Repudiating the promises of last election

Dear ,

I received an email from federal Liberal director Andrew Hirst soliciting a donation because renewable energy lobbyist and activist Simon Holmes a Court has assembled a fighting fund of $1.4 million to run pro-renewable independents in Liberal held seats.

I don’t remember the last time I donated to the Liberal Party, and the next time is not likely to be any time soon either. I replied:

Thanks, but as you appear to have decided to throw the country under the bus by adopting the net zero by 2050 mantra, there is not much point giving you any money.

You might have used the levers of government to fight back against vested interests like Holmes a Court. Instead, you’ve capitulated. That doesn’t strengthen your case for funds, it weakens it.

Scott Morrison’s “Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan” makes the case for the Liberal, and now the National, parties even worse.

As a think tank we have taken the position that there is no climate emergency and that the issue of the risks from CO2 emissions and policies to deal with them should be subjected to a proper cost benefit analysis, using the latest scientific observations and understanding of the causes of climate change.

We also argue that rushing headlong into decarbonisation poses unacceptable security risks. Not only do we export much of our capital-intensive industries to countries like China, but by jamming unreliable forms of “renewable” energy into our grid we decrease grid stability and decrease our national resilience.

So our work has focussed on highlighting the cost of decarbonisation (here for example where we examine the ALP promise, now apparently to be adopted by the Coalition, to have 50% of new car sales electric by 2030) as well as the scope. If we are going to electrify everything, then as Tom Biegler explains, we need to expand power generation by 200 to 300%.

In the meantime, while we have supported a new coal-fired power station for Queensland it now seems highly unlikely that a modern super-critical power station, which emits half of what a conventional one does, will ever be built.

So that means increasing levels of unreliables in the system, creating a need for storage, as well as grid stability. Here we have advocated for pumped hydro, as well as genuine hydro, fitted, where possible, to dams which also provide a water storage function, such as the proposed Hell’s Gate dam near Charters Towers.

It also calls for alternative means of generating electricity, including nuclear. With the advent of small modular reactors, and Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered submarines, we think the time is now right to start laying the groundwork for a nuclear power generation industry.

One of the biggest costs in unreliables is developing new electricity networks to connect them to the grid and consumers. The network charges are the largest part of your power bill, which is where unreliables will have a big impact. But small modular reactors could be located where decommissioned coal-fired power stations used to be, and where the network still exists.

Our polling suggests that the public is probably ready to accept nuclear power.

The federal coalition seems intent on trying to skate through the next election on the basis that people who disagree with their new climate policy won’t vote for an even worse alternative. That is short-term and wrong thinking.

Let’s not forget that the federal government only won the last election through a self-confessed “miracle”, and that lots of factors have moved against them since, like the collapse of the state Liberals in WA, redistributions of seats, and now a minority state government in SA, just to mention a few.

It’s not that they can’t stand too many things going wrong, it’s that they need a few things to go right.

Now they appear to have repudiated the promises of the last election, which gave them record swings in Central Queensland seats. This is to appease the Holmes a Courts of this world, and possibly the British and the Americans. But the Holmes a Court faction in the community won’t vote for a party that promises to implement policies they think it only pretends to believe in – who knows what it will believe tomorrow. They’ll go straight across.

Last election the Coalition said Net Zero by 2050 was unaffordable. Now their document declares Net Zero will actually increase wealth. How? Don’t ask me – I’ve scanned the document and it’s more a picture book than a plan, with lots of pretty diagrams, but not one skerrick of modelling. And even if there were modelling it would be a manufactured result because the physics says that using low density forms of energy, like wind and solar, produce less energy per dollar than high density forms, like gas, coal and uranium.

If I were a central Queensland voter who has voted Labor, Liberal, National, Katter, One Nation and goodness knows what else (as many have in the last 21 years), I might switch my vote to Labor this election. If I’m going to get policies I don’t like, I might as well get them from a party that actually believes in them.

If politicians are short-term thinkers, uninterested in policies or keeping their promises; careerists, only interested in saving their own jobs; then I’ll use the employment lever and sack the current crowd hoping to send a message to the next generation that if they don’t align with my principles, then they won’t have a career.

Morrison and Taylor could have used the levers of government to explain to voters the real costs of transitioning; that if it is not a truly global effort, which includes China and India, it is futile and weakens our defence and economy for no tangible gain; and that complete electrification is not going to happen in the next 30 years.

Instead, they have ducked the fight, and now find themselves exposed in the run-up to a federal election to the taunts of their friends, as well as their foes.

It makes freelance policy operations like ours more important. We’re not running for office, and we can stay friends with the facts, without worrying about staying friends with the electorate, confident that reality will eventually win out. We are long-termers, not short-termers, and if we were careerists we wouldn’t be doing this sort of work.

I’ll be doing my best to keep an eye on the COP 26 in Glasgow, but there are other sources around that will give you good solid factual information. In particular I’d recommend:

Regards,

GRAHAM YOUNG
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR