We spoke to Barnaby Joyce, and this is what he had to say about net zero
After being relegated to the backbench by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, Mr Joyce was clearly enjoying the attention while talking up his private member's bill to abolish Australia's climate target.
The member for New England, who says Ms Ley's predecessor Peter Dutton wanted to sack him for refusing to say nuclear energy would bring down electricity prices and opposing net zero, has gone rogue with his bill - which will be top of the agenda when politicians return to Canberra in three weeks' time.
It's putting a spotlight on the Coalition's longstanding divisions over climate and energy, just as Ms Ley seeks to unite the opposition after its electoral wipe-out.
Mr Joyce calls the pursuit of net zero a "lunatic crusade" and wants Australia to go with the cheapest possible energy - even if that is coal - and rails against renewables like solar and "swindle factories" (wind farms).
And he's not the only one, with Coalition frontbencher Andrew Hastie taking aim at new Western Australian Liberal leader Basil Zempilas for supporting net zero this week, ahead of Ms Ley's upcoming visit.
The Albanese government is seeking to extract as much political capital as possible from the issue, even as it comes under pressure over its own climate policy ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.
Labor passed a procedural motion on Thursday scheduling Mr Joyce's private member's bill for debate in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day back, August 25.
It was a tactical play, aimed at dialling up the pressure on Ms Ley as she grapples with the longstanding conflict among her MPs over climate.
The motion was opposed by all Coalition members except for Mr Joyce.
His bill seeks to dismantle the 2050 net zero target - which the Coalition supported before the election but is now reviewing - by overturning or amending climate legislation.
Ms Ley sought to downplay the divisions this week while vowing to allow all views to be considered as the Coalition reviews net zero through a working group led by energy and emissions spokesperson Dan Tehan.
"It's going to flesh out the different perspectives," she said. "Everything is on the table."
While conservatives want to ditch the target, some moderate Liberals say that without it, the Coalition, which has been reduced to just 43 lower house seats and 27 in the Senate, cannot form a credible alternative government or win back inner-city seats lost to teal independents.
Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie says the "centre of gravity in Australia now is for strong targets", with the majority of civil society and business groups supporting the clean energy transition, describing Mr Joyce as a "lone voice in the community".
"[His] policy position is let it rip, like let the climate crisis get as bad as it can, because we're not going to do anything about it," Ms McKenzie told this masthead.
"The science shows that we can if we let climate change go unchecked, that's a $4 trillion hit to the economy. That's the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland tourism industry ... Nearly 10 per cent of properties ... would be uninsurable."
On Monday, One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson took up Mr Joyce's cause with an urgency motion in the Senate calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target.
While it failed, Liberal senator Alex Antic and Nationals senator Matt Canavan joined One Nation's four senators and United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet in voting for it.
When asked if she or her office directed Liberal senators to abstain from the vote, Ms Ley said only: "We're regularly in touch with senators, and we're regularly in touch with members via the whip, via the managers of both opposition business in the House and the Senate."
Senator Canavan, one of the Coalition's most vocal critics of net zero, said there was no hurry to reach an agreed position this far out from the next election, telling reporters: "We're irrelevant right now, who cares what it looks [like] right now ... It doesn't have to be neat or tidy or pretty".
When asked about the comment, Mr Tehan said it was "incredibly important that we have an alternative to put to the Australian people" and that work would continue "over the next nine to 12 months".
As the Coalition pursued Labor in parliamentary question time over power bill costs on Thursday, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen hit back with: "They are triggered every time we mention renewable energy."
While Ms Ley seeks to mend the Coalition's climate rift, the government is pushing ahead with efforts to reduce Australia's carbon emissions through a transition to renewable energy.
UN climate chief Simon Steele - who met with Mr Bowen in Canberra this week - has urged the government to "go big", saying the new target will be a "defining moment" for Australia, while Independent ACT senator David Pocock called it "the biggest test of the moral courage of the Albanese government".
The Climate Council wants a commitment to slash emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035, saying this is the level required to "do our fair share to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius" - the level scientists warn will tip global warming into catastrophic and irreversible territory - while the Greens say anything less would breach the Paris Agreement.
Ms McKenzie said Australia had for years been a pariah on the international stage when it came to climate, but that things were turning around.
"It was embarrassing to go to these international negotiations and say you're Australian ... But that has changed substantially," she said.
READ MORE:
"If there's a trade negotiation, we should be in the room. And the only way to get in the room is to have skin in the game ... You only have skin in the game in climate if you are acting, then you have credibility."
Mr Bowen told the ABC: "We'll be setting our target in terms of our national interest, what's good for Australia, what comes out of the modelling as the right balance [and] as the Climate Change Act demands, [with] consideration of the science and all the evidence before us."
The CSIRO, which this week released its annual GenCost report for 2024-25, says firm renewables backed by transmission are the lowest-cost new form of electricity generation technology, while small modular nuclear reactors are the most expensive.
The Coalition is yet to decide if it wants to retain the policy Mr Dutton took to the election to build nuclear power plants to meet Australia's energy needs, but wants to lift the moratorium on nuclear as a starting point.
When asked by Mr Tehan if the government would meet its target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target, Mr Bowen said it took "some temerity from those opposite to ask this side of the house about meeting our targets, when they can't agree on whether they have a target".
When Barnaby Joyce caught up with this masthead in Parliament House last week, the former deputy prime minister was in fine form.
After being relegated to the backbench by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, Mr Joyce was clearly enjoying the attention while talking up his private member's bill to abolish Australia's climate target.
The member for New England, who says Ms Ley's predecessor Peter Dutton wanted to sack him for refusing to say nuclear energy would bring down electricity prices and opposing net zero, has gone rogue with his bill - which will be top of the agenda when politicians return to Canberra in three weeks' time.
It's putting a spotlight on the Coalition's longstanding divisions over climate and energy, just as Ms Ley seeks to unite the opposition after its electoral wipe-out.
Mr Joyce calls the pursuit of net zero a "lunatic crusade" and wants Australia to go with the cheapest possible energy - even if that is coal - and rails against renewables like solar and "swindle factories" (wind farms).
And he's not the only one, with Coalition frontbencher Andrew Hastie taking aim at new Western Australian Liberal leader Basil Zempilas for supporting net zero this week, ahead of Ms Ley's upcoming visit.
The Albanese government is seeking to extract as much political capital as possible from the issue, even as it comes under pressure over its own climate policy ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.
Labor passed a procedural motion on Thursday scheduling Mr Joyce's private member's bill for debate in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day back, August 25.
It was a tactical play, aimed at dialling up the pressure on Ms Ley as she grapples with the longstanding conflict among her MPs over climate.
The motion was opposed by all Coalition members except for Mr Joyce.
His bill seeks to dismantle the 2050 net zero target - which the Coalition supported before the election but is now reviewing - by overturning or amending climate legislation.
Ms Ley sought to downplay the divisions this week while vowing to allow all views to be considered as the Coalition reviews net zero through a working group led by energy and emissions spokesperson Dan Tehan.
"It's going to flesh out the different perspectives," she said. "Everything is on the table."
While conservatives want to ditch the target, some moderate Liberals say that without it, the Coalition, which has been reduced to just 43 lower house seats and 27 in the Senate, cannot form a credible alternative government or win back inner-city seats lost to teal independents.
Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie says the "centre of gravity in Australia now is for strong targets", with the majority of civil society and business groups supporting the clean energy transition, describing Mr Joyce as a "lone voice in the community".
"[His] policy position is let it rip, like let the climate crisis get as bad as it can, because we're not going to do anything about it," Ms McKenzie told this masthead.
"The science shows that we can if we let climate change go unchecked, that's a $4 trillion hit to the economy. That's the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland tourism industry ... Nearly 10 per cent of properties ... would be uninsurable."
On Monday, One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson took up Mr Joyce's cause with an urgency motion in the Senate calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target.
While it failed, Liberal senator Alex Antic and Nationals senator Matt Canavan joined One Nation's four senators and United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet in voting for it.
When asked if she or her office directed Liberal senators to abstain from the vote, Ms Ley said only: "We're regularly in touch with senators, and we're regularly in touch with members via the whip, via the managers of both opposition business in the House and the Senate."
Senator Canavan, one of the Coalition's most vocal critics of net zero, said there was no hurry to reach an agreed position this far out from the next election, telling reporters: "We're irrelevant right now, who cares what it looks [like] right now ... It doesn't have to be neat or tidy or pretty".
When asked about the comment, Mr Tehan said it was "incredibly important that we have an alternative to put to the Australian people" and that work would continue "over the next nine to 12 months".
As the Coalition pursued Labor in parliamentary question time over power bill costs on Thursday, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen hit back with: "They are triggered every time we mention renewable energy."
While Ms Ley seeks to mend the Coalition's climate rift, the government is pushing ahead with efforts to reduce Australia's carbon emissions through a transition to renewable energy.
UN climate chief Simon Steele - who met with Mr Bowen in Canberra this week - has urged the government to "go big", saying the new target will be a "defining moment" for Australia, while Independent ACT senator David Pocock called it "the biggest test of the moral courage of the Albanese government".
The Climate Council wants a commitment to slash emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035, saying this is the level required to "do our fair share to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius" - the level scientists warn will tip global warming into catastrophic and irreversible territory - while the Greens say anything less would breach the Paris Agreement.
Ms McKenzie said Australia had for years been a pariah on the international stage when it came to climate, but that things were turning around.
"It was embarrassing to go to these international negotiations and say you're Australian ... But that has changed substantially," she said.
READ MORE:
"If there's a trade negotiation, we should be in the room. And the only way to get in the room is to have skin in the game ... You only have skin in the game in climate if you are acting, then you have credibility."
Mr Bowen told the ABC: "We'll be setting our target in terms of our national interest, what's good for Australia, what comes out of the modelling as the right balance [and] as the Climate Change Act demands, [with] consideration of the science and all the evidence before us."
The CSIRO, which this week released its annual GenCost report for 2024-25, says firm renewables backed by transmission are the lowest-cost new form of electricity generation technology, while small modular nuclear reactors are the most expensive.
The Coalition is yet to decide if it wants to retain the policy Mr Dutton took to the election to build nuclear power plants to meet Australia's energy needs, but wants to lift the moratorium on nuclear as a starting point.
When asked by Mr Tehan if the government would meet its target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target, Mr Bowen said it took "some temerity from those opposite to ask this side of the house about meeting our targets, when they can't agree on whether they have a target".
When Barnaby Joyce caught up with this masthead in Parliament House last week, the former deputy prime minister was in fine form.
After being relegated to the backbench by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, Mr Joyce was clearly enjoying the attention while talking up his private member's bill to abolish Australia's climate target.
The member for New England, who says Ms Ley's predecessor Peter Dutton wanted to sack him for refusing to say nuclear energy would bring down electricity prices and opposing net zero, has gone rogue with his bill - which will be top of the agenda when politicians return to Canberra in three weeks' time.
It's putting a spotlight on the Coalition's longstanding divisions over climate and energy, just as Ms Ley seeks to unite the opposition after its electoral wipe-out.
Mr Joyce calls the pursuit of net zero a "lunatic crusade" and wants Australia to go with the cheapest possible energy - even if that is coal - and rails against renewables like solar and "swindle factories" (wind farms).
And he's not the only one, with Coalition frontbencher Andrew Hastie taking aim at new Western Australian Liberal leader Basil Zempilas for supporting net zero this week, ahead of Ms Ley's upcoming visit.
The Albanese government is seeking to extract as much political capital as possible from the issue, even as it comes under pressure over its own climate policy ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.
Labor passed a procedural motion on Thursday scheduling Mr Joyce's private member's bill for debate in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day back, August 25.
It was a tactical play, aimed at dialling up the pressure on Ms Ley as she grapples with the longstanding conflict among her MPs over climate.
The motion was opposed by all Coalition members except for Mr Joyce.
His bill seeks to dismantle the 2050 net zero target - which the Coalition supported before the election but is now reviewing - by overturning or amending climate legislation.
Ms Ley sought to downplay the divisions this week while vowing to allow all views to be considered as the Coalition reviews net zero through a working group led by energy and emissions spokesperson Dan Tehan.
"It's going to flesh out the different perspectives," she said. "Everything is on the table."
While conservatives want to ditch the target, some moderate Liberals say that without it, the Coalition, which has been reduced to just 43 lower house seats and 27 in the Senate, cannot form a credible alternative government or win back inner-city seats lost to teal independents.
Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie says the "centre of gravity in Australia now is for strong targets", with the majority of civil society and business groups supporting the clean energy transition, describing Mr Joyce as a "lone voice in the community".
"[His] policy position is let it rip, like let the climate crisis get as bad as it can, because we're not going to do anything about it," Ms McKenzie told this masthead.
"The science shows that we can if we let climate change go unchecked, that's a $4 trillion hit to the economy. That's the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland tourism industry ... Nearly 10 per cent of properties ... would be uninsurable."
On Monday, One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson took up Mr Joyce's cause with an urgency motion in the Senate calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target.
While it failed, Liberal senator Alex Antic and Nationals senator Matt Canavan joined One Nation's four senators and United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet in voting for it.
When asked if she or her office directed Liberal senators to abstain from the vote, Ms Ley said only: "We're regularly in touch with senators, and we're regularly in touch with members via the whip, via the managers of both opposition business in the House and the Senate."
Senator Canavan, one of the Coalition's most vocal critics of net zero, said there was no hurry to reach an agreed position this far out from the next election, telling reporters: "We're irrelevant right now, who cares what it looks [like] right now ... It doesn't have to be neat or tidy or pretty".
When asked about the comment, Mr Tehan said it was "incredibly important that we have an alternative to put to the Australian people" and that work would continue "over the next nine to 12 months".
As the Coalition pursued Labor in parliamentary question time over power bill costs on Thursday, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen hit back with: "They are triggered every time we mention renewable energy."
While Ms Ley seeks to mend the Coalition's climate rift, the government is pushing ahead with efforts to reduce Australia's carbon emissions through a transition to renewable energy.
UN climate chief Simon Steele - who met with Mr Bowen in Canberra this week - has urged the government to "go big", saying the new target will be a "defining moment" for Australia, while Independent ACT senator David Pocock called it "the biggest test of the moral courage of the Albanese government".
The Climate Council wants a commitment to slash emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035, saying this is the level required to "do our fair share to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius" - the level scientists warn will tip global warming into catastrophic and irreversible territory - while the Greens say anything less would breach the Paris Agreement.
Ms McKenzie said Australia had for years been a pariah on the international stage when it came to climate, but that things were turning around.
"It was embarrassing to go to these international negotiations and say you're Australian ... But that has changed substantially," she said.
READ MORE:
"If there's a trade negotiation, we should be in the room. And the only way to get in the room is to have skin in the game ... You only have skin in the game in climate if you are acting, then you have credibility."
Mr Bowen told the ABC: "We'll be setting our target in terms of our national interest, what's good for Australia, what comes out of the modelling as the right balance [and] as the Climate Change Act demands, [with] consideration of the science and all the evidence before us."
The CSIRO, which this week released its annual GenCost report for 2024-25, says firm renewables backed by transmission are the lowest-cost new form of electricity generation technology, while small modular nuclear reactors are the most expensive.
The Coalition is yet to decide if it wants to retain the policy Mr Dutton took to the election to build nuclear power plants to meet Australia's energy needs, but wants to lift the moratorium on nuclear as a starting point.
When asked by Mr Tehan if the government would meet its target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target, Mr Bowen said it took "some temerity from those opposite to ask this side of the house about meeting our targets, when they can't agree on whether they have a target".
When Barnaby Joyce caught up with this masthead in Parliament House last week, the former deputy prime minister was in fine form.
After being relegated to the backbench by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, Mr Joyce was clearly enjoying the attention while talking up his private member's bill to abolish Australia's climate target.
The member for New England, who says Ms Ley's predecessor Peter Dutton wanted to sack him for refusing to say nuclear energy would bring down electricity prices and opposing net zero, has gone rogue with his bill - which will be top of the agenda when politicians return to Canberra in three weeks' time.
It's putting a spotlight on the Coalition's longstanding divisions over climate and energy, just as Ms Ley seeks to unite the opposition after its electoral wipe-out.
Mr Joyce calls the pursuit of net zero a "lunatic crusade" and wants Australia to go with the cheapest possible energy - even if that is coal - and rails against renewables like solar and "swindle factories" (wind farms).
And he's not the only one, with Coalition frontbencher Andrew Hastie taking aim at new Western Australian Liberal leader Basil Zempilas for supporting net zero this week, ahead of Ms Ley's upcoming visit.
The Albanese government is seeking to extract as much political capital as possible from the issue, even as it comes under pressure over its own climate policy ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September.
Labor passed a procedural motion on Thursday scheduling Mr Joyce's private member's bill for debate in the House of Representatives on the first sitting day back, August 25.
It was a tactical play, aimed at dialling up the pressure on Ms Ley as she grapples with the longstanding conflict among her MPs over climate.
The motion was opposed by all Coalition members except for Mr Joyce.
His bill seeks to dismantle the 2050 net zero target - which the Coalition supported before the election but is now reviewing - by overturning or amending climate legislation.
Ms Ley sought to downplay the divisions this week while vowing to allow all views to be considered as the Coalition reviews net zero through a working group led by energy and emissions spokesperson Dan Tehan.
"It's going to flesh out the different perspectives," she said. "Everything is on the table."
While conservatives want to ditch the target, some moderate Liberals say that without it, the Coalition, which has been reduced to just 43 lower house seats and 27 in the Senate, cannot form a credible alternative government or win back inner-city seats lost to teal independents.
Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie says the "centre of gravity in Australia now is for strong targets", with the majority of civil society and business groups supporting the clean energy transition, describing Mr Joyce as a "lone voice in the community".
"[His] policy position is let it rip, like let the climate crisis get as bad as it can, because we're not going to do anything about it," Ms McKenzie told this masthead.
"The science shows that we can if we let climate change go unchecked, that's a $4 trillion hit to the economy. That's the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland tourism industry ... Nearly 10 per cent of properties ... would be uninsurable."
On Monday, One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson took up Mr Joyce's cause with an urgency motion in the Senate calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target.
While it failed, Liberal senator Alex Antic and Nationals senator Matt Canavan joined One Nation's four senators and United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet in voting for it.
When asked if she or her office directed Liberal senators to abstain from the vote, Ms Ley said only: "We're regularly in touch with senators, and we're regularly in touch with members via the whip, via the managers of both opposition business in the House and the Senate."
Senator Canavan, one of the Coalition's most vocal critics of net zero, said there was no hurry to reach an agreed position this far out from the next election, telling reporters: "We're irrelevant right now, who cares what it looks [like] right now ... It doesn't have to be neat or tidy or pretty".
When asked about the comment, Mr Tehan said it was "incredibly important that we have an alternative to put to the Australian people" and that work would continue "over the next nine to 12 months".
As the Coalition pursued Labor in parliamentary question time over power bill costs on Thursday, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen hit back with: "They are triggered every time we mention renewable energy."
While Ms Ley seeks to mend the Coalition's climate rift, the government is pushing ahead with efforts to reduce Australia's carbon emissions through a transition to renewable energy.
UN climate chief Simon Steele - who met with Mr Bowen in Canberra this week - has urged the government to "go big", saying the new target will be a "defining moment" for Australia, while Independent ACT senator David Pocock called it "the biggest test of the moral courage of the Albanese government".
The Climate Council wants a commitment to slash emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035, saying this is the level required to "do our fair share to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius" - the level scientists warn will tip global warming into catastrophic and irreversible territory - while the Greens say anything less would breach the Paris Agreement.
Ms McKenzie said Australia had for years been a pariah on the international stage when it came to climate, but that things were turning around.
"It was embarrassing to go to these international negotiations and say you're Australian ... But that has changed substantially," she said.
READ MORE:
"If there's a trade negotiation, we should be in the room. And the only way to get in the room is to have skin in the game ... You only have skin in the game in climate if you are acting, then you have credibility."
Mr Bowen told the ABC: "We'll be setting our target in terms of our national interest, what's good for Australia, what comes out of the modelling as the right balance [and] as the Climate Change Act demands, [with] consideration of the science and all the evidence before us."
The CSIRO, which this week released its annual GenCost report for 2024-25, says firm renewables backed by transmission are the lowest-cost new form of electricity generation technology, while small modular nuclear reactors are the most expensive.
The Coalition is yet to decide if it wants to retain the policy Mr Dutton took to the election to build nuclear power plants to meet Australia's energy needs, but wants to lift the moratorium on nuclear as a starting point.
When asked by Mr Tehan if the government would meet its target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target, Mr Bowen said it took "some temerity from those opposite to ask this side of the house about meeting our targets, when they can't agree on whether they have a target".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
33 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Sky News Contributor Louise Roberts says a pro Palestinian protest over the Sydney Harbour Bridge is madess
This Sunday a radical activist collective - the Palestine Action Group - wants to shut down the Sydney Harbour Bridge to stage a pro-Palestinian protest. NSW Premier Chris Minns says he will not allow our steel and granite symbol of unity and resilience to be closed 'under any circumstances'. Good. Let's be clear: no one is denying the right to protest and no one wants innocent civilians in Gaza starving to death. Yes, the suffering we are witnessing from the safety of Australia is undeniable and to wholesale blame Israel for this is appalling when Hamas has the region in its cruel, iron grip. Hijacking the Harbour Bridge to stage a global political spectacle from Sydney is not peaceful protest. It is theatrics disguised as justice. Mr Minns and NSW Police have said they would support the protest if it is held at another location or time. The Palestine Action Group, I would argue, is not purely a group calling for peace and critical help for perishing and injured citizens in the Middle East. To be blunt, some of them include people who, since the October 7 2023 Hamas terrorist slaughter, have waved flags for a cause that routinely veers into anti-Semitic slogans and chants for Israel to be wiped off the map. When organisers like Josh Lees claim the Australian government is 'enabling genocide' through arms exports, the focus shifts dramatically. Is this truly a call for humanitarian aid or has the march became a political battering ram aimed at Canberra? NSW Police, under Deputy Commissioner Thurtell, have shown remarkable restraint. They have enabled more than 100 pro-Palestine demonstrations since the horrors of October 7, despite the appalling aftermath of the protest on the Opera House steps. That is not police obstruction. It is operational goodwill. Organisers point to past closures of the bridge, such as for a Ryan Gosling film and World Pride, but those events were widely supported and carefully planned. Mr Minns is treading a fine line between recognising public sentiment and upholding civic order. Meanwhile across the border in Victoria, it's the same story. No surprise. Pro-Palestine protesters are planning to block Melbourne's King Street Bridge this weekend despite warnings from police. Hundreds of officers will be redeployed to manage this event which will drag resources away from crime, emergencies and actual policing duties. What has become clear is this: the bridge protests aren't about peace or humanitarian concern. They are about headlines and optics. 'Block the City for Gaza' reads the posters. Not help Gaza. All of this is unfolding as Australia moves closer to recognising a Palestinian state, with suggestions that the Albanese government likely to join the UK, France and Canada in supporting the move as part of efforts toward a two-state solution. This is despite fears, led by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, that this decision would fuel Hamas. Respected Jewish leader Mark Leibler this week reminded Mr Albanese of his own conditions on this very issue: no recognition until Hamas is disarmed and the hostages are freed. Neither has happened. In an interview with The Australian, Mr Leibler's warning couldn't be clearer - premature recognition punishes the innocent and rewards terror. Israeli hostages will still be underground, Palestinian civilians will still be suffering and meanwhile Hamas is emboldened by every Western government desperate to look progressive. Social media messages this week ahead of the march from The Palestine Action Group include this: 'In our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinians.' And this: 'Chris Minns: get out of the way we're stopping a genocide'. Plus more: 'The bridge is really important. The Zionists are comfortable in the city, with enormous power over media and institutions. A big march on the bridge will make them uncomfortable, will hit back.' 'See you there!' 'The cops can't arrest all of us even if it doesn't win in court.' 'Where can I get a Palestinian flag?" And so on. No mention of the mother and baby butchers and rapists of Hamas, then. It is always what evil Israel 'is doing'. Fighting the police decision in NSW's Supreme Court is not about protesting. It is about power. And they want to see if they can take it from us. And the Premier, under fire for his handling of the situation, has been more than reasonable. One MP even accused him of caring more about 'traffic flow than starving children.' Protest isn't a free pass. It doesn't allow you to bring national infrastructure to a halt just because you are passionate about a cause.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Work from home a legal right in Australian-first reform
Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not. Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not. Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not. Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
This carbon policy has been a spectacular failure. Let's put this zombie in the ground for good
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
