Image by Vilius Kukanauskas from Pixabay
By Jo Nova
It’s like we live in a movie — everything around us is fake.
Everyone knows Australia won’t meet the fantasy 2030 target of a 43% reduction in carbon emissions, so there’s a flying-pop-tarts chance of us reaching an even higher one by 2035. Renewables investment is down 65%, farmers hate the transmission lines, offshore wind has stalled, and green hydrogen has collapsed, and yet the Labor Government is about to take the impossible and double it up. They are singing a reduction tune supposedly between 65 to 75%. Ludicrous, either way.
To make matters more absurd, not only will it not change the temperature in any measurable way, but the Australian people don’t want a higher target, and the Labor Party know that. If they thought it had any appeal, they would have sung hallelujah about the new target before the election, but they delayed it instead because they knew the voters would hate it.
Added to that, none of the Labor or Green politicians even seem to believe the scare themselves. It they did, they would have campaigned for nuclear plants 15 years ago, to save the world. Instead, NASA will get a nuclear plant on the moon before we build one in Australia. But we all “love The Science”, right?
If hypothetically, this whole charade was being fuel-injected from a foreign country trying to sabotage Australia, it might look like this.
The Government has never told us what the magic fairy cake of Net Zero will cost
It’s like buying a house and you don’t know the price.
For some reason the Business Council of Australia (BCA) is adding up what the Treasury can’t or won’t — and they calculate that a target of 70% by 2035 would *only* cost $530 billion dollars. This bargain deal, ladies and gentlemen, is just $18,000 a person, or nearly $80,000 from a family of four. Perhaps you’d like to vote on that? Nevermind.
The Business Council members include at least five banks, three tech giants, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, and many universities. All in all, the BCA is a walking-talking lobbying team for any Blob Subsidy Train. The universities dine on the grants, and the bankers have sunk “investment” in renewables, or they want to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party, who want Australia to buy their surplus of solar panels, and wind turbines, and EVs.
But even the Business Council argues that a 70% target will cost us $200b in lost investments. Rejoice, there is a tiny bit of sense there. In an ideal world (for them) the BCA wants a moderately big target, but they don’t want a target so high it breaks the country. They also want the “certainty” of the target being legislated. They need the guaranteed gravy train. This report is totally self-serving.
Business issues $530bn warning to Labor on 2035 emissions target
By Geoff Chambers, The Australian
Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen have been warned by Australia’s largest employers that cutting emissions by 70 per cent or more would carry a price tag of up to $530bn in capital investment, as business leaders refuse to provide cover for Labor’s higher climate targets.
Ahead of the Prime Minister and the Climate Change and Energy Minister unveiling a 2035 emissions-reduction target in the next fortnight, a Business Council of Australia report reveals the government is facing extreme financial, workforce and delivery pressures to land the net-zero transition
And thus it comes to pass that a group of business traders tells us we’ll all be $10,000 richer if we buy their scheme to stop storms.
Road to Net Zero
Judith Sloan, The Australian
But here’s the thing: notwithstanding the high probability the 2030 target won’t be met – and let’s not forget that this target is legislated – both climate activists and self-interested businesses are campaigning for a ridiculously high target for 2035, of 75 per cent relative to 2005. While this target may seem absurd, fervent beliefs can be a powerful force, even if these beliefs are essentially baseless.
The report, produced by Deloitte Access Economics, reaches the extraordinary conclusion that a 75 per cent target would add $370bn to GDP by 2035, which in per capita terms is $10,000.
In addition, there would then be an additional 69,000 jobs – trivial given the number of employed is almost 15 million. We are also told that export revenues would increase by $190bn by 2050 in total, which is a rounding error. Iron ore, coal and LNG today generate almost $250bn in export income annually.
And everyone keeps a straight face. And no one says “Before we spend half a trillion dollars, shouldn’t we at least check the science?”
How can killing businesses and the Australian economy produce more jobs and more wealth. It is just an illusion based on fairytales.
500
Meanhwile
Whilst Chine is selling Australia Wind Turbines & Solar Panels, that are Destroying the Environment and Bankrupting Australian Manufacturing & Businesses with soaring Energy Prices, and which will have to be replaced after 10-20 years
China Builds Two Coal Plants Weekly
China is continuing to build new coal-fired power plants, with government guidelines indicating plans to keep constructing them through 2027 in regions where they are needed to meet peak power demand or stabilize the grid.
While the specific figure of two new coal plants per week in 2025 is not directly confirmed by the provided sources, the trend of significant coal plant construction persists. In 2022, China permitted the equivalent of two new coal plants per week, a rate that continued into 2023.
The state planner’s recent guidance confirms that new construction will proceed.
Australia Led by Idiots Labor – PM Albo, Balckout Bowen ably assisted by Greens, TEALs, Labor Lite Liberals-LINOs
230
A Cost/Benefit Analysis, anyone? Anyone?
Their Modelling would appear to be as good as the Climate Alarmist Modelling.
Wrong every time.
220
If the grid goes black in Victoria and there are now new 500kV sub lines with only intermittent power the “extended grid” will be extremely difficult to restart in the event of a black grid. Downtime is then dependent on damage to any main transformer, especially those connected to wind and solar farms. These smaller sources of power are unlikely to have immediate spares. These parts are currently on 18 month delivery.
The new power lines will then need to be disconnected from the grid.
SA will be islanded.
120
Net Zero will make a grid connection unaffordable.
New interconnects will make the grid unstable and non rebootable.
This is greed on steroids.
When the new lines are activated Victoria is going to go splat.
SA will be collateral damage.
That 750MW Marinus Link better run at 750MW for 8 years! Pray for rain in Tasmania. That’s how long for a big gas turbine.
100
With the way governments are running things, $10,000 in 2035 may get you a loaf of bread.
360
If not, let them eat cake?
70
That is how they plan to do iit . Inflation..
Remember that ALP governments in NSW funded two major road projects by bankrupting the builders.. I think this method may hae been appplied in Victoria, too.
00
“… fervent beliefs can be a powerful force, even if these beliefs are essentially baseless.” Indeed. See the Wikipedia article:
Witch trials in the early modern period
Substitute Carbon Dioxide for ‘witch’ and there is an eerie similarity.
290
Yes! There’s an eerie similarity with the climate cult – and so many people have a ‘follow the cult’ mentality. Facts & logic are offensive – especially good news!
60
They floow thw blokw they think is in ifront.
Usually the one making the most noise.
00
Again, no one has ever proven that very slowly increasing CO2 is man made or even a problem.
Nett zero is a make believe political solution to a make believe problem.
Growing trees does not reduce CO2. NASA proved that ten years ago when they observed tree coverage increased massively from 1988 to 2014 without affecting CO2 in the slightest.
But someone (guess who?) gets $530 billion for nothing while we Australians become $530billion poorer and weaker. And according to our Prime Minister, cannot afford to spend more on defence.
320
Well, the world better watch out, there is a fair chance that the carbon that I have sequestered over the last 80 years will be released back into the atmosphere sometime soon.
I was planning on getting the kids to “plant a tree”, but I might go for the last laugh option and just waft around in the wind for a few years driving politicians and climate scientists mad!
220
“no one has ever proven that very slowly increasing CO2 is man made or even a problem”
So many settled things get unsettled.
Isn’t it interesting that in our vaunted Age of Science, turns out we are no less susceptible to mass fear than when we imagined spirits in the sky.
In fact, we are seeing spirits in the sky now.
We call them UAPs. (Maybe we weren’t imaging after all.)
We have venerated holy men that we now call ‘scientist’ and ‘Doctor’.
Turns out they get just as corrupted as many of the ‘holy’ men of the past.
Maybe the modern Knowledge Hierarchy hasn’t quite collapsed, but the carrion birds of history are beginning to circle.
“Carrion birds if history”.
I might’ve made that one up all by myself.
140
Presently reading Iain Gatley’s
La Diva Nicotina (2002)
The Story of How Tobacco Seduced the World
(swap ‘tobacco’ for ‘carbon’ and voila!).
Same holy smoke: shamen, priests & profits; wisps of ethereal magical haze; the promise of a brighter Next Tuesday; tariffs, trade & pirates; kings, queens & inbetweens … for the sake of the children of course.
Humorous, irreverent, spanning continents and ages, it’s my kind of book. Now excuse me while I step outside and roll myself a cheroot…
110
Substitute ‘witch doctor‘ for ‘climate scientist‘ and their claims make so much more sense.
30
TdeF. There is an equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. I’m no expert so perhaps you can explain to me. The argument seems to be that if CO2 rises in the atmosphere that rise is due to human emissions. Presumably a fall would also be so called and a sign of ‘how well destroying our fossil fuel energy system has been in ‘controlling’ global CO2 and hence ameliorating global warming into the future because warming still only followed the same path since the end of the LIA.
Because of the equilibrium that exists between the two environments, and the huge volumes of CO2 that entails especially in the oceans I don’t see how there can ever be a change in the atmospheric CO2 that could be so assigned specifically to humans. With the changes either up or down in ocean temperatures such as occurs with el Ninio and La Nina changing the movement of CO2 into or out of the oceans, let alone subsea level volcanism both as a source of CO2 and warming that is unseen, how can any change in atmospheric CO2 be assigned to any one specific factor let alone to the minimal output for which humans are responsible. Presumably the different Carbon isotopes would react similarly in solubility and within the equilibrium , so what is the factor that designates human sourced CO2 as the prime GHG raising the [CO2]atm?
Sorry long winded but I find it puzzling.
51
Hi doc,
Here’s a link to a comment from about a year ago.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/08/dear-elon-1000ppm-of-carbon-dioxide-is-safe-we-breath-it-every-day/#comment-2792162
While it doesn’t answer your question it does give some interesting details about the place, and importance of CO2 in our lives.
The comment by Alan that follows indicates that humans can tolerate quite high levels of CO2 whereas my comment points to the fact that very low levels of CO2 are dangerous.
Our CNS requires CO2.
This setup suggests that at sometime way in the past, maybe millions of years ago, we developed under conditions of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
30
“Because of the equilibrium that exists between the two environments, and the huge volumes of CO2 that entails especially in the oceans”
Like water, H2O, another gas at 1% to 4% in the atmosphere (as a gas, not water as in clouds). The certainty is that ALL of the CO2 in the air is replaced with ocean CO2 within ten years. Some say 5 years. CO2 continually evaporates and is dissolved across 3/4 of the planet.
The whole of man made CO2 relies on a naive idea that the atmosphere is like a bucket. And the only players are humans and plants. Their idea of equilibrium is that the situation was perfectly in balance until fossil fuels. And the plants cannot cope, so CO2 goes up. This is incredibly silly. It’s a wonder they don’t argue that the H2O from fossil fuel combustion increases humidity.
It all relies on people not being aware firstly that almost all CO2 is freely dissolved in the ocean (98%) and secondly that CO2 being heavier than air and 30x more soluble than air (O2,N2) goes straight into the ocean.
But it does. And in this paper (click on Table 1) are 36 papers with estimates of the lifespan of CO2 in the air.
And you can see his conclusions.
(1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and is less than 5 years.
(2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable.
(3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere.
I would update the 90% to 98%, using C14 measurements.
And you are right. Annual fossil fuel CO2 is no more than 1% of 2% of the total of Co2 or 0.02% of total CO2. The idea that tiny fossil fuel CO2 would prefer to stay in the air is absurd. It is chemically identical to all other CO2. Maybe it is being precious and refuses to enter the water? Or maybe it has no friends so it leaves the water? It’s all quite ridiculous.
This is before you even get to the implications of a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 250 years at a rate never exceeding 0.4% per year in an almost straight line. Physicists like William Happer can prove that even doubling CO2 has only a 1% effect on IR emissivity. Which corresponds to a 1.7C increase in temperature in the next 250 years, at most. Otherwise CO2 is universally a good thing. So is a tiny bit of warming. If I am not mistaken, most people escape to warmer places for their holidays.
If the increase in CO2 is not man made, the whole story falls apart. Which is why we have this fairy tale about fossil fuel CO2 being special and precious and 53% of it refusing to enter the ocean.
70
Now! Just a minute, TdF. Who can forget Twiggy Forest’s “Lethal Humidity”. It has to come from somewhere, you might just have stumbled on the source!
10
Commit to 75% and you get your prize – COP31!
“Former UN climate chief urges Australia to set ‘prosperity’ target of cutting emissions by 75% by 2035….. Ambitious target would increase the country’s chance of winning rights to host Cop31 in 2026, Christiana Figueres says.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/31/former-un-climate-chief-urges-australia-to-set-prosperity-target-of-cutting-emissions-by-75-by-2035
230
Yeah, it seems like Australia is currently at the top of the leaderboard for ‘last developed country to abandon Net Zero nonsense’.
The UK is just as bad presently, but they’ve got the looming specter of the Reform party taking over in a few years and going on a Trumpian ‘drill baby drill’ abandonment of the whole cockamamie scheme. There is no such committed opposition in Oz. Meanwhile, on the European continent, most western European countries are at various stages of realizing they been hoodwinked and are slowly beginning to abandon their green pledges. Even New Zealand seems to be way ahead of Australia in recognizing that Net Zero is a loser and is destroying their economy with no environmental benefit.
Australia will be the last one out. Be sure to turn off the lights and lock the door behind you when you (finally) leave.
30
ALL our institutions are broken and infested with anti-science, anti-reason Leftists (apologies for the tautology) and subsidy harvesters, including the Business Council of Australia.
350
It’s amazing that there has never been a science debate. Nowhere.
Almost all Australian scientists work for the government and you are fired if you dare disagree with the politics of the ruling party, not that Labor and the Liberals differ at all on man made CO2 driven Armageddon level Climate Change. Even after 37 years of nothing much has happened and the drought which would never end is a distant memory while we wait for the next one.
As for 97% of scientists agree, that’s a ridiculous lie. You get fired if you say anything to question the purely Political Science while China buys our coal and iron ore and sells us wind towers and solar panels and transmission lines and cables while we sell them the coal and iron ore to make them. But no one can see a problem with that while our government says we cannot afford to defend ourselves.
Meanwhile were are doing our best to insert racism in our Constitution while Victoria has inserted a ban on all things nuclear, fracking, coal seam gas extraction in our Victorian Constitution, making it impossible for future generations to save themselves. Or at least keep our coal and gas in the ground until China wants it.
310
Not just a science debate, where is the economic debate?
Why is Net Zero the only acceptable solution? Other solutions are wait and see if anything needs to be done, invest in research for alternate power while we continue as is (Lomborg’s approach), improve power availability and reliability around the world to provide resilience in case of climate change (cooling anyone?), signal the mother ship etc.
Even without the science, economically net zero doesnt stack up.
And please someone tell me how we get more jobs when Net Zero will tank the economy? Is it more rickshaw drivers because we wont have fuel to run cars?
150
Fully agree. How is it possible that politicians pass punitive laws on the basis of science opinions which they call the ‘consensus’. All of this nonsense is unproven rubbish. There is zero proof that atmospheric CO2 is 1/3 fossil fuel CO2. The only logic I have seen is that CO2 has gone up and emissions have gone up so we are guilty. That at best an argument of correlation, coincidence, not science proof in any way. Plus you can check. Fossil fuel CO2 is not radioactive. Normal biosphere CO2 is radioactive. The dilution of atmospheric CO2 by fossil fuel CO2 is currently 0.0%. QED.
And yet we are paying endless CO2 taxes. To save the planet. Who cares about the economy. Not our politicians. They are committed to bankrupting the place and sending our cash to climatebaggers including the UN, China and the other 150 states who agree with it all but just want cash. It’s legislated robbery.
90
An excellent question … one that modern governments seem to ignore on all kind of issues. The same can be said of the Covid lockdowns, which had a HUGE economic impact that no one bothered to debate before launching them. It seems no one in power understands the concept of ‘unintended consequences’ anymore, and how doing the ‘righteous’ thing in one area may have devastating effects in other areas. Our leadership is getting progressively monomaniacal on single issues and seems unable to understand the big picture.
60
Any organisation that is not explicitly conservative will eventually be taken over by leftards, as a wise person once said.
This is occurring at an accelerating rate.
120
Is it just me being paranoid? Between Dan Andrews’ performance in China, and the obstinate push for more spending, I have this horrible feeling that the Labor leadership is confident it is just a smidgen away from unopposed, communist takeover. The Labor leadership even has a well established terrorist wing with trained ME immigrant sympathizers in waiting to dispel any dissent and counter well-meaning protests with pro-Palestinian protests. The ABC is on board and working in tandem. I hope it’s just me.
190
You are not being paranoid at all.
90
Interesting.
And as usual Labor will not have thought through the consequences. The Brotherhood they have imported are not beloved of the Chinese or vice versa. I cant see the terrorist wing working to facilitate the communist takeover, just the opposite. But the way the Labor leadership acts as though they are going to be in power forever, is pretty fair indication.
110
You weren’t supposed to have noticed.
40
Check the science? We don’t need no stinking science! They’re going to kill your beautiful country, Jo.
170
Can someone explain the export revenues of 190 billion by 2050 – an increase mind you.
110
The same logic that said the nations of the world are going to fall over themselves to buy Australian green energy produced hydrogen and steel. That’s totally ignorant of the fact that half the people of the world don’t bother to have anything to do with the theory of human induced global warming in the first place.
Those people / nations are enjoying cheap fossil fuel based energy systems right now and absolutely flourishing at our expense. We even provide the fossil fuels as though our dumb politicians believe burning them overseas saves the planet while burning them here is poison. We need those nations to produce cheap everything we’ve given up producing ourselves because our energy system is grossly expensive, failing, inconstant and not up to the job. What we get back comes with a profit to the manufacturer on top of the cost of manufacturing.
The insanity is unbelievable!The Enlightenment is reversed. Our education system for politicians is entirely devoted learning how to be a good communist or conservative. Most have no idea of maths, physics, chemistry, engineering, electricity etc. Food come from Coles. Farming is old fashioned and food should be synthetic or made from cockroaches. Money grows on trees so investment is no longer needed.
60
You made a lot of good points. China, Viet Nam, India, and Indonesia are growing their economies by moving up the value chain in manufactured goods. There was a desire to do this Australia 25 years ago before these Asian economies took off…using a lot of Australian raw materials.
30
It’s hard to believe that the belief and promotion of anthropogenic global warming among the Elites is due to stupidity. (The belief among the ignorant and uneducated classes is, in fact, an exception and due to stupidity.)
It has to be due to malice.
262
” (The belief among the ignorant and uneducated classes is, in fact, an exception and due to stupidity.)
Your remark says much.,
58
Unfortunately David has a habit of calling those he disagrees with stupid, or other names.
Here he describes them as ignorant and uneducated. Which is not necessarily name calling but rather describes them as lacking information. However, he also seemingly has the regular desire to alienate them from a blog like this by calling them names. Which is counter productive to what he actually desires.
89
He is simply stating the facts, as he sees them. I actually agree with him. Twenty years ago, I witnessed a bunch of school students going into my child’s school to indoctrinate them into the correct religious beliefs (we’re all going to drown because of gorebull warming). Young adults these days have never had a hope.
50
He’s stating his opinion, not facts. It is not a fact that someone who doesn’t agree with him is stupid.
Your story highlights the point I’m making. People need alternative information such as this blog provides. If people come here it’s best they are welcomed and not told they’re stupid. Or they won’t stick around long enough to read the info.
When the media keeps telling us 97% of scientists agree that AGW is the cause of catastrophic weather, when our science institutions promote AGW as the cause of everything we need to worry about, and when education systems tell kids the same messages, you’d almost have to be stupid not to believe it when it’s the only message. Insulting them doesn’t spread the word.
You can’t complain about people being ignorant and then actively work against them receiving the information you wish them to have, by insulting them.
20
Just show me the scientific paper/s that prove human output of CO2 is causing the greater part of global warming and I will believe you. Opinion science doesn’t count. Chris Kenny did an AI search on the topic. That AI search stated there is currently no proof of theory.
I suggest both your statement and Ian’s are more applicable to yourselves rather than to David Maddison if you blindly follow the populist creed of climate without question. Also, it would seem nearly 50% of the world’s people don’t agree with it nor you. China, India and now the USA relish fossil fuels. Two are thriving like never before. Trump is determined the USA will continue to thrive and not destroy itself! China’s reticence has made it our greatest antagonist. They have no uprisings in support of the AGW theory. Western democracies use fear campaigns to drive the policies. How’s that for a reversal of normality? China and India burn the fossil fuels we send them but which we are banned from using. But if we stop exporting the Indonesia is very happy to take over our markets. There is no appreciation of ff’s vital place in our history; those intransigent nations demonstrate fossil fuels are vital for our continuation to exist, our progress and our futures.
I would say we are stupid people incapable of researching that which our politicians say is scientific truth when such a huge part of the world says nuts! Yet that is the basis on which we destroy our own economies and security. There is nothing nationally more stupid than that!
30
My comment about David often disparaging the intelligence of people who don’t see things his way is in no way me supporting the notion that warming is due to CO2, or that it is a problem due to human activity, or even me disagreeing with David’s opinions on AGW or politics.
For the most part, David and I would agree on various matters.
My desire is that people who think CO2 and AGW are problems would read this blog regularly. Maybe then they can draw different conclusions to the information being fed to them via the mainstream media and the claims of our government.
My concern is that those who would benefit most from reading this blog are going to be deterred from doing so, because of the disparaging descriptors given to them.
20
As if.
I know some of these people – they are otherwise dear friends. They would not ever conceive reading/informing themselves outside the ABC and the leftist echo chamber.
Ergo, they will never know DM called them disparaging names.
Just as I live in my own echo chamber on this blog, new Catallaxy, Sky After Dark – and would never ever read “the Conversation” or watch the ABC. Why raise my blood pressure when I already know what they’ll say and am not interested.
10
I watch Sky after dark regularly. I also occasionally read articles in the Conversation.
So you know some people who wouldn’t read this blog. Big deal. You can’t account for everyone.
00
We are indeed living in an era of not merely untruths, but total delusion. Why has this happened in the western world at this point in our history? I have always believed that it is the consequence of “ affluenza” and consequential self indulgence. Post WW2 the western world enjoyed a period of extraordinary economic growth. Extended years of education and high employment encouraged a sort of mea culpa complex – a belief that the West was to blame for the problems of the rest of the world. Thus, the rise of the Greta Thunbergs, and the Net Zero hoax.
As a result, it appears that the West is self immolating. Sadly, it seems only those of the immediate post WW2 generation that recognise the tragedy that is engulfing the West in terms of unrestrained and immigration and disastrous energy policies.
310
Gad Saad said:
250
Also by Gad Saad:
200
” only those of the immediate post WW2 generation that recognise the tragedy ”
😊
50
You’ve got to admit the Business Council of Australia is behaving exactly like your local council when it comes to other people’ money.
230
Yes, they are “unrepresentative swill” to quote Paul Keating. They really dont represent “business” in Australia at all. Certainly not any small or medium businesses which will probably be the most affected by the Uniparty policies. Because this isn’t a Lib/Lab thing and most of the federal politicians are believers in the climate fantasy. The BCA would also be the only reps allowed into the emissions reductions negotiations tent. Right of entry depends on you not criticising the government. Do so and you will be kicked out of the tent. But as this article points out, the BCA reps are most likely to benefit from all the subsidies. It’s a big club and we’re NOT in it. George Carlin that time.
150
And then in a couple of decades the renewables need to be renewed again. So where’s the money going to come from?
220
The consumer and/or taxpayers.
But there are limits. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.
160
Magic FIAT money tree, which is responsible for the expansion of government. When one body in a society has the power to create money at no cost to itself, it is inevitable that body will grow too large. Then you get problems such as money waste, incompetence, corruption, eroded privacy : liberty, unaccountability, bureaucratic overreach and excess regulation. The Emissions target scheme is like a perfect storm of all those ills.
140
“To make matters more absurd, not only will it not change the temperature in any measurable way” in our or our children’s children’s life times! Typical politician keep pushing the ungettable target until they resign and safe from retribution.
120
Is this why Mini Xi Andrews is cozying up to the Chicom while at the same time spoiling the AUKUS Treaty without a word of condemnation from Albo? Laying the ground work for another run at China’s Belt and Road Initiative
180
Dictator Dan is still the best way to describe him. Photographed with all the other dictators. Perfectly allowable to also replace “tator” with “head”.
130
I like Kim Jong Dan.
30
The Australian has got it right with the Dan Boy –
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary
80
All of this drama is predicated on the concept that Carbon Dioxide is able to do what they say it’s doing.
No! it cannot mysteriously draw in “radiation” from “somewhere”, store it and at the appropriate time, spit out thermal doom at us.
The concept of CAGW might be described as nonsense by those with a generous nature, but anyone who has the scientific understanding to assess the situation correctly knows that it has been carefully constructed to misrepresent and give those in dominant positions a weapon of control over us.
No! The British did not end slavery; it’s still with us.
151
The super expensive, toxic, unreliable W & S disasters will have to be renewed every 15 to 20 years and only generate on average a combined capacity factor of about 22.5% of every year and every decade.
These are very simple sums that any sane person should easily understand yet we have clueless donkeys who don’t even begin to understand the CF data?
And every wind DROUGHT(s) at night(s) we will have blackouts again and again. Then how do we recharge the stupid, useless toxic batteries and how can we save our electricity grids?
Then as an added bonus we also destroy our Aussie environment for NOTHING and wreck the economy and our nationsl security. SARC.
180
Had a call yesterday from a solar panel installer. When I said I already had panels that were installed in 2010 he suggested I should be upgrading.
If you have a system that is more than 10 years old, the Vicgov rebate is available for upgrading providing the household income is less than $200k and property value less than $3M.
Governments have recognised that rooftops are still the low hanging fruit for the “transition”.
FY to Jun 2025, weather dependent generation contributed 41.1% of the demand. It was up 3% on FY2024. Rooftops went up from 11.4% to 12.6% so contributed to half of the increase in WDG share of demand. The wholesale market was static at 186.4GWh for the year.
Until there is more storage, rooftops are the only source of generation that can increase unconstrained. There is no recent detail on Snowy 2 progress other than a data free feel good video so the December 2028 completion date remains unlikely.
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/snowy-2-0-project-update-april-2024/
So, providing you discount all the carbon that goes into manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, pumped hydro, thousands of kilometres of transmission lines, synchronous condensers, lithium batteries and so on in China, the electricity grid should meet the 43% reduction target by 2030. It may achieve it this financial year given the uptake of new rooftop solar.
Industrial use of carbon is declining because no heavy industry is viable in Australia other than mining that is not reducing its carbon usage.
Transport is the tough nut. Carbon intensity of the Australia transport sector is still increasing.
130
Great, 43% reduction of nothing is less than nothing. I’m so happy.
70
Thus implying that 10 years is the useful life of domestic rooftop solar.
And if it isn’t, why are they replacing something that doesn’t need replacing and wasting taxpayers’ money?
180
You’re wondering why a salesperson is trying to convince a potential customer to buy something they don’t need. That’s what sales is mostly. A classic example is, “Would you like fries with that?”.
Money going into their pocket is not wasting taxpayer’s money, to them.
70
That’s not the point. The point is that the Government is prepared to use taxpayer money toward replacing systems that are only ten years old which is less than their claimed life.
120
I agree that it is ridiculous that the government wastes money on such things. They offer these schemes with seemingly little checks and balances, with installer companies springing up to take advantage. They also approve the use of and pay for poor products in the hot water schemes, “efficient” lighting replacement schemes, and solar equipment schemes. The demand it creates is no good for the genuine businesses, or the customer. Government schemes often feed the unscrupulous.
However, your musings were about the tactics/attitude of the salesperson and their preparedness to waste government money. Not the government.
It’s hard to blame the salesperson. If the government doesn’t care about waste then why is it the salesperson’s responsibility to avoid it?
40
I said nothing about the tactics of the salesperson.
The Government is the one supplying taxpayer dollars for the subsidy. They shouldn’t be doing that. Obviously the salesperson will do whatever they can to make the sale but only if the taxpayer money is available from the Government.
My original comment is clear:
60
Fair enough. I was probably too aware of Rick saying, “he suggested I should be upgrading“,
and that I know the government govt requirement is that the property hasn’t had a solar panel system installed within the last 10 years. Which the salesperson is attempting to exploit.
Obviously the government doesn’t think that systems that are more than 10 years old likely need to be replaced. The the aim is to allow people to expand or improve their systems and be encouraged by the rebate. Not to replace perfectly good systems. Govt assumes that because there are out of pocket costs that people won’t waste their own money replacing perfectly good systems (Like Rick saying no) that probably haven’t paid for themselves yet. Which comes back to the appropriate checks and balances being needed and typically failing, and salespeople looking to sell something that’s not needed.
20
I have already conributed my tax money so other people could install solar on their houses. Now you’re saying I have to contribute more to replace or upgrade those panels?
I say NO.
160
The subsidy farmer was not put off by me telling him that the panels still produce at rated power. He stopped pressing when I told him I did not have an electricity bill so there was no savings possible from increasing the size of the panels.
The governments are finding it hard to get access to land for wind and solar generation and the associated transmission lines. Rooftops are easy and mostly under-utilised. I have room for more panels but there is not much point if there are no savings possible. I do not see much benefit in leaving my electricity credits to the children.
160
Quickest way to uglify a house- put solar panels on the roof.
70
Not a problem for me.
20
We have a 10kw solar system installed in the paddock adjacent to the house. As yet,we do not have a battery. We have a constant battle with our electricity intermediary ( I refuse to call them a provider) regarding the “bills”. Some time ago the company removed the old meter which was read by service people, and replaced it with a “smart meter” while we were absent. However, we do not have a reliable mobile phone service, being in a “remote” area. As a result, our bills are irregular and incorrect, and, of course, invariably favouring the “ provider”. This is in stark contrast to former times when the company generally paid us!
I am desperate to get a battery ( would prefer a vanadium pentoxide battery when possible) but husband is opposed to the cost. I say – what cost is too much for freedom from these sharks?
70
With the smart meter, there should be no issue with having accurate metering data, which you can see yourself.
The distributor should be able to give you direct access to your data. For example, Ausnet have this web site where you can log in to your meter data:
https://myhomeenergy.com.au
There is also a window on the meter that allows digital monitoring from a light pulse transducer up to your phone:
https://www.emerald.com.au/electricityadvisor/
These were one of the many things that the Victorian government provided free to user using OPM. The battery in the transducer lasts about 5 years. The battery can be replaced but the case needs to be prised apart.
Having large enough battery to go off grid has a long payback period – probably more than 10 years depending on circumstances. A 10kW battery paired with 10kW of solar panels would reduce energy costs close to zero for most households unless you have a lot of winter heat pump usage.
60
Deepest sympathy. A friend has a farm hidden behind the Gloucester range and his “service providers” are also misnamed.
20
Even the crazy net zero pathway will cost about 1.5 TRILLION $ dollars by 2030 and a full cost of 7 to 9 TRILLION $ by 2050.
And that’s 25 times the cost of Nuclear ( see ABC and CSIRO cost of Nuclear) by 2030 and up to 116 to 150 times the cost of Nuclear by 2060.
See the Net Zero Australia group plus Renew economy and the Insurance Broker’s report I linked to yesterday.
90
Here’s that Insurance broker’s report. Just read the first few paragraphs if you have the time.
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-problem-australias-net-zero-cost/#:~:text=The%20latest%20report%20from%20Net%20Zero%20Australia%20%28University,meet%20Australia%E2%80%99s%20aspiration%20of%20net%20zero%20by%202050.
30
🔥Reality Check: Actions have consequences. 😱
To cut carbon emissions first cut that which is causing the never-ending increase in carbon-emissions in Australia.
Net Zero the international transfer of carbon emissions into Australia.
Mass migration = mass carbon migration
Net Zero the Mass Carbon Migration Ponzi Scheme. 🔥
50
The movie is called ‘Fake Lives Matter’ and the Albanese government making out like it’s the director of a sell-out blockbuster. Unfortunately, we’re the ones being sold out. Sadly, it doesn’t look like we’ll be able to vote ourselves out of that script. ‘Bout time we started planning to write our own script and direct our own movie blockbuster.
80
My worry is that the Australian Blob thinks we’re cooked, so it’s thrown it’s lot in with the East and promised to keep quiet. Part of the deal is to let the East beat us up with climate change.
80
Albo wants us to be a solar panel producing “renewables” superpower
Meanwhile
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/china-tackles-price-wars-bloated-solar-sector-amasses-huge-losses
50
So that’s where the predicted increase in Export Income is coming from with their ‘Eggs Spurt’ Modelling……….LOL
40
A few chocolates on the way for Happy Friday.
60
As I posted earlier on the Friday Post –
Green jobs make us poorer
Conclusion –
It is crystal clear that all talk of a “green revolution” is simply a pipe dream. These green jobs are only a façade, Potemkin jobs to give politicians and policymakers a good sound bite and make them feel good about themselves. The idea that we can move to “green prosperity” by subsidising each job to the tune of £192,000 every year is plainly absurd. These jobs are a drag on the rest of the economy, acting as a tax on energy. We need to end this economic fantasy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/25/green-jobs-make-us-poorer/
60
Thanks for the reminder.
Small Ping !
00
70 per cent or more would carry a price tag of up to $530bn in capital investment
Ridiculously low number. The $530bn is a gross understatement.
There are 20M diesel and petrol powered light vehicles is Australia. A BEV replacement is $50k. So the light vehicle fleet alone would cost $1tr to convert to BEV. That would cut transport emission by around half – again, not counting the carbon burnt in China to make and ship them to Australia.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsl.sbs.com.au%2Fpublic%2Fimage%2Ffile%2F108333a1-a5bd-44f9-b306-44bc44983994&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=8c1cf45aed3eb62af5177026c1af2c1cb5c49c28bc52dc0912f9df12cc66f39d
Then the amount of rooftop solar has to be at least doubled along with larger household batteries to provide the electricity to charge the car batteries.
The emission reduction in Australia since 2005 is almost entirely due to changes in land clearing practices and not counting the resulting bush fires as carbon sources. Look at Table ES.02 in this report:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-inventory-report-2023-volume-1.pdf
140
A cost of $18,000 will leave us richer by $10,000? Surely that is still $8k down? Is this perhaps monkey math?
70
Like Ed Miliband’s promise that rewables will save us £300 on our energy bills and free us from price volatility (but only after they’ve gone from £1200 to £3600 a year or similar).
20
I don’t recall one time they changed the energy price cap prior to lockdowns (at least for 8 years), and afterwards, they’ve been changing the price cap as often as they’re allowed. And always going up over the winter periods to maximise profit.
10
The only thing that is going to change by 2030 is the people and parties the electorate are prepared to vote for.
10
” and they calculate that a target of 70% by 2035 would *only* cost $530 billion dollars”… which will be a massive underestimate of the true cost of the direct impact … which will create huge inflation in the prices of everything …. including Nut Zero. And, the closer they get to “nut zero” the higher the inflationary feedbacks.
What is the cost of an infinite inflationary feedback loop?
The actual cost is that the “cost of living” is too high. Which sounds OK, until you learn that the phrase is literal for 90+% of those insane enough to go along with it.
10