If only the Right showed any signs that they actually take global warming seriously and really care about reducing emissions... let alone are serious about fixing it better than anyone else. ANY indication at all would be good, because without that fundamental concern for what climate science is telling us it looks too much like holding up a bar too high, not to encourage everyone to go over but to keep us going under it whilst protecting the economy from RE (economic health = fossil fuels in Rightland) , until everyone "comes to their senses".
Having no working climate emissions reductions policy whilst claiming that is everyone else's fault (Oh, too bad, we have to support fossil fuels) looks like a more realistic assessment of what the LNP nuclear "plan" is all about. The insincerity isn't flaw, it is feature.
Dutton’s embrace of a publicly run Nuclear industry without the expertise in the public service is an open embrace without any sense of contradiction of their magical thinking, whereby politicians claim to stimulate the economy and support jobs by cutting a tenth of the Public service (as Abbott did). The "cutting of Red Tape" and the cutting of more than a tenth of the public service during Abbott's time alone has had consequences. They stripped the size of the government to the point that it is incapable of functioning correctly for normal public functions, and now Dutton wants them to run a nuclear industry? WTF? Seriously? And who will build this with most of our manufacturing industry gone (thanks Hockey).
The consequences of the decimation of manufacturing and Public service under conservative rule have impacted other industries, such as education. The decline destroyed yet another training base for trades and reduced the intake of apprentices. The budget cuts of Abbott's administration also severely impacted apprenticeships. Tracking the causes, consequences, and level of damage to our employment economy has been made all the more complicated by Abbott's savage dismantling of expert advisory panels as compiled by Sally McManus. The elimination of free university education has resulted in a dumbing down of the Australian population. Where in the world are we getting the nuclear expertise?
The deteriorating of education results in quality standards in Australian Universities based on economic capacity to enter education and the resultant financial pressure to pass mediocre students, as opposed to passing them based on intellectual demonstrations of their quality of academic work. Identical circumstances exist in other Western countries. So, do we want these inferiorly qualified people running nuclear plants? FFS! (Sorry, I shouldn't be swearing twice in one comment, but... FFS!)
Why is hydro such an important storage over other types of gravity batteries?
Keep hearing about lack of govt investment in EV charging, governments didn't build petrol stations, why do they need to fund private vehicle charging infrastructure? The avg car trip in Oz is only about 20km
Amen to this. Real neoliberalism :) requires a lot more state capacity than the (rhetorically) deregulate tax cut with deficits version we actually got. Pigou taxes don't grow on trees. You need tons of economists and engineers and sociologists to do cost-benefit regulation.
Now how big a role nuclear power vs other technologies will paly and who will own them in getting the world to net zero is TBD.
I detect in your last few posts the germ of an argument:
1. Net zero is imperative for Australia.
2. Nukes may be a technological path to net zero, but make no economic sense.
3. The Right loves them some nukes and hates all other net zero.
4. (???) Given political economy, nukes may nevertheless make some sense.
If only the Right showed any signs that they actually take global warming seriously and really care about reducing emissions... let alone are serious about fixing it better than anyone else. ANY indication at all would be good, because without that fundamental concern for what climate science is telling us it looks too much like holding up a bar too high, not to encourage everyone to go over but to keep us going under it whilst protecting the economy from RE (economic health = fossil fuels in Rightland) , until everyone "comes to their senses".
Having no working climate emissions reductions policy whilst claiming that is everyone else's fault (Oh, too bad, we have to support fossil fuels) looks like a more realistic assessment of what the LNP nuclear "plan" is all about. The insincerity isn't flaw, it is feature.
Dutton’s embrace of a publicly run Nuclear industry without the expertise in the public service is an open embrace without any sense of contradiction of their magical thinking, whereby politicians claim to stimulate the economy and support jobs by cutting a tenth of the Public service (as Abbott did). The "cutting of Red Tape" and the cutting of more than a tenth of the public service during Abbott's time alone has had consequences. They stripped the size of the government to the point that it is incapable of functioning correctly for normal public functions, and now Dutton wants them to run a nuclear industry? WTF? Seriously? And who will build this with most of our manufacturing industry gone (thanks Hockey).
The consequences of the decimation of manufacturing and Public service under conservative rule have impacted other industries, such as education. The decline destroyed yet another training base for trades and reduced the intake of apprentices. The budget cuts of Abbott's administration also severely impacted apprenticeships. Tracking the causes, consequences, and level of damage to our employment economy has been made all the more complicated by Abbott's savage dismantling of expert advisory panels as compiled by Sally McManus. The elimination of free university education has resulted in a dumbing down of the Australian population. Where in the world are we getting the nuclear expertise?
The deteriorating of education results in quality standards in Australian Universities based on economic capacity to enter education and the resultant financial pressure to pass mediocre students, as opposed to passing them based on intellectual demonstrations of their quality of academic work. Identical circumstances exist in other Western countries. So, do we want these inferiorly qualified people running nuclear plants? FFS! (Sorry, I shouldn't be swearing twice in one comment, but... FFS!)
Why is hydro such an important storage over other types of gravity batteries?
Keep hearing about lack of govt investment in EV charging, governments didn't build petrol stations, why do they need to fund private vehicle charging infrastructure? The avg car trip in Oz is only about 20km
Amen to this. Real neoliberalism :) requires a lot more state capacity than the (rhetorically) deregulate tax cut with deficits version we actually got. Pigou taxes don't grow on trees. You need tons of economists and engineers and sociologists to do cost-benefit regulation.
Now how big a role nuclear power vs other technologies will paly and who will own them in getting the world to net zero is TBD.