This week, Labor’s Richard Marles stated that the collapse of our coal industry would “be wonderful.” An industry that reaps $25billion a year in export dollars. The Greens Adam Bandt tabled a bill that seeks to prohibit the mining & export of thermal coal after 2030. How any elected representatives can be so reckless astounds me.
On Thursday a piece published in the Australian informed us that, “Labor’s 45 percent emissions reduction target would push electricity prices 50 percent higher, cost workers up to $9000 a year in lower wages and wipe $472 billion from the economy over the next decade.” This was according to the first independent modelling of the energy policies of both the government and opposition.
The Coalition’s commitment to meeting a 26-28 percent reduction under the Paris Agreement would also come at a cost, with $70bn in cumulative economic losses by 2030 and a 2 percent hit to real wage growth.”
The Australian headline read , “Carbon cut apocalypse” wording like that is not helpful. It’s just another example of inflammatory words used to stir people up a typical media tactic. The research data comes from a piece by Brian Fisher and is under peer review in the US. If you’re interested to knowing more about Brian Fisher, I have added a link at the bottom. It’s also worth noting that he served as a chief advisor on climate policy under the Hawke, Keating Labor governments and Howard’s LNP government.
It’s easy to whip ourselves into a lather of sweat over this stuff but we have to take a sensible approach. Whilst many won’t accept this we are in the middle of the next “global revolution” being energy; “harnessing natural energy sources with efficient usage.” There will be a cost attached to that just as there has been to other revolutions like the industrial and technology revolutions. Those costs come in different ways (sure) but change does cost but, not changing can have a greater long term impact.
Those who rail against this are fond of quoting that our contribution to global CO2 is measly. That’s true. They also are fond of quoting China and India are building new coal fired power plants. Also true but both are only part of the story and selective rebuttal isn’t helpful. The discussion is much bigger than that and it needs to be.
We are also part of a global community and that community including China and India are moving down a path of variable energy sources. Yes, India and China are building coal plants but they are doing much more than just that. Given the global energy shift it’s only natural we shift as well. The challenge is to do that with the least disruption, the best price points and to achieve that in the most efficient manner.
In the foreseeable future, the world must GRADUALLY transform from exploiting the natural reserves such as coal and oil because they will deplete to harnessing natural energy. There is also another compelling reason for doing this. The world is politically, and to a lesser degree economically unstable. We are heavily reliant both on imports of oil and exports of coal. We have little control over the exporters of oil. Likewise we have little control over countries who buy and use our coal and their timeframe for making their own energy changes. The technology that provides alternate energy sources like sun, wind and water requires a lot more development (certainly) but sun, wind and water does not rely on someone to export or import it. It’s doesn’t expose us to the levels of external political or economic instability that coal and oil does.
Back to India and China. BP published their 2019 Energy Outlook. It makes for fascinating reading and highlights the complexity of balancing growth markets with mature markets and shifts within energy consumption demands. They also highlight that differences in the fuel mix across regions, and the extent to which that mix changes over the Outlook, have an important bearing on the energy transition.The two countries accounting for the fastest growth in energy demand India and China both start with coal-intensive fuel mixes. In the energy transition scenario, China’s coal share declines over the Outlook falling from 60% in 2017 to around 35% in 2040 offset by increasing shares and increasing use of renewables and natural gas. BP highlights that in China, the growth of non-fossil fuels (renewables plus nuclear and hydro power) more than matches the entire growth in Chinese energy demand over the Outlook.
India sees a smaller decline in coal dependency as alternate energy sources transition. India’s overall consumption over takes China because of India’s growth.
New technology advances will help maximise the efficiency of energy usage. In such a process, a new ‘revolutionised economic model’ must be explored and implemented. This is both complicated and challenging. It will happen regardless so the choice gets down to this. Do you trust Labor with their historical record of inefficient waste i.e. pink batts, solar panels and even the NBN? Do you trust them given their reckless deep dive over the sustainable energy cliff? Do you trust them with people like Marles and his Green partner Bandt cheering on the death of coal before we have viable and reliable alternatives to both energy and our export market wealth? Can you take the risk?
With the complicated and challenging tasks ahead, I believe the choice is clear. The Liberal National Party have proven their reliability in managing the national economy and their approach to managing our global commitments is sensible and considered. Couple that with the LNP’s strongly held belief in harnessing our energy sources not based on what but on best fit for purpose, reliablity and lowest cost and to me the choice is very clear.
We can’t afford the recklessness of the left driving us rapidly toward a socialist utopian disaster. We can’t afford far-right ideology locking us into a 1970’s backwater. We need the sensible centrist thinking and planning of Scott Morrison and his team. A team that understands the necessary change to deliver a viable future for all of us.
Bio: Brian Bishop
On Thursday a piece published in the Australian informed us that, “Labor’s 45 percent emissions reduction target would push electricity prices 50 percent higher, cost workers up to $9000 a year in lower wages and wipe $472 billion from the economy over the next decade.” This was according to the first independent modelling of the energy policies of both the government and opposition.
The Coalition’s commitment to meeting a 26-28 percent reduction under the Paris Agreement would also come at a cost, with $70bn in cumulative economic losses by 2030 and a 2 percent hit to real wage growth.”
The Australian headline read , “Carbon cut apocalypse” wording like that is not helpful. It’s just another example of inflammatory words used to stir people up a typical media tactic. The research data comes from a piece by Brian Fisher and is under peer review in the US. If you’re interested to knowing more about Brian Fisher, I have added a link at the bottom. It’s also worth noting that he served as a chief advisor on climate policy under the Hawke, Keating Labor governments and Howard’s LNP government.
It’s easy to whip ourselves into a lather of sweat over this stuff but we have to take a sensible approach. Whilst many won’t accept this we are in the middle of the next “global revolution” being energy; “harnessing natural energy sources with efficient usage.” There will be a cost attached to that just as there has been to other revolutions like the industrial and technology revolutions. Those costs come in different ways (sure) but change does cost but, not changing can have a greater long term impact.
Those who rail against this are fond of quoting that our contribution to global CO2 is measly. That’s true. They also are fond of quoting China and India are building new coal fired power plants. Also true but both are only part of the story and selective rebuttal isn’t helpful. The discussion is much bigger than that and it needs to be.
We are also part of a global community and that community including China and India are moving down a path of variable energy sources. Yes, India and China are building coal plants but they are doing much more than just that. Given the global energy shift it’s only natural we shift as well. The challenge is to do that with the least disruption, the best price points and to achieve that in the most efficient manner.
In the foreseeable future, the world must GRADUALLY transform from exploiting the natural reserves such as coal and oil because they will deplete to harnessing natural energy. There is also another compelling reason for doing this. The world is politically, and to a lesser degree economically unstable. We are heavily reliant both on imports of oil and exports of coal. We have little control over the exporters of oil. Likewise we have little control over countries who buy and use our coal and their timeframe for making their own energy changes. The technology that provides alternate energy sources like sun, wind and water requires a lot more development (certainly) but sun, wind and water does not rely on someone to export or import it. It’s doesn’t expose us to the levels of external political or economic instability that coal and oil does.
Back to India and China. BP published their 2019 Energy Outlook. It makes for fascinating reading and highlights the complexity of balancing growth markets with mature markets and shifts within energy consumption demands. They also highlight that differences in the fuel mix across regions, and the extent to which that mix changes over the Outlook, have an important bearing on the energy transition.The two countries accounting for the fastest growth in energy demand India and China both start with coal-intensive fuel mixes. In the energy transition scenario, China’s coal share declines over the Outlook falling from 60% in 2017 to around 35% in 2040 offset by increasing shares and increasing use of renewables and natural gas. BP highlights that in China, the growth of non-fossil fuels (renewables plus nuclear and hydro power) more than matches the entire growth in Chinese energy demand over the Outlook.
India sees a smaller decline in coal dependency as alternate energy sources transition. India’s overall consumption over takes China because of India’s growth.
New technology advances will help maximise the efficiency of energy usage. In such a process, a new ‘revolutionised economic model’ must be explored and implemented. This is both complicated and challenging. It will happen regardless so the choice gets down to this. Do you trust Labor with their historical record of inefficient waste i.e. pink batts, solar panels and even the NBN? Do you trust them given their reckless deep dive over the sustainable energy cliff? Do you trust them with people like Marles and his Green partner Bandt cheering on the death of coal before we have viable and reliable alternatives to both energy and our export market wealth? Can you take the risk?
With the complicated and challenging tasks ahead, I believe the choice is clear. The Liberal National Party have proven their reliability in managing the national economy and their approach to managing our global commitments is sensible and considered. Couple that with the LNP’s strongly held belief in harnessing our energy sources not based on what but on best fit for purpose, reliablity and lowest cost and to me the choice is very clear.
We can’t afford the recklessness of the left driving us rapidly toward a socialist utopian disaster. We can’t afford far-right ideology locking us into a 1970’s backwater. We need the sensible centrist thinking and planning of Scott Morrison and his team. A team that understands the necessary change to deliver a viable future for all of us.
Bio: Brian Bishop
