Australian Renewable Energy Party launched in NSW

Australia now has its first political party dedicated entirely to the cause of renewables, with the launch of the Renewable Energy Party in NSW on Tuesday.

The party, which says it intends on fielding candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election, was launched by a group of like-minded north-coast NSW citizens in Lismore – a city that, itself, has a long and impressive record on renewables.

New solar array at Lismore Worker’s Club.
Solar array at Lismore Worker’s Club, where the Renewable Energy Party was launched.

In a formal media statement released on Wednesday, a spokesperson said the Party would give renewable energy in Australia “grass roots representation”, while also bringing a consumer’s perspective to the national energy debate.

“The Renewable Energy Party will speak on behalf of the many Australians who believe that climate change is simply the most important issue we face,” the statement said.

“(It) has been formed to highlight the differences between the favourable treatment given to the fossil fuel industries by government and the difficulties faced by the emerging renewable energy industry.

“Currently, Australians are paying as much as $1,000 per year for electricity and gas connections – before we even turn on our appliances. On top of that, the major energy companies pay 6 to 8 cents for solar power exported to the grid while charging four times that amount for customers to buy it back.”

The first step for the newly formed party, however, is to sign-up the 500 members required to obtain federal registration – a task it is tapping social media to achieve.

ef3bd3b580d172afda9f42f7f0abef27
Peter Breen

“Membership is not likely to be a problem,” said campaign manager, Jim Moylan – a seasoned minor party campaigner who has previously represented the WA-based HEMP Party, and stood as a candidate for the Senate.

“Aussies are really passionate about climate change,” Moylan said. “Our Facebook page has gone-off like a skyrocket. All we did was set up a news-feed to climate change news – and a big audience appeared.”

Founding Renewable Energy Party member and National Coordinator, Byron Bay-based defamation lawyer Peter

Breen, is also experienced political player, serving in past roles as an independent member of the NSW Parliament (Legislative Council), as well as a member of both Labor and the Liberal parties.

Breen has also previously represented the “Peter Breen – Reform the Legal System” party, and was most recently the legal and policy adviser to the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Senator Ricky Muir.

Comments

108 responses to “Australian Renewable Energy Party launched in NSW”

  1. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    These guys have heard about The Greens, right?

    1. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      I suspect they have. Consider the coal industry is represented by the LNP, PUP and half the labor party. Cars and roads represented by Ricky Muir. Couldn’t be a bad thing to have a few senators at a federal level going into bat for the RE industry.

      Apart from that all sorts of preference deals will be done behind the scenes.

      1. Michael Avatar
        Michael

        This is my point though. We already have 10 Senators providing unwavering support for renewable energy.

        1. Chris Turnbull Avatar
          Chris Turnbull

          I will consider this party the enemy of my enemy. As a Greens member, I’m happy to have a sensible micro party on the Senate ballot to counter the myriad of looney right micros – as long as they preference the Greens above the micro circles being organised by the preference whisperer, Glenn Druery. Some voters will avoid the Greens on non-environment issues (e.g. sexual equality issues and asylum seekers).

          1. Robert Johnston Avatar
            Robert Johnston

            Chris – look at the history of those involved. Seriously The Greens like having these guys on the ballot? I thought the Greens wanted to be credible…

        2. Dana Andrew 'Vlad' Eiler Avatar
          Dana Andrew ‘Vlad’ Eiler

          If it helps taking away the monopoly of the 2 major parties which both shit me…then good!

        3. Blair Donaldson Avatar
          Blair Donaldson

          We can never have too many renewable energy supporters/spokespeople. The fossil fuel crowd will take some serious effort to overcome.

          1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
            wideEyedPupil

            That’s assuming this party doesn’t drain resources from the Greens but only adds to the RE and progressive movements in Parliament (and I don’t see much happing in this space other than the Greens in our Parliaments). Independents like Wilkie are careerist/popularists who achieve little but garner much attention

          2. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            REP will make the environment an important issue again.”Social justice” and other motherhood policies became the focus of the Greens during the last decade. Social justice for example means a different thing to different people. For most people social justice means that people are compensated and rewarded for their efforts. Social justice has a different meaning to others and may include a socialistic distribution of all wealth to all, to the hard working and to the lazy.
            I am sure that a good environment and renewable energy can be supported by all people of good will, if they have left, center or right wing out views.

      2. wideEyedPupil Avatar
        wideEyedPupil

        And where will they be on all the other non-RE issues a Senator has to face for their perhaps deciding vote without the experience and resources of a party like the Australian Greens?

        1. Blair Donaldson Avatar
          Blair Donaldson

          That applies to any new senators

          1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
            wideEyedPupil

            You missed my point, Greens Senators can focus on fewer policy areas, as can their staff because they have 9 Senators

          2. Blair Donaldson Avatar
            Blair Donaldson

            But that also presents a problem. With the best will in the world, it’s hard to expect any positive action on the environment when one side of politics is pretty much focused on business at any cost while a smaller group on the other side’s is focused on the environment – at almost any cost. We need people with experience in both areas who can work together.

    2. James Moylan Avatar
      James Moylan

      I have heard of the Greens Michael. And, in the end, they will certainly get the preferences of a discerning voter such as yourself. However they also seem to wander away from their priorities at times. Smaller parties such as the REP are there to help the Greens (and the rest of the Parties) stay in contact with the aspirations of the people and keep faith with their own promises. I do not believe there is ever such a thing as too much democracy.

      1. Freja Leonard Avatar
        Freja Leonard

        Specific examples Jim? How have the Greens wandered away from their priorities? And how will a fledgling party assist The Greens to stay in contact with the aspirations of people? This is a very vague paragraph lacking in substance IMO. Diversity in the Parliament is essential but when people form parties that aren’t particularly well thought through it can undermine the stated aim. Hopefully lessons have been learned from the HEMP preferences in WA that led to Scott Ludlam nearly being lost to Federal Parliament.

        1. James Moylan Avatar
          James Moylan

          Your reading of the preference flows in the WA election is simply incorrect. (Take it from someone who followed it very closely). The Greens did an underhanded and secret deal with Wiki to stab HEMP in the back (they lied to us about preferences). Scott L was never in trouble from the left and it wasn’t the Greens who felt the chop but rather Labor. And Labor suffered from a serious case of electoral wipeout (which I do not think had much to do with the small parties).

          But back to NOW.

          The Renewable Energy Party has a particular focus on lobbying towards replacing all the electricity generation systems in Australia with locally based renewable alternatives, in a rational and incremental manner.

          We believe that a lot of the problem in politics currently is that everybody breaks up into partisan camps and the issues and the public interest get lost. It is all politics for the sake of power and politics. So I am not going pick up your invitation to denigrate the Greens. They have terrific policies on all sorts of things, so if you wish to vote for the Greens then good luck to you.

          1. Freja Leonard Avatar
            Freja Leonard

            I can’t see where I asked you to denigrate The Greens, rather to clarify some vague aspersions but that’s cool if you don’t want to.

            I’m not so wedded to one party over another tbh (I’ve never been a team barracker) and I’m deeply committed to getting results in key policy areas, in particular environmental and climate policy as well as progressive social policy. If I believed that your notional party had a chance of making a positive difference in terms of renewable energy I’d be behind you all the way. Unfortunately what I fear will happen will be that you carve off a tiny share of the vote from a fully functional and effective party which is getting results and engage in some hopeless preferencing which undermines your stated aims. Assuming that your party gets off the ground.

            Why not just join an existing party (such as Save the Planet)? How many volunteers are there to staff booths, make donations etc? Is this the best use of your energy for the intended purpose? These are all the questions I reckon anyone should ask before starting a party.

            If there is electoral reform for the Senate there will be little chance of microparties electing anyone with a tiny vote share + preferences anyway.

            My preference is, whatever path we take and whatever our convictions of the best method, that the renewable energy sector continues to expand and the fossil fuel industry continues to decline – as is already happening – and we can take all of the steps including stopping forest clearing, maximising energy efficiency etc to halt and even start to reverse carbon build up in the atmos.

          2. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            I’m afraid it was Labor stabbing the Greens in the back through a weird deal with HEMP. And HEMP doing some preferencing of the far-right in that state.

            But yes, back to reality, and especially current reality.

            Australia clearly already has a renewable energy party in the Greens.

            And as others have pointed out, you can’t substantiate that rhetorical claim about the Greens somehow having “wandered away” from our priorities.

            There’s no such basis for that claim, of course.

        2. Mark Jackson Avatar
          Mark Jackson

          Hopefully we get above-the-line preferencing reform (together with below-the-line preferencing reform to make BTL preferencing easier too) as the major parties both promised after the last election.

          To stop such shenanigans from happening again, end the backroom deals and the practice of shelf parties being created without real substance or support, in hope of gaming the system.

        3. Harley Wright Avatar
          Harley Wright

          The Greens really stuffed Rudd’s CPRS in 2009/2010! We would have a fully functional ETS now if the Greens had the wisdom to support CPRS/ETS even though it unfairly gave $7 billion to coal fired electricity. What a trivial price to pay for one of the world’s best ETS. I can never forget this crass misjudgment.
          So maybe a single focus RE party could provide better common sense?

          1. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            “Rudd’s ETS”, otherwise known as the Carbon Pollution Reinforcement Subsidy, would have given away $16 billion of taxpayers’ money to polluting companies, as others I know have detailed many times before, and wouldn’t have even achieved any emissions reduction at all in the following 25 years.

            The “crass misjudgement” is when someone, six years after the event, tries to describe that bill as being a “fully functional ETS”.

            Aside from equally “crass misjudgement” by Rudd in refusing to discuss the bill with the Greens, and being prepared to make that bill totally unworkable, abandoning what he called the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, to pursue cynical wedge politics against us and the Libs.

            Without which, by the way, Malcolm Turnbull wouldn’t have been deposed, and Tony Abbott wouldn’t be PM right now.

          2. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            Now to provide more of what could truly be described as “better common sense”, as a mate has, usefully enough, already provided in detail on another site before when such provably wrong rhetoric has surfaced about the CPRS.

            Here’s the evidence of Treasury modelling that showed no impact on emissions from the CPRS for 25 years to come. (http://www.climatecodered.org/2009/08/cprs-aftermath.html )

          3. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And the verdict of Ross Garnaut, who slammed the CPRS from the outset, saying “Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given, without public purpose, by so many, to so few”? (http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-counts-itself-out-20081219-72ei.html )

            Clive Hamilton, of the Australia Institute, when he said, about the CPRS, it was “as if the government had announced a new tax on cigarettes, but exempted smokers from paying.” (http://www.bluemountains.org.au/climate/take_action_now/tan0902_CPRS.htm )

            Ian Dunlop, from the Centre for Policy Development, when he said: “The CPRS is appalling policy. By weakening the underlying emissions trading mechanism with multiple escape clauses and compensation, it runs counter to all the recommendations of the sound policy design work that had been carried out in Australia, ranging from the AGO 1998 National Emissions Trading framework to the 2008 Garnaut Review, as well as practical overseas experience”

            (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-02/35642 )

            And that: “One of the great myths being perpetuated in this election campaign is that the Greens, by refusing to support the Government’s CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), prevented the introduction of effective emissions trading in this country, thus blocking serious action on climate change. Penny Wong was at it again on ABC’s Q&A on Monday night. Utter nonsense! Christine Milne is quite right to hold out for serious climate change policy rather than this “Clayton’s” variety offered by the major parties’ deniers.”

            (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-02/35642 )

            John Quiggin, James Arvanitakis, Lynne Chester, Richard Denniss (head of the Australia Institute), Steve Keen, Andrew Mack, Barbara Pocock, Stuart Rosewarne, Ben Spies-Butcher and Frank Stilwell – those ten economists who signed a public statement slamming the CPRS:(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/02/18/economists-speak-out-against-flawed-carbon-trading-scheme/ , http://johnquiggin.com/2009/02/19/economists-criticise-the-emissions-trading-plan/ )

          4. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And the Climate Institute, when they said the CPRS would have increased the Budget deficit by $18 billion by 2020: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/coalition-cprs-changes-set-to-slug-households.html

            The Grattan Institute, when they said the Greens had offered a reasonable compromise in our efforts to improve the CPRS, but were completely ignored by that govt: http://www.smh.com.au/business/one-climate-policy-and-it-only-comes-in-green-20100430-tzjz.html#ixzz3RK7kZOg4

            And the Grattan Institute’s CPRS report, describing it thus: “a $20 billion waste of money, much of the protection proposed is unnecessary or poorly targeted, It would delay the structural adjustment required to move to a lower carbon economy.”

            The editor-in-chief of the Financial Review, who said: “The CPRS is so riddled with concessions and handouts that it will struggle to achieve the underlying goal of transforming the fossil-fuel-dependent Australian economy into a low-carbon economy while maintaining our prosperity… Even before the latest round of handouts to the coal and coal fired power industries, the government’s handpicked expert Ross Garnaut had denounced it as the worst public policy process he’d seen. Any vestigial arguments for passing the CPRS before next week’s Copenhagen summit… disappeared weeks ago”.?

            And again from the Fin Review subsequently: “”The real criticism that should be levelled at Mr Rudd and Senator Wong is that they devised a policy that was too generous in its compensating payouts to high-emission industries such as aluminium, and to power generators and households, and was therefore likely to be ineffective in changing behaviour. No wonder the Greens would not support it.”?
            (http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/greens-and-emissions-trading-%E2%80%93-your-questions-answered#otherssay )

          5. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And leading Australian climate scientist, James Risbey, when he said the following about the Rudd govt and the CPRS on New Matilda at the time: “The Australian Government’s argument is effectively that it is preferable to adapt to large climate change than to prevent it. Their argument is not usually stated in this form, but that is the inescapable consequence of their policy of postponing meaningful carbon reductions. On the one hand the Government calls for rapid action to prevent climate changes, while on the other hand it has crafted a policy that would guarantee that effective action is not taken.”

            (https://newmatilda.com/2009/12/01/climate-scientist-explains-our-choices )

            Or James Hansen, Nicholas Stern, Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan and many other climate policy experts and leaders around the world who said a weak policy outcome would be worse than no outcome at all.

          6. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And the analysis of that bill by the award-winning Climate Code Red publication. Here’s part 1 of that article:

            Kevin Rudd embraces climate suicide

            By David Spratt

            http://www.climatecodered.org/2009_05_01_archive.html

            PM Kevin Rudd’s announced changes to the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) has again split the climate movement, and this time it’s very serious, with three large, rusted-on-to-Labor groups running cover for an appalling policy that won’t guarantee a reduction in Australian emissions for decades.

            The grassroots movement, which gathered in Canberra in January with 500 people and 150 groups for the first national Climate Action Summit and unanimously opposed the CPRS legislation, appears uniformly angry.

            Sixty-six climate action groups have written to the prime minister saying: “We believe that you have abandoned your duty of care to protect the Australian people as well as our species and habitats from dangerous climate change.”

            An appalling policy

            The Greens described Rudd’s re-worked proposals for the CPRS, announced on May 4, as “making the ‘worse than useless’ scheme even worse and giving another $2.2 billion to big polluters.

            John Hepburn of Greenpeace said: “It’s clear that Rudd has been listening to the big polluters and this is another shift towards the interests of polluters rather than climate action.

            “We’re rapidly running out of time and we’d like this scheme to go back to the drawing board until Kevin Rudd can stand up to the big polluters … ”

            Friends of the Earth “criticised the raising of the government’s hypothetical target range as an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’, aimed at hiding the further windfall for polluters”.

            But the three climate advocacy groups that have quietly consented or actively supported the government’s “clean coal” policies — Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Climate Institute — again lined up to support Labor. They joined with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Australia Council of Social Service (ACOSS).

            Michelle Grattan in Age noted that “the biggest concessions are the brown ones” and that “Kevin Rudd has stitched key groups in behind a revised emissions trading deal — both browner and greener than before — to put maximum pressure on Malcolm Turnbull”.

          7. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And part 2 of the article:

            Big polluters win

            For the record, the changes to the proposed scheme:

            •delay its introduction for a year to July 2011 and set a carbon price of $10 a tonne with unlimited number of permits till 1 July 2012. This means there will be no effective action for another three years.

            •Increase the free permits to the biggest polluters in the first year from 90% to 95% and from 60% to 70%. In the first year of the scheme the biggest polluters will be effectively paying just 50 cents per tonne to pollute.

            •Keeps unlimited outsourcing of Australia’s pollution by allowing the purchase of permits from overseas. This means the scheme has no mechanism to ensure Australia’s emissions (as opposed to domestic permits) will drop by even one tonne by 2050.

            •Fails to deal adequately with the question of voluntary action.

            •Will not, contrary to back-slapping comments by the ACTU, produce an avalanche of “green jobs” because it is not designed to close down the brown jobs. Instead of building a clean, renewable-energy economy Australia will continue to stumble at the back of the pack.

            So why are some of the big climate advocacy groups so keen on this disaster? Is their public position supported by the evidence?

            Here’s a look at the views expressed by ACF and others, and whether they are justifiable.

            Argument 1: “Passing the CPRS is necessary for Australia to be credible at Copenhagen.”

            No, quite the opposite. If there were no legislation, Australia’s position would not be tied by law to Rudd’s poor target and pressure would be maintained to catch up with the leading bunch.

            The targets in the proposed CPRS legislation are out of whack with the major players such as the UK, US and EU, who have agreed to far larger cuts.

            Let’s be honest, what happens at Copenhagen depends more than any other factor on what the G2 — the USA and China — strike by way of a climate deal, and what Australia puts in the table has little relevance to that. They are used to Australia behaving badly.

            Argument 2: “If there is a reasonable outcome in Copenhagen, Australia will be committed to a 25% cut by 2020.”

            Adam Morton dismissed this in the May 5 Age: “Kevin Rudd says he now has an ambitious greenhouse target on the table for 2020. And he does: cutting emissions to 25% below 2000 levels will require hard work across the economy.

            “But we know the government also thinks this almost certainly won’t happen. Why? Because Penny Wong told us so in December.

            “Ignore yesterday’s spin about recent progress in international climate talks. The government believes that a new deal won’t meet the strict conditions it has put in place for Australia to sign up for a 25% cut.

            “If it is right — and there are plenty [of people] familiar with the climate talks who believe it is — Australia’s ultimate target will be in the range it was before yesterday: between 5 and 15%. No change, then.”

            Argument 3: “The CPRS can reduce Australia’s emissions by 25% by 2020.”

            This is complete bull, regardless of what happens at Copenhagen. By allowing an unlimited number of permits to be bought from overseas, the CPRS cannot guarantee that even one tonne of Australian emissions (as opposed to domestic permits) will be cut. The treasury modelling assumes no drop in Australian emissions for another 25 years.

            This alone should be enough to scuttle the whole scheme. How can this be “a significant step forward on climate change” when it won’t guarantee to cut one tonne of domestic emissions?

            In fact, what the CPRS will do is lock in, through legislation, and for decades to come, a high-pollution economy dominated by high-pollution industries and brown jobs.

            Argument 4: “If the high-polluting nations, such as Australia, adopted a policy of reducing emissions to 25% below 1990 by 2020 this would likely lead to an international agreement that would stabilise emissions at 450 parts per million (ppm) or lower.”

            Here is a case of “if you say something often enough, you’ll end up believing it”. Too many climate groups and climate scientists have been saying this so long and so often, yet it is so untrue.

            The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that developed countries would need to reduce their emissions by 25-40% by 2020 for a 450ppm target.

            Note how everybody has dropped the 40% end of this formulation, as if it never existed. Australia, as the highest per capita polluter of the developed nations, would certainly be at the 40% end of the range, but this is rarely mentioned.

            http://www.climatecodered.org/2009_05_01_archive.html

          8. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            And the rest of that article:

            Argument 5: “A target of 450ppm would reasonably limit global warming to 2°C.”

            No, it won’t. Analysis from the 2006 Stern Report shows that a 450ppm target has a 26–78% chance of exceeding 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels and a 4–50% chance of exceeding 3°C!

            That is not defensible and I can’t understand how anybody who works professionally on climate change could ever think for one second that it is a reasonable target to utter in public. What are they thinking?

            After a careful reassessment of climate history data, NASA climate science chief James Hansen and his co-authors concluded that the tipping point for the presence, or absence, of any substantial ice-sheets on Earth is around 450 ppm (plus or minus 100 ppm) of carbon dioxide.

            This means that the carbon dioxide levels often associated with a 2°C rise — 450ppm — may just be the tipping point for the total loss of all ice sheets on the planet and a huge sea-level rise.

            And with high climate sensitivity, a risk-averse target for 2°C is around 350ppm CO2 equivalent gases — just to meet a 2°C target that is actually dangerous.

            Argument 6: “2°C is a reasonable target to avoid dangerous climate change.”

            No, it will ensure that climate change is dangerous. A rise of 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures will start large climate feedbacks in the oceans, on ice-sheets, and on the tundra, taking the Earth well past significant tipping points.

            Likely impacts include large-scale breakdown of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets; the extinction of an estimated 15–40% of plant and animal species; dangerous ocean acidification; increasing methane release; substantial soil and ocean carbon-cycle feedbacks; and widespread drought and desertification in Africa, Australia, southern Europe, and the western USA.

            If you don’t believe me, read Mark Lynas’s book Six Degrees.

            James Hansen told the US congress last year that: “We have reached a point of planetary emergency … climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled … the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than 2°C is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.”

            I’d go with the climate scientist.

            Argument 7. “If this legislation is passed, it is reasonable to expect that the government will do more and go further than its own legislation.”

            Pull the other leg.

            We only get one shot at this. A trial run, which locks in a bad policy for decades, is not an option.

            Today, at just below 1°C of global warming, we are witnessing of the destruction of the Arctic ecosystem.

            Eight million square kilometres of sea ice is disappearing each summer and may be entirely gone within a few years.

            Already 80% of summer sea-ice volume has been lost, and regional warming of up to 5°C may have already pushed the Greenland ice-sheet past its tipping point. If so this locks in a seven-metre sea-level rise.

            We know that the present level of greenhouse gases is enough to increase temperatures by more than 2°C over time. We have already gone too far. There is already too much carbon in the air.

            Planetary emergency

            At less than 1°C we are on the way to triggering a multi-metre sea level rise than will devastate coastal infrastructure, peasant–farming communities and some of the world’s biggest cities.

            Our only choice is to head back to 0°C of warming. To halt all emissions and draw-down atmospheric carbon to return the planet to a safe-climate zone.

            Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute and Europe’s leading climate scientist, says that “we are on our way to a destabilisation of the world climate that has advanced much further than most people or their governments realise”.

            He says “our survival would very much depend on how well we were able to draw down carbon dioxide to 280 ppm”, compared to the present level of close to 390 ppm.

            Put starkly, we either keep warming under the range where carbon feedbacks make further human action futile, or we do not.

            We have a safe climate or we have a global catastrophe. There are no middle-of-the-road compromises.

            We must head back towards zero. At 1°C, the genie is out of the bottle. At 2°C, the bottle is broken.

            One of the great powers of the climate action movement is our capacity to withhold support from, and actively campaign against, actions of governments that are designed to fail. The CPRS is one of those actions that will fail.

            Presently there is political denial, even an arrogance of power that leads governments to believe they can negotiate with the climate and the laws of physics and chemistry.

            They inhabit a land of trade-offs, where climate is just another issue, the politics partisan, the action slow, all embedded in a culture of compromise and failure.

            It is a tragedy that some should glowingly support such failure.

            http://www.climatecodered.org/2009_05_01_archive.html

          9. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            So, to summarise, Harley, if this “Renewable Energy Party” were to support soft-pedal denialism, such as that CPRS was proven beyond doubt to be, no informed person who wants action on global warming could, in good conscience, support it.

          10. Alan Baird Avatar
            Alan Baird

            Absolutely correct. There are STILL people who parrot the same old malarky about how good Rudd’s ETS was. It was EXACTLY as I predicted it would be: a handout to placate the usual suspects and precious little action on driving generation away from coal. It had all the characteristics of a Rudd plan: a preemptive buckle to the right as designed by that laughably described “lefty”, Martin Ferguson.

          11. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            Exactly. “Rudd’s ETS” was an absolute fraud.

            And Fungusson having been a typical example of the Another Liberal Party as it is now. The way he moved so quickly into lobbying after being a politician, also more and more commonplace in the ALP, just as it is with the L/NP. And for mine, hardly anyone in the ALP now can be described as a “lefty”. Melissa Parke would be one rare person in that category, as another guy I know has often said. Hard to think of anyone else there.

            Did Fungus really design that bill mate?

          12. Harley Wright Avatar
            Harley Wright

            Mark, you seem to be overly sensitive about my criticisms of the Greens in rejecting the CPRS in 2009/10.

            It seemed to me the Greens were throwing out the baby with the bath water. Sure the CPRS had weaknesses. But the crucial structure was there to put a cap on emissions [~75% coverage – better than the Clean Energy Acts with ca 60% coverage] and to have this cap reducing inexorably in the future. That is the core of an ETS. And the coverage could be increased later. And the near-term caps were firm, and gateways set for longer-term limits. Sure, the -15% target by 2020 wasn’t strong enough for you or me but this could be changed, depending on the success or otherwise of UNFCCC/COP
            meetings.

            The exemptions and handouts, eg, to EITE industries were the political sweeteners to make it acceptable. Yes, Garnaut criticised the handouts to coal-fired electricity. Sure, it was inequitable. But it didn’t change the effectiveness of the basic structure to reduce emissions. The critical thing is to have continually reducing caps. Oh, and I expect you say Australia’s emissions would not drop per se. If we purchased genuine entitlements from overseas, global emissions still decrease
            and the abatement is presumably occurring at a lower cost – which is good.

            Note too that Garnaut said [SMH 20 Dec, 2008] in response to the White Paper;

            “Should its policy proposals become law, they will be historic.

            They would mark the beginning of comprehensive action in Australia to mitigate the growth in Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Australia would have taken a step where several countries have stumbled and in times that are difficult for the domestic and international economies. It would have taken this step in the context of the most pervasive vested-interest pressure on the policy process since the Scullin Government and
            of the most expensive, elaborate and sophisticated lobbying pressure on the policy process ever. It will have taken this step in the face of resistance from Her Majesty’s Opposition.”

            To which
            I add – “and the inexplicable opposition of the Greens!”

            I still feel the Greens do not separate the ‘necessary’ requirements of environmental policies from the ‘desirable’ aspects. The core
            objective is to reduce global emissions and the CPRS would have done that. So would the Clean Energy Acts.

            Australia’s climate criminals are the deniers in the Abbott government who rolled Turnbull late
            2009 when we were on the cusp of a solid, bipartisan carbon reduction policy. Let’s focus our energies on overcoming these climate deniers and, globally, getting a solid commitment at COP 21 in Paris.

          13. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            Sensitive, no. Highly annoyed. I’ve seen far too much of the unjustified rationalisations about the CPRS ($16 billion in handouts somehow didn’t change the effectiveness of the basic structure? Holy crap!), and it’s especially silly after six years.

            And if you properly read the documentation I posted, you already know it clearly wasn’t just the Greens who rejected what you call the “ETS”, it was numerous economists, the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement, and those spearheading action against global warming internationally as well. With very, very good reason.

            For instance, as you saw and noted, Ross Garnaut certainly disagrees with you. Along with John Quiggin, James Arvanitakis, Lynne Chester, Steve Keen, Andrew Mack, Barbara Pocock, Stuart Rosewarne, Ben Spies-Butcher, Frank Stilwell & many other Australian economists, the Australia Institute, the Global Change Institute, The Centre for Policy Development, David Spratt, the Climate Institute, the Grattan Institute, Citi Investment, the Financial Review, the Age, Crikey, the ABC, James Hansen & climate scientists generally, Nicholas Stern, the IPCC, the UN, & Greenpeace, FOE, the ACF & 150 other environmental organisations in this country.

            Why, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence provided to you about what a fiasco that bill was, clear undeniable, proof that it would have made real action on global warming harder, not somehow easier as you claim, wouldn’t have achieved any emissions reduction at all for 25 years, and would have handed massive amounts of money to polluters at taxpayer expense, thus blowing up the Budget, would you still seek to assert voting it down was somehow “inexplicable”? And seriously suggest we’re talking about mere “weaknesses”?

            The objective is to reduce emissions, not to perpetrate an accountancy trick to create a ‘paper reduction’, the illusion of emissions reduction. A carbon reduction policy is supposed to achieve reduction. A carbon pollution subsidy does not. And yes, soft-pedal denialism was very much in evidence.

          14. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            As Scott Ludlam posted previously on this subject, amongst other things:

            https://twitter.com/senatorludlam/status/395006581579870208

            https://twitter.com/senatorludlam/status/271154688727080962

            And the possibility of the ALP trying to take us down that road of illusion again when they return to government, while Rome continues burning, as it were, scares the hell out of me.

          15. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            If all the evidence I’ve already presented isn’t enough, here’s what Scott Ludlam posted a while back, amongst many other things he’s had to say on the subject:

            https://twitter.com/senatorludlam/status/271154688727080962

            A 1 euro carbon price = “one of the world’s best ETS’s”, as you put it. Hate to think what you’d describe as being the world’s worst ETS then.

            The possibility of the ALP trying to run that bogus illusion again when they return to government, selling the public another swindle of this kind again while Rome continues burning, as it were, harder, stronger and faster, scares the hell out of me.

          16. Harley Wright Avatar
            Harley Wright

            Mark, the core framework of rationing carbon emissions, with a reducing annual cap of permits being sold by auction, is a core framework that enables a country to
            reduce carbon emissions. The CPRS had this and that’s sufficient. You and
            others may be unhappy at other secondary aspects, each with your drum to beat
            in this complex area. But secondary issues don’t obviate the core benefits of carbon reduction by an ETS. Garnaut’s Reviews [2008, 2011] cover the
            complex issues in a calm way without your ranting views on history.

            We can agree to disagree. This is detracting from the main game and not worth the time.

      2. soshann Avatar
        soshann

        What a wank! Where will you allocate your above the line preference flows in the upper house?

    3. wideEyedPupil Avatar
      wideEyedPupil

      And Save the Planet Party, right?

    4. Freja Leonard Avatar
      Freja Leonard

      …and all of the reforms The Greens have been able to bring about with a small number of MPs built steadily over decades. Seems to be an ironic waste of energy to start again from nothing, attempting to split the renewable energy vote on an issue that’s already well and truly represented both politically and across the rooftops of Australia. https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2014/rooftop-solar-uptake-still-highest-in-low-income-australia-63263
      This is naive at best, counterproductive at worst and if the stated aim is to increase the political determination for renewable energy I don’t believe this attempt at a party will help.

    5. John Reynolds Avatar
      John Reynolds

      Yes, but the Greens are Left-wing. The Renwable engery party is neither left or Right.

      1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
        wideEyedPupil

        Let’s just see what happens, a vacuum to be captured in the polarised political landscape of Australia today perhaps. If a few naive candidates get up could be anyones guess what happens. Look at Jacqui Lambie, she actually thinks that ALP is to far out to the left for most Australians to take seriously… so enmeshed in neo-conservative normalisation is she.

      2. Freja Leonard Avatar
        Freja Leonard

        What does this even mean?

  2. Robert Johnston Avatar
    Robert Johnston

    Professional minority party candidates are not what the RE industry needs.

    1. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      What is your reasoning?

      1. Robert Johnston Avatar
        Robert Johnston

        We need a strong voice, not a micro party that needs to do preference deals (and hence deals with other fringe groups and their special interests) in order to be “elected” into parliament. This candidate appears to me to have latched on to a group he sees as gaining public popularity (renewable energy) and thus likely to attract “name votes”. Support the industry associations and parties large enough to actually move the dial on govt policy not professional micro party candidates as well as getting behind the industry associations is my opinion. I’d back the CEC and Australian Solar Council to better represent the interests of the industry than a professional micro party candidate.

        1. Pedro Avatar
          Pedro

          I agree the RE sector needs a strong voice and the Australian solar council is doing a pretty good job. The CEC is remarkably silent or unable to get any media traction and seems more interested in coming up with new clever PV standards. Even a single issue micro party like the Renewable energy party fielding candidates should be able to attract some media attention and help leverage the major parties to declare their RE policies.

    2. James Moylan Avatar
      James Moylan

      Do not panic then Robert. The REP know we will never run a government or plan an international war: and none of us are planning on an extended political career. My ‘professional’ engagement with small parties in Australia has cost me a fortune during the last few years. It is the big parties that are all about paid staff members and ‘message discipline’. Micro parties depend on simply being right. So I think that your criticism is misplaced. My involvement in politics has all been about widening our political discourse and dislodging a ‘two-party’ system we currently enjoy.that has become redundant.

      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Renewable-Energy-Party/951504494873839

      1. Robert Johnston Avatar
        Robert Johnston

        James, I think your response highlights my point, you are not out there for the RE industry – you are in this to disrupt the major parties not to promote the interests of renewable energy. A quick look back at your history highlights you are latching onto renewable energy as a vote catcher more than for the good of the industry. Can you please describe your history of RE promotion in Australia? What are your policies? Who will you be doing preference deals with? My livelihood depends on RE so I have a vested interest in anything that will promote it, I just don’t think that a micro party professional is going to help me. Prove me wrong. Run a candidate in every electorate in NSW, ensure they are all from the RE industry and then, maybe, you will have some credibility.

    3. Mark Jackson Avatar
      Mark Jackson

      Exactly. And as long as the major parties follow through on their promise to bring in Senate preferencing reform, to end Druery’s “preference whispering” and the other backroom deals, then such micro-candidates on the make will be put out of business.

  3. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    I reckon micro parties will do well in 2016. How thoroughly will NSW be represented in March 2015 ?

    1. James Moylan Avatar
      James Moylan

      The REP will run candidates in all states.
      More significantly for the local state campaigns – in the lead-up to the election we intend to run a Renewable Energy Forum in all the capital cities and host a discussion about the particular policies of each of the political party regarding renewable energy. This forum will provide all the candidates the opportunity to explain and sell their RE policies.

    2. Mark Jackson Avatar
      Mark Jackson

      They definitely won’t in 2016 if the ALP and L/NP deliver on their promise to support above-the-line Senate preferencing and below-the-line preferencing reform before then.

      1. Chris Fraser Avatar
        Chris Fraser

        I’m not up to speed on it however I don’t allow my preferences to flow according to this Druery fellow. If necessary, I will number every box below.

  4. Beat Odermatt Avatar
    Beat Odermatt

    It is time for a true environmental party in Australia. The Greens are NOT an environmental party but a dumping ground for the extreme left. The opposition by the Greens against a very moderate levy on fossil fuels on roads is further proof that the Greens put politics ahead of the environment.

    1. Freja Leonard Avatar
      Freja Leonard

      I disagree. I see a group of people who started with environmental and social justice principles working to make the correct call on the full range of issues as they arise in the Parliaments of Australia. I’ve seen these people sweat over their decisions and always return to the four basic tenets of the party to guide them. I’ve seen conclusions come to that have been way more environmental or social than political and these are often not represented in the media. The Greens are made up of a broad range of backgrounds and a generally common purpose and everything I have to do with their decision makers, generally speaking, impresses me with the thoroughness of the integrity shown.

      1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
        Beat Odermatt

        The Greens are responsible for a lots of death and misery by supporting the criminal people smuggling trade. They made it easy for people smugglers to trade and profit from the misery of the poorest. They are using the environment as a means to achieve political power and to fulfill a long list of ideological goals. The Greens lost the credibility as a party for the environment.

        1. Freja Leonard Avatar
          Freja Leonard

          Certainly The Greens are trying to achieve political power to fulfill a long list of ideological goals, many of which are environmental and most are pretty pragmatic. You still haven’t explained how environmental credibility was lost but never mind.

          There are so many flaws to your “supporting the criminal people smuggling trade” that I am reminded of the adage “When you argue with a lunatic pretty soon most people can’t tell the difference” so I’ll leave that there.

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            The Greens have opposed every single coalition environmental effort just to “kick Abbott”. When we had the Democrats, all political parties regarded the environment as an important bipartisan issue and not as political toilet paper. A good environment is essential for all, for the rich and the poor, for the old and young. We need a political party to renew the environment as an important issue.

          2. Thomas Wearne Avatar
            Thomas Wearne

            Funds raised by the fuel levi were to be used to build more useless roads. Roads are incredibly emissions intensive. The greens would have likely supported the levi if the funds were directed towards electric car infrastructure and/or public transport, but these are things the LNP oppose.

            That’s not a policy failure IMO

          3. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            A country needs good roads. They can safe lives. I assume you never went on a country road and you may not be aware how dangerous are. Humans are also part of the environment and need protection. Nihilistic policies by the Greens seem to ignore the environment and human lives.

          4. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            Wow. Seriously.

            Please tell us how supporting refugee rights, for instance, is “nihilistic”, and “ignoring human lives”. Or opposing the war based on a lie in Iraq, amongst so many other examples.

            Please tell us how wanting action on global warming, protecting the Great Barrier Reef and opposing open-slather ‘development’ otherwise is somehow ‘nihilistic’ and ‘ignoring the environment’.

            Also, do you think up is down? Black is white? Slavery is freedom? Peace is war?

          5. wideEyedPupil Avatar
            wideEyedPupil

            Speaking of toilet paper all the old parties support logging in our water catchments to produce wood chips for toilet paper. Kimberly Clarke are still after decades of protests logging Melbourne’s watch catchments to make Kleenex brand toilet paper. Boycott Kleenex and Kimberly Clarke brands and get your facts right. Greens are only paper in parliament who are trying to stop logging of high conservation value forests. You are obviously not committed to environmental values, Beat, you are deluding yourself if these comments reflect your misunderstanding of the way parties represent us on conservation and environmental issues.

          6. wideEyedPupil Avatar
            wideEyedPupil

            When Democrats opposed the government were they ‘just kicking [whatever] leader’?

          7. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            In most cases the Democrats ended up winning a compromise. They often “kept the bastards honest” . They did allow good policies and good environmental laws, such as the NHT, being implemented. Labor, the Coalition and the Democrats achieved a lot for the environment and made Australia one of the leading environmental nations. Then came the Greens and the environment became a political toilet paper.

          8. SunGod Avatar
            SunGod

            Well said.

            He claimed he had “considerable more professional environmental experience than almost any Green politicians” further down too. So hilariously mad. I couldn’t resist taking the piss out of that post when I saw it.

        2. Pedro Avatar
          Pedro

          Come on Beat. To say that the Greens are responsible for refugee deaths at sea lacks any rational logic. Lets look at why there are refugees in the first place. The Afghan and Iraq refugees are a direct result of the coalition of the willing bombing their countries back to the stone age. And which governments did that even though there has never been any evidence of WMD??

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            Yes, many people died because of the Greens. When John Howard left office, there were no death due to people smuggling and no children in detention. Please check the facts!!!

          2. Freja Leonard Avatar
            Freja Leonard

            I’m calling massive misinformation and logic failure on your commentary, Beat. You appear not to understand the immigration issue as a whole nor to have anything like a handle on the history of that issue in Australia. I facepalm you farewell.

          3. Pedro Avatar
            Pedro

            I don’t really want to get involved in an irrational refugee debate on an RE forum.

            cheers

        3. Blair Donaldson Avatar
          Blair Donaldson

          Beat, you’ve been sucking on those chemtrails again haven’t you? 😉

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            Are the Greens paying you for being a troll or are you doing it for them for nothing?

          2. Blair Donaldson Avatar
            Blair Donaldson

            Unlike you, I prefer to think for myself and maintain a skeptical view of all politicians.

          3. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            That is your right, you can be skeptical or informed. It is up to you but I DO NOT share left wing views of the Greens. I do however respect the fact that many Greens are truly believe that voting Greens may help the environment. Many people voted for the Nazis believing that it would help the economy. It is the ideology of a party, either from the loony left or from the loony right which will harm Australia.

          4. Blair Donaldson Avatar
            Blair Donaldson

            You just lost the argument. I invoke Godwin’s Law. By the way, skepticism and being informed are not mutually exclusive.

          5. Freja Leonard Avatar
            Freja Leonard

            +1

          6. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            You can believe what you want. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I do believe in what makes sense to me.

          7. Blair Donaldson Avatar
            Blair Donaldson

            Science doesn’t operate on belief. It is guided by evidence.

            “I do believe in what makes sense to me”
            That’s obvious.

    2. wideEyedPupil Avatar
      wideEyedPupil

      Your evidence for making such a completely ignorant assertion is the debate the Greens provided about the Fuel Levy on fuel to fund more roads? Greens Senators have been quite clear about the reasoning for this decision even if some commentators have like to falsely frame the debate to their own ends.

      If the Fuel Levy were directed to public Transport the Greens would have been on board with the proposed increase. But the legislation has the money funding freeways through the very remnant habitat locations Greens party members have spent decades fighting to save, Like Roe 8 extension in Perth through wetlands and East-West link in Melbourne to carve up the south part of Royal Park. Also it’s a regressive tax and despite what Joe Hockey claims about car use amongst the less well off in cities with poor PT car use is essential for many workers with family commitments. So on balance a decision was made to support increase only if it went to PT. If you need proof search media statements on greensmps.org.au.

      1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
        Beat Odermatt

        We need safe good road AND a good public road system. Both cost money which seems to have escaped the policy makers within the Greens cult.

        1. Mark Jackson Avatar
          Mark Jackson

          Cult eh?

          Aside from this absurd – and remarkably patronising – claim of yours that somehow us Greens don’t know public infrastructure requires spending to build it.

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            Please have a good look at definition of cults and compare it to the Greens. If this fails then look at membership of cults and the Greens. We all know that cults depend on naive well meaning and gullible followers.

          2. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            Snark and more fictional stereotyping, backed up by the Because I Say So Defence, I see.

            Thanks.

          3. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            We are a democracy and as such we have a right to say what we want, even if it does not suit the ideological outlooks of the Greens. I am FOR the environment, but I am AGAINST narrow minded left wing policies of the Greens.

          4. Mark Jackson Avatar
            Mark Jackson

            It’s painfully obvious, as other posts of yours further up show, that you’re totally clueless about what the Greens’ policies actually are.

          5. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            Mark, stick to your outlook on life and I am sure the Greens need people like you. I have my own experiences and outlook and it is not compatible with political agenda of the Greens. People of the left, centre and right all breeth the same air after all.

          6. wideEyedPupil Avatar
            wideEyedPupil

            “The Environment” you are for… what is it and how do you propose to support it, Beat? The reason for asking is because you come across as having a very poor understanding of the issues you claim to care about. A bit like all those corporate CEOs and PR people who are all for “sustainability” the words are hollow in the mouths of some.

          7. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            In may have considerable more professional environmental experience than almost any Green politicians. The large majority of people care for the environment and want renewable energy but do not share extreme left wing views of the Greens.

          8. SunGod Avatar
            SunGod

            Yep, you’re clearly a professional environmental expert dude. Self-appointed no doubt. Your qualifications presumably based on all that ‘knowledge’ you suck up from Murdoch propaganda sheets… or is it talkback radio?

            And I’m really the Sultan of Brunei, but don’t tell anyone.

          9. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            I usually DO NOT reply to cowards hiding behind avatars. I am sure you are looking under the bed every night having a look if Murdoch is watching you.

        2. wideEyedPupil Avatar
          wideEyedPupil

          The increased levy was not for maintaining roads it was for freeways through valuable remnant bushlands which as I said earlier many Greens members have been fighting for decades to preserve. You fail to address the question (again).

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            If you want to discuss issues, be brave enough to use your name and do not hide behind an avatar.

  5. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    But what else is in their policy? I am not very political minded, but I assume that a party must have a variety of engenders not just one? The problem with parties at present is that if you vote for one thing, you lose out on another, like with the Greens !!! So what are the rest of this group’s policies?
    Mind you, with the Australian Revolution starting next month, I wonder where this party will fit in. I guess we must wait & see.
    Keith.
    http://australiansurvivalandpreppers.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/we-will-be-lawfully-removing-all.html

    1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
      wideEyedPupil

      Greens have policies on many social justice and economic issues Keith. Suggest you do some reading before being so ignorant in public. I agree without the resources of a party and staff like the Greens it will be impossible for an independent to get up to speed on so many issues. Just look at Nick Xenophon he plays every issue to try and get a middle position between Libs and Labor to generate more publicity for himself difficult. Look at former Senator Harridan, horse traded on everything (e.g. Telstra selloff) to get his ideologically driven agenda on religious matters into legislation.

      1. Keith Avatar
        Keith

        I thought I had already said that I was ignorant of politics. You sir are extremely rude & certainly not anyone I would want to know. By your attitude I would assume that you are pro Greens, typical.

        1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
          wideEyedPupil

          “The problem with parties at present is that if you vote for one thing, you lose out on another, like with the Greens !!! So what are the rest of this group’s policies?”

          I’d say it’s poor manners to make false accusations about matters you claim not to understand. The grammar is so sloppy I’m not sure if “this group’s policies?” was referring to the aforementioned Greens. Maybe to the new RE Party?

          Anyhow do look to the Greens website for policy statements on a whole range of issues facing parliament and beyond. Plus the Greens four guiding principles of “Ecological sustainability”, “Social and economic justice”, “Peace and nonviolence”, and “Grassroots democracy”.

          Peace, out.

  6. soshann Avatar
    soshann

    This is obviously a canard intended to weaken the position of renewables. The Australian Greens have been fighting hard for renewable energy for decades but now some shifty political operators have seen an opportunity to line their pockets and boost their egos at the expense of the renewables industry and those who have advocated for it so effectively for so long. Wake up people. Micro parties are a strategy for preference milking not political change.

  7. Raahul Kumar Avatar
    Raahul Kumar

    Yeah I agree with the consensus down below in the comments that this is a foolish party already doing something that the Greens do better.

    1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
      Beat Odermatt

      Sadly, the Greens are not doing a good job.

      1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
        wideEyedPupil

        Yeah well Tony Abbott would say that.

        1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
          Beat Odermatt

          Just ask him.

      2. Phil of Brisbane Avatar
        Phil of Brisbane

        The Greens are doing a brilliant job! It was Greens preferences and their record 8.4% vote in the recent QLD elections that were crucial in getting rid of the Newman LNP government, which was engaged in a relentless attack on renewable energy!

        1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
          Beat Odermatt

          Yes, it shows that renewable energy is a big issue. People on all sides of the political spectrum are against pollution and most people support renewable energy. Maybe the threat against the RET by the current Government in Canberra was also a gift to Labor.

      3. Blair Donaldson Avatar
        Blair Donaldson

        Since when have you cared? You’ve spent the best part of your time on this thread running them down. They might not be perfect but then, neither are the alternatives. They are all dancing to their preferred tunes.

    2. Mark Jackson Avatar
      Mark Jackson

      Yep, and given the Murdoch-esque false claims and stereotyping by the likes of ‘Beat’, I wouldn’t be surprised if this ‘party’ is a front to help the Liberals.

      1. Raahul Kumar Avatar
        Raahul Kumar

        I think too many microparties are a problem. Even today, the Sex Party, the Secular Party and the Pirate Party should really look at consolidating.

      2. Beat Odermatt Avatar
        Beat Odermatt

        That is interested. The Greens seem to have a copy right to all political slogans and anybody not agreeing with their left wing nihilistic policies must have been brain washed by Murdoch.

  8. Tim Read Avatar
    Tim Read

    Naomi Klein in her opus, “This Changes Everything” argues that climate change is the result of an unwritten bargain between residents of wealthy countries and fossil-fueled capitalism: economic growth gives us wealth in exchange for us tacitly accepting that some places and some peoples will be exploited and harmed. SO we need MPs who can stand up for vulnerable and exploited people as well as for the environment. I reckon the Greens do a pretty good job at that, but I do welcome the new political party to the scene. I hope they’ll also stand up for people, for public services and for the grass-roots politics that will be essential in our fight against the corporate giants of the fossil fuel industry.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.