Australian Politics

1293 readers

2 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Federal Coalition commits to dumping 2030 climate target as it pursues nuclear power (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short: The Coalition says Labor will fail to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reductions target but will damage Australian industry in trying.

Recent projections indicate Australia is not on track for the 2030 target, but could get close if existing policies are implemented as promised.

What next? The Coalition is focusing on gas and nuclear power, which the Australian Conservation Foundation describes as a "fantasy which Australia does not need".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To have any chnave we have to engage in demand destruction. There are NO solutions involving growing the economy, we'll fuck around trying though and make it much worse

It doesnt have to mean a shitty life, it does.mean a differnt life eg no car and cycle and PT means no car costs, denser quieter cities, large houses banned, small really well insulated homes only, less deaths from car polluton etc. We need to ban flying, close airports etc

All we're doing now is greenwashed nonsense and blah blah blah. At mimum we should be building no more roads and only funding e trains and e bus lanes etc

We've barley started with planned withdrawal from coast lines.

We either crash the economy (preferably equitably) or we collapse civilisation, were out of choices, we have left it to long. Neither the ALP nor the LNO are up to the task but that's on voters supporting those assholes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Probably simple, whilst incredibly difficult. We can begin with removing by-products and side effects and every last synonym of the two from our vocabulary.

Coal and gas energy comes with green house gases which we conveniently called side effects and ignored. Only those side effects have grown exponentially to haunt us.

Nuclear energy comes with the question of nuclear waste.

No idea about what solar panels and wind turbines come with.

Every energy generation endeavour is an all or none, take it or leave it deal. Unless our culture accepts this, incredibly difficult.

Incredibly difficult because every listed business is required by law to grow at all costs and deliver profits and growths to the shareholders. Who has the backbone to put a strict speed limit on profits and growths? How do we police the speeds of business growths? Or how and where do we start?

More incredibly difficult because of sustained campaigns such as individual carbon footprint with backing from some of the deepest pockets.

While on the topic of side effects and by products, another huge elephant in the room is the agriculture industry. I think we can leave it for another discussion.