Macron’s dressing down of Malcolm Turnbull on his lack of leadership on climate change underlines a disturbing point: Turnbull may not deny the science of climate change, but he does deny the need to act now, and the economic benefits of embracing renewables.
Given the known failures of carbon capture and storage, investing in such technologies could amount to improper use of public funds.
The Coalition has been an inexhaustible source of confident declarations that renewable energy faced serious, immediate limitations in scale and cost. Let’s fact-check that.
Aim of Monash Forum may be to ensure renewable energy wins slowly enough that coal can earn one last payday.
Retiring Labor stalwart Wayne Swan cites losing carbon price debate to “vicious” Abbott-led scare campaign as major regret.
This plan to provide a plan is almost the worst outcome possible for investment certainty. If more detail doesn’t emerge soon, it could be as bad for renewables as the Abbott years.
If one thing is clear from the Coalition’s new energy policy announcement today, it is that Tony Abbott has won, and consumers have lost. Even in the most optimistic scenario presented by the government, energy consumers will see little reduction in their energy bills over the next decade. And that’s outrageous.
Is this really what Malcolm Turnbull signed up for? Short of sacrificing this particular climate goat, he will be obliged to defend the indefensible, the outright rejection of climate science. And Australia will remain a laughing stock.
Tony Abbott uses Sky News interview to attack renewable energy in what could be seen as an affront to Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership position.
Trump’s position on clean energy and climate change is little different to that of Tony Abbott’s, whose policies have been unchanged by Malcolm Turnbull. But Trump’s success has unleashed a new push from the lunar right that will make any progress incredibly hard to achieve.
Having obliterated almost all the effective federal climate and renewables policies, the focus is now switching to state-based targets, using the old arguments of higher costs and little abatement.
