Has Mr Dutton really “put up”? He promises to give us more detail “in small bits”. Apart from the dishonesty and patronising implication, that strategy means he is assured of publicity every time he feeds the gushing media another “bit”. We are no more enlightened about how, when, what or why than we ever were.
Dutton deserves ridicule for his awful nuclear power thought bubble, with Albanese deserves ridicule for sinking to the depths of Morrison's stupidity with AUKUS. A race to the bottom.
Rather cynically I think the "plan" is to make as much anti-climate action politics out of the spectacle of the strongest proponents of zero emissions commitments opposing nuclear as possible - the solution the LNP would've had all along if they took climate science seriously and really cared about emissions and global warming (they don't), them knowing (for decades!) that renewables don't/won't/can't work. And siting them at coal plant sites? Like saying wouldn't it just be easier to build new coal plants? Meanwhile on the ground the LNP - especially the N - are fiercely opposing and obstructing the things that will make RE reliable at large scale, just to be sure of it.
Climate and emissions reductions commitments are only referenced at all by Dutton's lot as something they have no choice about, like they are forced on them by unwise international agreements and "green foolishness" - but they aren't foolish enough to openly oppose them. But having international climate agreements break down for not-our-fault reasons would result in cheering.
Not a plan to fix the climate problem better than anyone else, but a plan to make their ongoing lack of having a plan appear to be everyone else's fault, and most of all the fault of anti-nuclear green climate activists. Having the mature debate they asked for - discussions of costs and timelines by people in suits who know what they are talking about - was NOT what they wanted; what they wanted was a "debate" focused on unreasoning extremists in full protest face paint and regalia to point fingers at and mock. But growth of RE right now isn't driven by green extremists, or even by more nuanced climate science based policy concerns, but by demand for electricity at least cost. Which isn't going to get us to zero emissions but makes it much more possible to have policies that do.
Dutton is effectively undermining the renewable energy transition, by undermining investor confidence. And he's doing it from opposition. If he becomes PM he can override states to push ahead with nuclear power, and he can override local community opposition, but he would struggle to get the necessary legislation through the Senate. The bigger risk is that nothing and no-one could stop PM Dutton from massively derailing the renewable energy transition, so I guess that means extending the life of coal plants, new coal plants, and much more gas despite its high cost and greenhouse emissions. Sigh.
Essential Report July 2024, n = 1,141. 23% respondents rated nuclear energy as the 'most desirable' source of energy, and 32% as 'second most desirable'. Views on Dutton's plan: 48% (48%!!) thought his 'nuclear energy plan is serious, and should be considered as part of the nation's energy future'.
So John, do you reckon this means a substantial number of Australians form their views based more on political affiliation than actual evidence about the issue under discussion? And if so - what does that mean for the future of democracy as we know it?
The Murdoch/Sky media has covered nuclear power much more than other media outlets, and it is seriously biased. That's arguably the biggest problem. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2023.2291879
But do you think that's part of the same problem Jim? It's confirmation bias; the Murdoch media is popular not because people trust their reporting, but because they offer "evidence" in support of the insupportable? False equivalence; spurious journalistic "balance". Every now and then I rebuke myself for my lack of balance and I try to read 'other' media sources but I give up after about 5 minutes because it's all so ludicrous.
Every day I google 'nuclear power Australia' and there are lots of pro-nuclear Murdoch/Sky articles, editorials, videos ... so yes there's lots of confirmation bias but they are also bombarding people who are new / neutral. That said, I think there's a pretty healthy cynicism about Dutton's motives, I can't find it now but one recent poll had 63% of young people believing Dutton's main aim is to prolong and extend the use of fossil fuels.
Has Mr Dutton really “put up”? He promises to give us more detail “in small bits”. Apart from the dishonesty and patronising implication, that strategy means he is assured of publicity every time he feeds the gushing media another “bit”. We are no more enlightened about how, when, what or why than we ever were.
Dutton deserves ridicule for his awful nuclear power thought bubble, with Albanese deserves ridicule for sinking to the depths of Morrison's stupidity with AUKUS. A race to the bottom.
A nuclear plague on both their houses.
Wouldn't that mean a nuclear plague on all of us?
Rather cynically I think the "plan" is to make as much anti-climate action politics out of the spectacle of the strongest proponents of zero emissions commitments opposing nuclear as possible - the solution the LNP would've had all along if they took climate science seriously and really cared about emissions and global warming (they don't), them knowing (for decades!) that renewables don't/won't/can't work. And siting them at coal plant sites? Like saying wouldn't it just be easier to build new coal plants? Meanwhile on the ground the LNP - especially the N - are fiercely opposing and obstructing the things that will make RE reliable at large scale, just to be sure of it.
Climate and emissions reductions commitments are only referenced at all by Dutton's lot as something they have no choice about, like they are forced on them by unwise international agreements and "green foolishness" - but they aren't foolish enough to openly oppose them. But having international climate agreements break down for not-our-fault reasons would result in cheering.
Not a plan to fix the climate problem better than anyone else, but a plan to make their ongoing lack of having a plan appear to be everyone else's fault, and most of all the fault of anti-nuclear green climate activists. Having the mature debate they asked for - discussions of costs and timelines by people in suits who know what they are talking about - was NOT what they wanted; what they wanted was a "debate" focused on unreasoning extremists in full protest face paint and regalia to point fingers at and mock. But growth of RE right now isn't driven by green extremists, or even by more nuanced climate science based policy concerns, but by demand for electricity at least cost. Which isn't going to get us to zero emissions but makes it much more possible to have policies that do.
Dutton is effectively undermining the renewable energy transition, by undermining investor confidence. And he's doing it from opposition. If he becomes PM he can override states to push ahead with nuclear power, and he can override local community opposition, but he would struggle to get the necessary legislation through the Senate. The bigger risk is that nothing and no-one could stop PM Dutton from massively derailing the renewable energy transition, so I guess that means extending the life of coal plants, new coal plants, and much more gas despite its high cost and greenhouse emissions. Sigh.
Essential Report July 2024, n = 1,141. 23% respondents rated nuclear energy as the 'most desirable' source of energy, and 32% as 'second most desirable'. Views on Dutton's plan: 48% (48%!!) thought his 'nuclear energy plan is serious, and should be considered as part of the nation's energy future'.
So John, do you reckon this means a substantial number of Australians form their views based more on political affiliation than actual evidence about the issue under discussion? And if so - what does that mean for the future of democracy as we know it?
The Murdoch/Sky media has covered nuclear power much more than other media outlets, and it is seriously biased. That's arguably the biggest problem. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2023.2291879
But do you think that's part of the same problem Jim? It's confirmation bias; the Murdoch media is popular not because people trust their reporting, but because they offer "evidence" in support of the insupportable? False equivalence; spurious journalistic "balance". Every now and then I rebuke myself for my lack of balance and I try to read 'other' media sources but I give up after about 5 minutes because it's all so ludicrous.
Every day I google 'nuclear power Australia' and there are lots of pro-nuclear Murdoch/Sky articles, editorials, videos ... so yes there's lots of confirmation bias but they are also bombarding people who are new / neutral. That said, I think there's a pretty healthy cynicism about Dutton's motives, I can't find it now but one recent poll had 63% of young people believing Dutton's main aim is to prolong and extend the use of fossil fuels.
I used to have a bunch of Google Alerts set up, but then the results became dominated by right-wing media so I deleted them. I suspect it's part of what Cory Doctorow calls 'Platform capitalism and the curse of "enshittification"' -https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/futuretense/cory-doctorow-enshittification-platform-capitalism/102492918 - which is why AI scares me to death.