As bushfires ravaged Australia’s east coast last week, our hopelessly polarised climate change debate once again resurfaced.
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said now is “not the time” to talk about climate change, while her deputy, state Nationals leader John Barilaro labelled anyone who did a “bloody disgrace”. Deputy prime minister Michael McCormack went a step further, claiming only “raving inner-city lunatics” would dare link the two.
But despite the Nationals’ claims that climate change is only a concern for a narrow urban elite out of touch with middle Australia, the data keeps proving them wrong.
As the AFR reported last week, a recent survey from JWS research found climate change was the number one voter concern. When asked unprompted to name issues of concern, 34% of respondents named climate, more than any other issue, and a jump of 12% since the last survey in June.
Several other polls released in the last six months appear to say the same thing. According to a Lowy Institute poll conducted in March, nearly two-thirds of Australians viewed climate change as a critical threat to the nation, requiring urgent action. This is the highest level of concern since Lowy started asking about climate in 2006.
Another poll conducted by Ipsos returned similar findings — 65% of respondents said climate change is already affecting Australia and not just a future challenge. Around half believed Australia is already experiencing more frequent and extreme bushfires due to climate change.
According to The Australia Institute, 80% of Australians think the country is already experiencing the impact of climate change, while roughly two-thirds want us to move towards net zero emissions by 2050.
Of course, as pollies frequently tell us, the only poll that counts is on election day, and in May, Australia appeared to vote against climate action.
Still, on climate at least, it’s hard not to believe Nationals MPs are firmly in the minority.
Most Australians are liars. Expressing concern about climate change is, at the moment, the safe thing to do. The same thing happened before the last election. Every time somebody was asked before the poll what they thought was an important issue, the answer was, invariably, climate change. One side of politics offered possible solutions in this area. The other offered tax cuts. We know, of course, that despite all the hand-wringing about climate change and the future, we voted for the tax cuts. Come the next election we will do the same. It’s a lot simpler, and the money comes in handy.
Hard to escape that conclusion Stuart, but the people currently leading us are such determined and prolific liars that it is hardly surprising if the population gradually comes around to thinking that sort of behaviour is OK.
Exhibit A: USA
Exhibit B: UK
Exhibit C: Scummo
It doesn’t follow that they are “liars”. It could mean a whole lot of things, but it doesn’t mean that.
Right.
Being deeply concerned about climate change does NOT imply strongly supportive of reducing human use of fossil fuels as the best way to deal with climate change.
With their own polling showing that two-thirds of Australians view climate change as a critical threat, Labor showed only a cynical contempt for their voters. Instead of starting up decarbonisation at all costs, they promised to get 50% of our energy from renewables. Except for a religious minority deafened by the chanting of their fellow followers, every voter and school student can see the obvious, that any intermittent energy must be backed up with a greater amount of power-on-demand, mainly natural gas.
Labour should have declared gas must go, and then figured out how to eliminate gas from a healthy power economy.
Eliminating gas could be done using pumped hydro, tidal energy and geothermal energy.
Doesn’t it amuse you to think if a war broke out our “Government” would suddenly find enough money to produce enough explosive and propulsive energy, at whatever cost, to throw at the enemy! And in record quick time.
But finding enough money to deal with the current situation, let alone the future, is beyond our economy, or intellect.
If an enemy was bombing Brisbane the Govt. would be talking about it NOW not after the crisis had passed.
I do have a teeny bit of sympathy for them though, thick as they appear to be, they seem to realise that if they implemented truly effective methods to reduce future emissions they would be voted out of office.
Our 80% of concerned citizens would not put up with the inconvenience and cost.
You might suggest that pumped hydro and geothermal could provide the backup to convert wind, solar and tidal into electricity on demand. However examination of the numbers shows that neither source is anywhere near big enough. You would have to agree that this sort of factoid is believed simply because we say it to each other so often that we fail to check it. It is based on faith, rather than fact.
If we continued with our token “reduction” scenarios, we would end up with wind backed by gas, solar backed by gas, and since it is inadequate for the job, storage, also backed by gas. All the time we would be telling each other that we are well on the way to “reduce” our consumption of coal and gas. That’s equivocation. The kiddies won’t be fooled.
Roger,
Yes currently these supplies are too small. Potentially though they could do the job.
My point was that if a war developed the Govt would find billions of dollars to fight it.
As there is no current war, why can’t the Govt. use these billions to develop these sources ?
Yes, declaration of a climate emergency would produce billions for responses. When the engineers and accountants examined the alternative forms of fossil-free backup, they would declare nuclear as more efficient than pumped hydro or geothermal. Nuclear has the further advantage that it routinely provides several years of storage, whereas batteries only provide minutes.
Still, as Fairmind says, a climate-reformist government has to get into power driven by the popular vote, before it can apply solutions driven by professional advice.
Roger, that’s just wrong. Nuclear is pie in the sky and pumped hydro has identified around 22,000 suitable sites. None of your nuclear hopes have gone further than ‘concepts’.
Give it a break, nuclears days are long gone. Get with the programme.
And “if a war broke out” would any party ensure their participation in the defence of Australia was carbon neutral?
Roger, you need to appreciate that Labor has to somehow get into power first and then commence the onerous task of turning the ship of state back in the right direction.
Being honest about how exactly you plan to do that pretty much guarantees you never get a chance to do it.
The Greens need to figure that out too, because unless they work out how to work with Labor and activist groups against the LNP/IPA and our corrupt media, their plans will never come to fruiton either.
Nuclear provides storage ? That’s a new one. I look forward to the explanation.
Storage? A local grid that contained only solar power leaves its customers powerless most of the time. A system containing only solar power and battery storage would be able to guarantee its customers electricity on demand for only as long as the battery storage lasts – minutes. In practice, such systems remain connected to the grid so that the local fossil power station would keep the battery topped up. If a coal-fired power station gets isolated by a disaster or warfare, its on-site store of coal provides weeks or months of electricity on demand. Similarly, a gas-fired power station has as much gas as is compressed in the pipes this side of the break. (I think Germany has three weeks of compressed gas stored in the pipelines.) A single load of nuclear fuel lasts for years, so a nuclear power station can be seen as several years of storage to guarantee several years of electricity on demand.
The wind turbines etc remain visible the whole time, serving as symbols of virtue to locals and visitors alike. But it is their backup that provides most of the electricity on demand, to domestic consumers and heavy industry alike.
Roger, what do you think of the idea that hydrogen is a much better long-term firming power option than nuclear? The practical phase-in times will probably be shorter than that for III+ modular nukes, and the abundance of RE electricity in Australia will solve the problem of the electrolysis carbon footprint.
If we’re going to fundamentally shift our core energy generation disposition, as you rightly say we must, then hydrogen seems like a no-brainer to me. We have a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place already, including the export supply chain and for that matter market options, too. Nukes might have been an option if we’d started shifting our energy sector, and the social license aspects, in the seventies, but I think we’ve well and truly missed that boat now.
Try a battery or two, anyone?
The one in SA is working well.
Bushfires will ease when there’s nothing left to burn …… then wind and rain will erode top soil.
“Vote Nationals/Coal-ition! They look aftaya.”
Read “The Grapes of Wrath” by J Steinbeck?
Imagine that on a national scale. And even more thrilling on a global scale.
See how long the recognition of the problem lasts once there’s rain.
When all is said and done, and the Blue Bird has returned to it’s nest, the frog to the pond, and the Pollie to his/her penthouse, the taxpayer being the blue collared worker will get the bill for all of their lies, mistakes and false predictions, and made to work longer into their life to support those who have never lifted their end of the weight. Yes we all have threrious and plans on how this one will work, or that one would be better. But when it all comes to the end of the day, Self Contentment and self satisfaction is the only thing that matters. Look to your own safety and satisfaction and secure your own future. If you can’t do that then your in big troubles.
Climate Change has been going on since time immemorial. The way the eletase have jacked it up is to look after their own future. That is the future of their Business, Shares, and Portfolios. They are insuring that they are making millions from it, as well as suppressing any one who rejects their fables. Last thing China wants is India competing with them on a cheap labour market with electricity driving their factories and plants. China has bought out most of Australia’s farming and Dairy industries which were once viable business, and has manipulated their lacies to suppress or tarnish the reputation of these who have rejected China’s stance on being the crown seat of the Pacific.
“Climate Change has been going on since time immemorial.”
Complete and utter incomprehension of the climate record. Thanks for your contribution Ken T.
I have lived in many places and the thing I most love about Australia is that we all pull together, when there is a challenge. Individualism and reverse snobbery are minor irritants that best illustrate the attempt to import that rubbish from the US.
Take a cyclone or a major bush fire, we rely upon the SES and volunteer Rural Firefighters. These people give their time and training, the problem is the younger generation are mostly casual workers. They have no awards or annual leave, and so, could lose their job, if they took 2 weeks off to volunteer to fight a fire.
So even here at the basic fabric of the Australian community, the effects of the destruction of our unipon system becomes apparent.