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.
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.
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.