoi seen the amount of unbreathable air in chine, or do you just choose to ignore anything to do with truth

    • Roger Clark u dont have a clue at all, above is all fact, love how you lefties blindly follow what you hear on left winged bias media and never been out into the real world and actually see what happens

    • Chris Hickey and we export coal to china to help create pollution while were going “carbon neutral’ so were hypocrites. moving pollution from one spot to another helps the planet ????? you need to get out into the real world aswell to see what actually happens, the Pt Augusta power station was a very clean running plant, once again were importing power from Vic coal powered plants, havnt saved any pollution . open you eyes and give your brains a chance for once. Ive been involved in tree planting programs, water harvesting programs, worked on Aboriginal communities in the NT…..what have you left winged wineing halfwits done for the world….sit around sipping lattees, living off of taxpayers money and waiting for someone else to do all the work…pathetic hypocrites

    • drive a Euro 5 common rail truck to save pollution they said. i end up with second degree burns and not much pollution happened. Thanks to the looney left……modern motors arnt lasting because of the pollution crap on then….so more motors are cast in foundrys creating more pollution….theres more pollution created in making batteries for “smart cars” than a V8 old school Chev put out in its life…..but the looney left sip lattees and let thier empty heads be lead by left winged bias uni studies by people who havnt been out in real jobs in the real world…..6%ers

  175. Klept propaganda.

  176. You stupid morons

  177. It’s time to double the targets.

  178. Bloomberg says fossil fuels are more expensive and that wind and solar are getting cheaper. Are they wrong?

    • Then why are subsidies paid to renewable energy corporations?

    • The price of renewables (especially solar) is indeed falling. It has got to this point because of subsidies. If you want to benefit from the economies of scale, then you need to give some assistance so that the number of users increases. Back in the early 2000s, a 1.5kW grid connected PV system would have cost around $8000 (panels, inverter and balance of system) for a self design/purchase/install, now a 1.5kW system costs around $2000 fully installed (and the subsidies are now a smaller part of the package too).

    • Patrick Bridges – Why do you deliberatley mislead? Since when is a loan – where money is repaid – a subsidy?

      Bloomberg are players in the renewable energy scam. Their graph may well be correct given current laws and regulations which constrain earnings by the fossil fuel generators. But take those constraints away and make it a fair playing ground, and that high cost would fall to well below the renewables.

      There is a reason that China builds a new coal fired power plant every three or four weeks, instead of building that equivalent generation capacity in renewables (even though they build most of the renewable equipment for dumb westerners). And its not because they favour very expensive fossil fuel plants over supposedly cheaper renewables.

    • Renato Alessio a low interest or zero interest loan that is below market rates is a subsidy. There are currently incentives for renewables (subsidies if you like) and these are designed to support development and growth of renewables to the point where they are cost competitive with fossil fuels. That point has now been reached and the gap is widening daily as large scale solar and wind gets cheaper. Its not a level playing field though because there are also massive subsidies for fossil fuels. Perhaps you missed it but china is leading the charge with renewables. The very conservative IEA (do you think they are part of the renewables scam too?) notes that last year renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world with most of the gains in wind and solar. “We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.”

  179. Aaah… The good old 3%
    F##%n Twats

  180. Piss off you morons. Time for dinosaur fuel to go to bed. Only problem is delivery, and THAT has nothing to do with generation. Quit lying, misleading and scamming. Renewables can supply fuel 24/7 with storage (proven technology) All dinosaur fuel does is produce polluting, world destroying bloody noisy and extroadinarily inefficient fuel source that does nothing for air quality and contributes to global warming (it doesn’t matter what the ignorant in power tell you, the world WILL continue to warm)

    • As I say, the proof is in the pudding or soup. In this case it is “stone soup”. I do have the vaguest grasp of engineering principles. And it works out like this, “renewable energy” chews up more dinosaur fuel than what it delivers in useful energy. Do you think it cost nothing in raw materials to produce solar panels for example? And they are only good for 20 years service and then must be replaced. Let me see the coal mines and oil fields close down and then I might believe it. But they don’t and never will. We will continue with dinosaur fuel until it is exhausted in a few hundred years. And then Western civilisation will collapse.

  181. Here is some more outside of my response to Colin Jones…

  182. That looks so ugly and silly.

  183. Get over yourselves and your own virtue-signalling bullshit. You have lost.
    Maybe if you actually did all of 30 minutes of actual research you may find that the bullshit you have been taught to peddle is exactly that….bullshit.
    Until you discontinue using your phones, cars, air con, tv, hot water, tap water, wearing clothes bought from a shop etc. you are all hypocrites.
    Go virtue-signal somewhere else. Like Tumblr. Sure they would love you there.

    • Maybe, with slightly over 30 mins it would become obvious that sure, it is easy to find various claims that there is something wrong with the warming model (the exact claims vary)… I mean, that is what search is great for, finding specific information, even if only small, out of the entire sea of the Internet… however, it also becomes obvious that the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientific opinion is that the earth is warming due to human causes.

      I can’t prove which side is right — there are plenty of historical examples where the minority turned out to be correct — but it does become clear which side I will base decisions on.

      Oh, and RET is still the *wrong* policy approach.

    • A very balanced reply and a good one. And you are right it is hard to sift bullshit from truth.
      With the 30 minute thing I am merely pointing out it is easy to find data that is very arguably more reliable than the Government and Greenpeace propaganda we have had force-fed to us the last 30 or so years.
      I was always skeptical as to how, if CO2 is so bad, crops and forests in general thrive from increased levels of it.
      In the last 3 years I have seen far more data come out completely debunking that we are the cause and the sole cause.
      Climate-denier? No. Climates ALWAYS change. Is it hotter? By 1 or so degrees. Have we contributed? Infinitesimally yes. Newer and nore specific data nearly every month now.
      Scientists abandoning this myth akin to the levels of females abandoning feminism.
      Evert single “prediction” the green army make being wrong time and time again.
      And the most vocal pricks on the subject driving sports cars, wearing designer clothes, owning unit complexes and hotels that burn more fuels to make them than the average person’s carbon footprint in a lifetime.
      And millions dying due to no access to cheap and easy electricity. Mostly kids.
      Forgive me if I seem a little combative.

    • With the link you provided a very good read mate. It raises some very interesting points on bad producers vs. good producers. I disagree with the opinion on what is to be done though.
      Reason being I despise totalitarianism. Utterly. There is no reason in a new millenium free market that these things cannot addressed.
      A very interesting read though mate. And very balanced aside from the totalitarian aspect.

  184. Apparently the wind didn’t blow hard enough and the sun didn’t shine strong enough in SA again today. Poor crow eating bastards are our RET guinea pigs.

    • And the Pelican Point gas fired power station once again sat idle.The private operator’s refused to crank it up. Sounds like all South Australians are being made to suffer to prove a point- that the fossil fuel industry has us by the short & curlys.

    • The SA Minister said on ABC that Pelican Point was ready to go but wasn’t called on by the National Grid operator who chose load shedding instead.

    • Kevin, I’m not sure what you think, but that is not a credible response from the Premier. For the NG to decide to inconvience 40,000 people instead of turning on the generator is nonsensical. It tells the world that there is something wrong with its grid.

    • Or that the Grid operator is running a monopoly that is open to profit gaming and political gaming. It’s over these utilities cannot keep playing win win over consumers power bills

  185. Why don’t you tell us who funds this crap?

  186. When we start properly costing coal power stations then I’m all for this….properly costing- I’m not talking about externality taxes, just capital accounting.
    Also why are classical liberals so anti externality taxes? It’s not taxing earning, saving or profit, and it takes from the dirty not from the rich.
    Is it because you think scientists are communists?

    • Where do we question the science? We do question the math and economics though…

    • Matthew David Francis he said “is it because you think scientists are communists”, but surely you could read that right?

    • What has tax got anything to do with the environment, and honestly uts a waste of money. Because how the hell can economists properly do a costing on the next 10,000 years of damage. That coal sourced energy will do.

    • I was messing with you on the science…but classical liberals who agree that man is changing the environment are somewhat thin on the ground

    • Interestingly, are you as vociferous about the government paying for roads to mines?

    • Stoowart Nickels, as “vociferous”? No. Publicly funded roads can usually demonstrate at least some benefit. Renewable Energy Targets fail to demonstrate any, they impose incredible costs on us all without achieving any of the benefits claimed. They should be scrapped immediately along with all RET subsidies.

    • We could build more roads then, or hospitals, or invest in medical research, or provide some tax breaks… maybe reduce public debt?

  187. Get off my feed you corporate shills

  188. Its obvious that policies that produce less pollution are of the best interest to humanity! Say yes to higher renewable energy targets!

  189. South Australia anyone?

    • If SA had renewable distributed power there’d be no blackouts. You can’t even mount a coherent case.

    • Classic Coalition tactic – repeat a fiction enough and people will start to believe it and repeat it themselves. Trump’s team have named this tactic – “Alternative Facts”.

    • Delusion of 50-100% RET continues. Listening to SA Premier last night, “oh why didn’t they turn on the idle Gas generators” & “oh it’s not my fault “I have to talk to the national energy market regulator” … I suppose also to ask why weren’t we connected to other states interconnections of coal fired p.s. What idiocy and yet the SA lemmings voted for this softly spoken water melon.

    • Evan Hadkins they have 45% renewables hence why SA is doomed under Jay the Lunatic.

    • Evan Hadkins exactly! And some storage as well! Europe can make renewables work. Our problem in Australia is that the big picture is not being seen. We must transition to renewable energy sources soon, but it is a whole package – energy efficient buildings, appliances, distributed generation with storage and a mix of renewables.

    • I am from sa and I cant wait too see us using 100% renewables!

    • what I sore on tv this morning it was the power compeness that failed you should look at the down fall of enron in the US and they cut power to make more money

    • We need to try and take politics out of this (as much as is possible). The fact is that our population is growing and so are our various appliances hence power demands. The climate change deniers (at the extreme end of the debate) are as wrong as the most strident of the green side. But the reality still exists that the traditional ways of getting our power does have an environmental impact. Also as anyone who has ever managed a successful business or coached a successful sporting side will tell you, you have to set goals. But they will also tell you they have to be realistic – So that is our challenge. Renewables are the future so how do we manage the transition to cause as little disruption as possible for as little financial pain as possible — Good luck us lol.

    • Ducking hilarious. When in doubt, just lie about everything. Truly pathetic….

    • Andy Good –

      What a stupid article. For starters – it doesn’t even acknowledge that one of the operators who colluded to increase power prices in NSW – Snowy Hydro – is a RENEWABLE energy supplier.

      And then it carries on with the fiction that if more renewables producers were introduced, it would decrease power prices – when the cost of generating that power by the renewables (wind and solar) is three to four times greater than the price of producing it from coal and gas.

      In a proper free market, without the law and regulations totally stacked against the coal and gas generators, all those extra renewable producers that the articles calls for, would go bankrupt – because it is impossible for them to compete when what they are selling is multiple times more expensive than the same item sold by their competitors.

    • Personally, I hope South Australia keeps doing what it says it will do, namely build even more renewable energy generators, so that it can export that green/renweable energy to other States.

      It will be a shining example to us and to the rest of the world of what can be done with renewables – eclipsing even the example of Spain – as to how to commit economic Hari Kari.

      Think of all the free publicity the State will get, as it becomes the Case Study of power generation for tens of thousands of Economics and MBA students around the world.

    • That was a distribution problem, NOT a generation problem. You know this, liar.

    • Hahaha libertyworks you’re fucked. Eventually you’ll just be a bad memory.

    • Tell us the full SA story you lying coal mining company d..k suckers

    • More political sport at the expense of the poor old crow eaters.

    • 7 tornadoes took out infrastructure [cutting off the wind turbines] then the interconnector shut down due to overload [which it was designed to do]. Living in SA, it wasn’t that bad, used to having power outages – so am prepared 🙂 The last big outage was when the bushfires came through and burnt everything. Climate change is making a huge difference and storms/bushfires will only get worse in time to come. So may as well get used to it now.

    • China actually owns SA power and truly what incentive do they have to make power reliable or cheap for Australians?

    • Renato Alessio Of course one must ask, what makes it expensive. That is, what are the inputs?

    • Janet Hogan the owner makes 4 times profit on every bill

    • Here is an Interesting article in Quadrant on the nutty advisors our Governments have on Energy

  190. It wasn’t renewable energy problems it was the fact that no one turned on any back ups that were designed for just such a situation . If you think renewables are a joke and you have kids maybe just sit them down and tell them you plan to destroy the world for them and say good luck

  191. SA is poor grid design – China produces 95 gigawatts of power from just solar alone. Australias peak electrical output is 50 Gigawatts. If China can produce nearly double our energy output from solar then what’s our excuse? Coal fire power stations are more expensive to build than the equivalent soal or wind farm. Wind, Solar, Hydro and Gas fired power stations are the way forward. Plus there’s technologies that can store excess renewable energy for night use.

  192. Leif,the human race is buggering your utopia, not your Global warming which is a natural and historical phenomenon

  193. The Loony Left Greens and Bill Shortens Labour Party got their wish of 50% renewables in South Australia ! Blackouts if Wind Blows and Black Outs if Wind does not Blow ! Industry , businesses loosing millions and leaving South Australia with no Jobs ??? The State Goverment has Had to use millions of Tax Dollars to fix Smelter that was destroyed ??? Renewables on their Own without back up Load Power do not work ! I am not a South Australian but if I was I would be demanding Goverments resignation for total incompetence and demanding Compensation ??

    • Have a look at California putting in base load BATTERY systems instead of gas fired plants to cover over night and surge demand. There is a lot more to this story than the ‘alt facts’ of the loony coal lobby.

    • The average Australian just wants to be able to put on an air conditioner , heat their homes in Winter , turn on the lights at night and not have to worry about Out of Control Bills they can not Pay ! Australians do Not want to hear their local politicians trying to blame everyone and everything for their abject failure to do their Job ! 🙂

    • A private sector gas monopoly that has discovered it can game the system in the sort term by creating high price spikes and gain in the long term by not providing blackout response which the Liberals then blame on renewables. Perhaps being anti green is an article of faith to you but you’ll need to wake up soon.

    • So create a Moratorium that stops Conventional Gas Extraction !-Australia has Massive reserves of Natural Gas they can be,extracted by conventional method at a cheap Price ! I to be a radical green living in the City in a bed sit or at home with Parents living off Welfare and not having to worry about Paying their way in society ! Hmmm It does sound so romantic to do Nothing with one’s life ! 🙂

  194. Check the data mate – There’s a natural cycle of warming and cooling. The CO2 levels do not get much higher than 300 parts per million. Since the last 200 years the CO2 levels have exceeded this and rising. Along with global temperatures. Wonder who is adding all that CO2 to the atmosphere? The natural CO2/Temperature cycle is known and repetitive. What we have now is compliments of 7 billion humans.

  195. I think if there was a little input on the workings of how this planet got an atmosphere like it has now from the gasses that were here over millions of years bit by bit plants taking in co2 and putting out oxygen as well as the oceans putting out oxygen. But those plants stored co2 and died by the millions over million s of years and the earth covers them and pressure in it forms coal is this true are there any arguments so far.
    Then in the last 100 years or so we have used this dug up black rock that is million s of years old and has stored the co2 and we burn it does this release the co2 that it stored.
    If so would this act be turning back the atmosphere bit by bit to a time past. And then add in a whole pill of other crap that is released into the same atmosphere and i for one start to understand. We live in a huge closed ball in space what we do affects it and we dont have another .

  196. What is all this stuff about the price of power putting pressure on household budgets? I’m grid connected and our power bill is less than $4 per day. Last quarter it was $3.30 / day. That gives us safe food, cold beer, light when ever we want, entertainment, news, Internet, clean cloths, heating & cooling if needed, hot coffee, the time, rapid heating of food. I drill holes, cut wood, grind & weld metal, earn a consultancy living, talk to friends and charge the various toys I have, like the iPad I’m writing this on. All for less than a coffee, 10% of a packet of smokes, a video hire or 2 stubbies. Stop banging on and go renewable which is easier on the pocket, the planet and finite resources. This is all a distraction to protect the interests of big coal & oil & you expect the great unwashed to simply follow. Oh and the power is on over 99% of the time and from where I sit I can appreciate wind turbines gracefully doing there thing and know that I’m earning 10% plus on my investment at 4c per turn per turbine at a feed in rate of less than 1/2 of the kWh cost to the consumer. Utopia!

    • The energy requirements of heavy industry and hospitals for example, are on a completely different scale to your domestic set up.

    • Understand that small to medium businesses pay a but more & some are very energy intensive. I own a small enterprise. Let hope that energy efficiency is a priority for others as it for us at a business & household level. Then there are the big guys who get great deals through state agreements etc.

    • Heavy industry and hospitals…? We’ve supposedly lost a lot of our heavy industry-so all your mates on the Right keep telling us, anyway- yet we have far greater electricity production than 40 years ago when we still had all the now “defunct” heavy industries. So there must, logically, be more power available to hospitals than ever before…???

    • Scot McCann, Except in South Australia where high renewable energy targets are substantially responsible for high cost and reduced reliability. Their RETs should be scrapped.

    • Not to mention the voluntary closure of Alinta’s worn out and inefficient coal fire power station at Port Augusta. Bring on solar, wind & upgraded grid rather than build another dinosaur & dig another hole in the earth.

    • Agreed Alan. Time this pseudo free market for energy was rebuilt with some decent comepeition . We are sick of monoply gas companies gaming the public.

  197. Renewables will never be enough to power our Nation….but Coal will

    • So as we keep subsidising it, right?

    • No…stop the renewable subsidies

    • Oh really? China produces 95 Gigawatts of power from solar alone. Nearly double our electrical production. That’s a fact.

    • Mining made this Country great…The Coal Industry is a large employer and many businesses with thousands of workers rely on the Coal industry…But I guess you don’t care about that

    • Mining gets $12bn or so per year in tax breaks and direct subsidies. The hallowed wisdom of history when I was a kid was that Australia rode on the sheep’s back, so I find your mining argument hard to follow. And most of my forebears were miners.

    • John Ashton, LibertyWorks is against subsidies of all kinds, including to the coal industry. But we’re curious, what subsidies do you believe that industry gets? They do get exploration cost tax deductions which is a normal business deduction, and there’s a diesel fuel rebate but is there anything else?

    • No jobs on a dead planet! Renewable energy sector has the potential to create more jobs than the mining sector.

    • You are all for individual libert- what is your position on land ownership?

    • Australia will still mine – Just not as much coal.

    • LibertyWorks,

      The mining, transportation and burning of coal cause irreversible healthcare impacts which are NOT paid for by the coal industry.

      The mining of coal causes
      irreversible ecological damage; the majority of which is paid for by the taxpayer.

      The burning of coal is largely responsible for GHGs, the impacts of which will never be paid for by the coal industry.
      Most of these global mining corps are favoured by demonstrably, unfair tax system.
      Chevron made $1.7 billion.and paid zilch.

    • You are full of shit…man made Climate change is a con job…the climate would change regardless…You are all hypocrites…stop driving your cars, using public transport, living in a house…nearly everything you own is a result of Coal…Go live in a cave

  198. QUESTION :
    if the answer is 1
    sack the incompitent decision makers.
    If it was 2
    Criminal proceedings please.

  199. Solar and battery way to go

  200. South Australia? the lightweight COAL electrons woulda, nay, shoulda stopped the towers & wires collapsing under the strain of those pesky turbine electrons which as we all agree are heavy from the slow turning turbiines, why, they pick up 4 more protons each thus overstressing the wires & towers to collapse point, storm? was there a storm that damaged the SA lines, most unlikely,

  201. This organisation is a total climate change denier. Read this about one of their advisers: Dr alan-moranAlan Moran
    Regulation Economics
    Alan is a noted economist who has analysed and written extensively from a free market perspective. Alan his written numerous books and articles on the interface between climate change, energy and our standard of living including editing and contributing to the 2015 book (published by Mark Steyn’s Stockade Books) Climate Change: the facts.

    His new book, Climate Change: treaties and action in the Trump era, is an examination of:

    The setting of the climate change agenda
    Its position in the international arena with treaties that are increasingly placing pressures on governments to take actions that are in conformance with them
    The costs involved, especially to Australia, in such actions regarding the climate change agenda
    The effects of the Trump Presidency in demolishing the Paris agreement and the Australian response and need for an exit strategy from the debilitating policies on renewables and other matters that have brought us a high cost and unreliable electricity supply

    • Thank you for pointing out that our board members believe exactly what’s in our article (which we assume you haven’t bothered reading). Much appreciated…

    • LibertyWorks : “which we assume you haven’t bothered reading”? You sound more like a passive-aggressive troll than a moderator…

    • f he is a ‘free market economist’ he will be researching the failure of the market in SA and the monoply of the gas companies.

  202. Remember folks, the earth is flat and the same people that deny global warming. Their empirical evidence is as follows: ” if you go up in a hot air balloon and hang around while the round earth is spinning on it’s axis, why is it that you cannot arrive at your destination by lowering the balloon”.

  203. Well we were lucky the Govt of the day encouraged and subsidised the roll-out of power plants in the late 1800 and early 1900s, but damn if we do the same now…….right…..

  204. Great! Just what we need! Another Facebook page sponsored by the coal industry!

  205. I think they should say “NO” to the drugs they’re on, trippers.

  206. Well I guess it doesn’t really matter as long as the ocean is full of radiation we are all pretty much fucked so I guess that’s got to leave it open to burn as much coal as u can cause hey ocean fucked we fucked.

  207. Its kind of like your dog has your best slipper and now its all chewed so ah what’s the point let him chew it up till its completely fucked

  208. you have your head well and truly stuck in the sand.

    • Whether our head, or yours, is stuck in the sand is irrelevant. Renewable Energy Targets do nothing to reduce warming and should be scrapped.

  209. Can u put one in my bedroom cause it’s been so hot of a night

  210. Money, money money and damn the world and it’s future generations? Try and convince us how good coal is for us, without mentioning money. When the fossil fuels are gone, what then? Is that when you’re going to take the issue of declining energy resources and the destruction of our country seriously? Every day, your industry loses new investment to renewables. And that’s a good thing.

    • If your concern is global warming, then whether renewables get new investment or not is irrelevant, it has negligible impact on warming.

    • LibertyWorks I didn’t mention global warming in my post at all did I? Like I asked, what’s your plan for when the fossil fuels run out?

    • Negligible impact on warming? Maybe if you are going by what’s actually working out there at this moment in combination with the fossil fuels pollution that’s being pumped into the environment, then no, we probably haven’t seen too much difference yet. Once we get rid of the fossil fuel industries and ramp up the renewables then we’ll see a marked difference, My country is more important to me than you making money.

    • Mick Sylwestruk and what will this marked difference be, do you know? How much will projected global warming be reduced if Australia was on 100% renewables for example?

    • Not sure. I’m sure someone, somewhere is doing the math. But something needs to be done to help stem the amount of crap that fossil fuels pump into the atmosphere and the amount of market we are losing out on globally because of the fossil fuel industries attempts to mire us in dirty, old habits. There’s no denying the fact that fossil fuels are a declining resource and industry, while the renewable sector is an industry that is surging ahead. In a time when Australia is desperate for new and innovative industries, we have been presented with the opportunity to be world leaders in new and emerging technologies. At the moment we are being left behind. It’s time to put Australia first.

  211. We are actually doing something to fight Co2 emissions ( by doing nothing) – China is buying up our coal mines EVEN the non profitable ones as Australian coal is vastly superior to their own product .Australia’s power stations contribute 2/3 rds of stuff all to green house gases & using more expensive, foreign made & unreliable “Green” energy is purely symbolic and as usual puts more onus on the Australian tax payer…..The irony is all those coal miners getting above average wages & paying lots of tax !

  212. It’s time to get rid of these ugly windmills

  213. These horrific noisy bloody things that kill birds and put people out of work. We do not need bloody renewables, there is not such thing and climate change, FFS wake up and bring back coal and jobs and be allowed to have the power on, unlike SA with their blackouts.

  214. big dirty coal deliberately cut off SA power. time to refuse supply charges. no supply no fee

  215. These wind turbines are a Eye sore & when its hot they don’t turn enough & when the wind is to strong their soft ware shouts down the power .

  216. Are you wankers for real? Climate change just green hysteria is it? Twats.

  217. What about solar panels on every house.

  218. Well I guess there would always be a need to look after the under dog in a 2 dog fight when its no one sided

  219. Are u saying that using coal won’t hurt because its already to late

    • We’re not pro coal, we’re anti subsidies and renewable energy targets because they don’t reduce warming. However, the costs are extremely high… job losses, higher electricity prices, less reliable supply, and increased taxes and national debt. It makes more sense to accept where we’re at and plan to adapt, as the human race has always done. Despite some of the misinformed predictions circulated here, the predicted changes are not all bad, only bad for some over a lengthy period of time. And it’s better to adapt from a position of prosperity and strength…

  220. Well it is probably a good time to look at that change as its at the door knocking even if people try and discredit it. If a system costs 20 thousand to install with battery and 10 year warranty that’s 2 thou per year and no black out. I pay about more than that now and as the price rises over that time I will be better off. I traveled in France and couldn’t help but notice the play area of schools all over the place had panels and it turns out there is a company that’s funding it and making there cream from that diference . is that not a huge business oppertunity.

  221. Japan is plainly absolutely dopey.

    Here they are building 45 new coal-fired power stations – fed with Australian coal – when according to Bloomberg, the renewable generators are ridiculously cheaper to build.

    Don’t they believe in Bloomberg economics?

  222. This is a very easy conversation. Renewables SHOULD be pursued. But not by forcing taxpayers to fund it. Coal-fired energy is our backbone. Cleanest coal on the Planet. Where I live in NQ our electricity prices are through the roof due to a) Government funded monopoly and b) Renewables taxation. You greenies who want to preach put your money where your mouth is and donate to projects developing renewables.
    You are all using computers, phones, cars, clothes, foodstuffs, air con, buildings that have all been possible because of COAL. Put up or shut up. Buy a horse. Weave your own clothing. Grow your own food. Build your own shack.
    On Global Warming have put up several videos debunking it. That is just videos. Scientists are abandoning GW like women are abandoning feminism.
    One thing that always amuses me with leftards is how ready they are to spend other’s money. Yet retain your own.
    Keep trolling. Keep spewing propaganda. Keep showing what clueless cucks you are. Keep demonstrating your hypocrisy. Keep it up!
    The entertainment value is exponential

Comments are closed.