cost of climate change

i want to see figures Mr Shorten.  power cost have doubled so far and they are expected to double again with the 45% target or more.  you cannot get away with not stumping up figures!


I want them all to be subjected to precise questions without all of the theatre.  

How in the world can the others, the men and women who aspire to those most senior positions of trust such as for Treasurer, Immigration and for Foreign Affairs be ducking scrutiny?

The fault must be laid at the feet of inept journalism that permits all of the established parties, LNP, Labor and Greens and those strutting 'Independents' too, to do less to get a seat in the Parliament than would be required of a school kid trying to win a casual job with Woolworths. 

- Said without any criticism of Woolworths or any other business that provides retail experience to our aspiring youth. 

Maybe get some of the managers of Coles, Woolworths and others to replace those 'senior political journalists' who waste our time with their inept superficial questions (ego boosting for themselves) and their 'findings' from Twitter.  Honestly, would any secondary teacher be accepting research from social media? [OK, from recent events some teachers might and the sooner they depart from teaching the better].

ardnher, there are no figures for a number of reasons but the most important being that it's of minor importance when weighed against the goal. If anyone cared to read the Greens climate change policy in 2007, before they agreed to a deal with Julia Gillard, which resulted in the policy wording being toned down somewhat, leaving out the vital clue in understanding this madness. The Greens wanted coal taxed, taxed, and taxed until they went out of business. Their goal was to shut down coal by 2017. 

Labor is asking us to accept a rerun of 2007. The difference now is Bill Shorten is not ruling out a carbon tax as his predecessor did. 

Would we have voted for this in 2007 had we known what lay ahead?

The figures will not be revealed by Shorten and I doubt there are many economists who arent risk averse.  


My comment has nothing to do with either side of's just an observation.

When someone is building a house, usually they have an idea of the costs involved...however, as most of us know, figures have a habit of blowing out for various reasons...likewise costs involved with climate change. in heavens name can Bill Shorten, Scott Morrison, the Greens or all the scientists in the world give anyone firm "figures" when nothing remains stable for any length of time? That's common sense.

The fact is: the climate is changing and has been changing since the earth was formed. Humans have contributed to that change to some extent and anyone who is prepared to do something about it should not be ridiculed.

The risk of having the cost blow out astronomically is nothing compared to the risk involved with destroying the planet. Climate "change" should not be a politial football.

I have to believe in the science and when Australia's Chief Environmental Scientist says that our 1.3% of world emissions will have absolutely zero mediation on world emmsions then you have to wonder why we should make life financially tougher for Aussie battlers? These are people who need electricity for survival.

Here here Sophie. Your last para hits the nail on the head.

So we hold onto coal and other fossil fuels for another generation and we put another nail in the coffin of our planet. We continue to pollute our air with CO2 emmissions from ICE cars instead of converting to EVs in the next generation.

We are blessed in that we have enormous natural resourses. We should phase out digging up and exporting coal in the next 15 years and instead start digging up renewable raw materials such as lithium and cobalt plus those above ground energy makers such as solar, wind, hydrogen. 


Sophie there is an argument for the world to do something about global change, but it becomes more problematic when the case comes down as to who should do something about climate change. It is unsurprising that folk like Adrianus ask should Australia do anything about climate change if it is only responsible for 1.3% of emissions? This is a tough question to answer unless you have already accepted responsibility as being a global citizen, in which case the answer is yes.

The do nothing brigade do not appreciate that we all benefit from transition to a low carbon environment, both on economic and environmental grounds. The only argument is the timeframe as renwables are now cheaper than oil and gas plants – don't believe me, then look at what countries like Saudi Arabia are doing with new energy. But when you have the largest mining companies arguing for transition to low cardon and one of the world's largest copper producers closing it's coal plant and moving to renewable energy to run its 7x24 operations, then you know change is happening. When the auto industry starts promoting its EV concepts more than ICE then you know change is happening.

And when it comes to climate change, as with any change, there are early adopters, early/late majorities and of course the knuckle dragging laggards. I think we are currently moving between the stages of majority adoption and the laggards don't like it. This is somewhat confounding when low cardon has such a strong correlation to low pollution. How can it be wrong to make a better world?

So to get down to some tin tacks because we must be doing that, will the roos have to be euthanised along with the national herd because roos are subject to flatulence too?  Cost of milk, dairy products and snaggers/chops from China?

Will we still have steel production here in Australia?  Useful if we are cut off from the rest of the world somehow.

Will the owners of rental houses have to rewire so that tenants can charge the electric cars they cannot afford anyhow?  Cost?  Rental increase 10%, 15%, more?, for tenants to pay for that rewiring required by Bill?


There are more questions, but some numbers so far would be a good start.  And send the answers to Bill Shorten who has been experiencing some problems finding figures and that is despite six years of sitting with his back to the other side of the House and pulling faces.  So Bill must have had some free time to flick a missive or two for those government bureaucrats to cost it all for him.


Farside, an impressive post and I have to say I share your views. We all benefit from a cleaner environment..some are prepared to do the hard work, others on the other hand prefer to sit on the sidelines and criticise.

This may sound like a dream..but if all our politicians were prepared to speak with one voice and take a strong stand against further expansion of the fossil fuel industry and buckle down to the idea of a transition to renewables..then it wouldn’t be very long before the most rusted on among us, become used to the idea.

It’s tragic that we are bombarded by relentless propaganda from mining and other big business who have their own monetary interests at heart and see fit to push their unfounded claims that initiatives for sustainability threaten the economy. On the whole people want change..young people in particular are scared stiff of climate change and the harm we are doing to the environment. The politicians who drag their feet are a disgrace.

Researchers at the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project)  found that, since 1988, more than 70 percent of global emissions can be traced to just 100 companies! These companies don’t care about consumer demand..they are massive organisations who look after their own interests. Very scary.


What would it take to convince you that farmers are concerned about the environment and sustainability? 

This might give you and others a glimpse into the research and practical implementations that have been going on for decades,  'GRDC Grains Industry Farming education Resource' [link]

Bill Shorten's emotional appeals are of the sort that rally union protests, but as the prospective PM he should be, is duty bound to be, giving the public figures and detail wouldn't you agree?  Why the game of bluff and the sidestepping?

The same applies to the other 'side' and independents - some of whom are making the most outrageous appeals to emotion and are completely impractical and unrealistic.

What in Hades gives you the idea I need “convincing?”

You and your ilk have your ideas..I have my own and never the twain shall meet.

Some will refuse to accept that there is always a price to pay for a worthy goal. Before making an agreement with oneself to pay that price, one needs to know approximately what that price is. When Labor were last in government they wanted an open boarder policy. Hang the cost, who cares! Well in hindsight we know what the cost was both financially and in human life, the lives of 1200 people.  Was it worth the price???!!!

This Labor/Greens climate change policy is just another example of a party trading Australia's economic survival for a few votes. 

This CC discussion may attract a few who are susceptible to an emotive plea but will it make them happy in the long term?

Bill Shorten is you want to go to heaven? People's response is without hesitation YES, not even thinking about the price.  

Bill: Do you want carbon reduction at 45% by 2030?

Voter: What's the cost?

Bill: I'm not saying because I need your vote.



The 1200 boat deaths that occurred under ALP watch is an often repeated claim that does not receive the scrutiny it deserves. It is worth noting that two thirds of these occurred after the LNP opposition led by Abbott torpedoed the proposed so-called Malaysia solution. Politics before people, was it worth the price?

Abbott and Morrison triggered the surge in boat arrivals from September 2011 with their dog whistling and contributed to those deaths. Further, they did not stop the boats as they proudly claim from December 2013 when Operation Sovereign Borders commenced. The big drop in boat arrivals occurred after Rudd announced the PNG solution two years later.

Farside, I think you will find that the high court ruled against the Malaysia Solution. 

Indeed it did Adrianus. The High Court found that Malaysia was not legally bound to protect the asylum seekers because it is not a party to the Refugees Convention or its protocol, which scuttled the agreement. That decision essentially gave a green light to people smugglers suggesting offshore processing was ruled invalid. Abbott and Morrison then played politics with the issue and the rest is history until the PNG agreement was done two years later. As I said, politics before people.

Maybe history would have been different if instead of Malaysia the refugees had been sent to a UN camp in Africa.

personally I can afford to pay for higher costs but many cannot..stated by many commentators people wantsomething done but when it hits the hip pocket harder and harder and they cannot pay their utility bills and the power is cut off what will be the outcome!!!!!!!!!  especially when the biggest polluters seem to be doing not much

Interestingly Zali Steggal has as her main policy "climate change." Now if she has such a strong passion for saving the world you would think she may have at least one solar panel on her house, or drive an electric car? 

Zali Steggal has all the right attributes for a politician

... she is a hippocrit, tells lies and is a lawyer with a gift of a gab.

But personally I hope she gives Abbott a run for his money and wins.

Zali Steggal should be telling us how virtue signalling by foolishly exporting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to pay for carbon credits will be affecting the world's climate at all.  What does it buy, a paper chit and gales of laughter, 'Thanks, now send us some more, you dumb Skippies'?

Just thinking about all of those wind farm towers made of Chinese steel that anyone with a noggin realises will be flat out lasting twenty years.  They could have at least used good quality Australian steel for the edifices.

If we really must be virtue signalling to the world, why don't we build the dams and water distribution that the farmers desperately need and be planting trees to reclaim the millions of hectares of marginal land? 

At least if water security was being addressed by the posing air-headed 'independent' candidates the voters might have reason to think that the new array of wide load behinds that are about to descend on those Reps and Senate seats (and on the First Class seats on international flights!) are worth some of the million dollars plus per annum for their entitlements.


Who says we should be making such heroic but useless sacrifices for the world that refuses women birth control and abortion?  Why not be putting the money into our own backyard and finally addressing water security and other wicked problems FIRST.

You want water security? Then vote to STOP ADANI.

Darn right NY 19 --- how the hell can they promise unlimited water for 60 + years -- I always wonder WHY this is never  brought up when these politicians are questioned




should Australia do anything about climate change if it is only responsible for 1.3% of emissions?

This is so far from the truth. Indirectly thru our exports of fossil fuels we add ten times (prob more) that amount to global Co2 emissions. We have to be morally responsible for that. As much as I dislike most of the money grabbing policies of Bill Shorten.. I reckon he has it spot on with his attack on climate change. We do need tho not to charge like a wounded rhino in phasing out fossils. Caution and common sense is needed. 






If we really must be virtue signalling to the world, why don't we build the dams and water distribution that the farmers desperately need and be planting trees to reclaim the millions of hectares of marginal land? 

How true. Time to impliment the visionary Bradfield Scheme. Stop taking about the negatives.. eg. cost and do it. Failing that, there is Stage 2 of the Snowy Hydro scheme. SH already waters the Riverina area. Need to expand that to include the southern Murray/Darling Basin.


"dams" a dirty word to Greens...dont you know that!!   they hate them!!

The World Coal Association says proven coal reserves will run out in 2130 worldwide. Coal is not a renewable resource. Although it’s often claimed we have enough coal to last hundreds of years, this doesn’t take into account the need for increased use of coal if we run out of oil and gas.

While there are a few benefits to fossil fuel production, the adverse effects far outweigh any benefits. But governments and businesses around the world have placed short term gain from investing in fossil fuels above the longer term benefits of renewable energy, bloody fools.

If we have any hope of protecting the future of our planet, we need to ditch fossil fuels and start investing in renewable sources of energy. I have been labouring this point on this forum for years. We need to get cracking on renewables and that includes nuclear energy.

We already are. Starting to mine lithium and cobalt for electric batteries. Even building a refinery so we dont have to send the raw material to China to have refined. Producing and exporting hydrogen is also on the LNP agenda. Have heard nothing from Labor re this. In addition we are investing heavily in solar specially and wind.


To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment