Who Would The Planet Vote For ?  

Posted by Big Gav

The Australian election is on next weekend and I've found myself largely unmotivated my all the nonsense that has made up the "campaign" - it's like watching an episode of Dumb and Dumber. As always my recommendation is vote Green or for an Independent and put the Liberals last (unless you live in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of course, in which case there's no harm voting for him). Peter FitzSimons column in the Herald this weekend asks "Who would the planet vote for?" - Playing Dirty With Clean Energy.

Yes, I know you think tweeting is nonsense, but at its best it can be like a radar system that helps identify strong public sentiment on a particular issue. On most of my tweets, I can count on five or 10 retweets as people wish to spread whatever I might say to their own network of followers. But, as I write, this tweet of mine just a few days ago received 507 retweets: ''Weird. The Libs proud boast in their advertising: 'The 10 Billion dollar Clean Energy Fund will go!' This is a PLUS? Staggering. #auspol''

The point is that even if the ALP seems to have made little hay out of the fact that, for all their sins, at least they are serious about climate change, many people are equally staggered the Libs are so proud of dismantling an institution already proven successful. The Clean Energy Fund makes a profit by lending money on a commercial basis to those seeking to ''mobilise capital investment in renewable energy, low-emission technology and energy efficiency in Australia''. As recently elucidated by journalist Lenore Taylor, that lending has been so disciplined, that ''in this year's budget the CEFC [Clean Energy Finance Corporation] costs only $18 million in start-up costs in each of the first three years - suggesting there would be almost no savings from its abolition''.

The bottom line? The claim the Coalition is saving $10 billion by abolishing it is a demonstrable nonsense. The fact that they want to abolish it in the first place suggests the Coalition is simply not interested in doing anything to alleviate the gravest issue of our time. And I pose this as a serious question: if the planet itself could vote in the election, would it vote for the ALP or the Coalition?

0 comments

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (607) global warming (393) solar power (376) peak oil (343) renewable energy (253) electric vehicles (221) wind power (184) ocean energy (163) csp (156) geothermal energy (144) solar thermal power (143) smart grids (139) tidal power (137) coal seam gas (130) oil (129) solar pv (127) nuclear power (126) energy storage (125) lng (116) china (113) geothermal power (112) iraq (112) green buildings (109) natural gas (108) agriculture (88) oil price (79) biofuel (78) smart meters (72) wave power (71) uk (68) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (63) coal (62) google (57) bicycle (51) internet (51) shale gas (49) surveillance (49) food prices (48) big brother (47) thin film solar (42) canada (40) biomimicry (39) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) tesla (37) shale oil (36) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) concentrating solar power (32) queensland (32) saudi arabia (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) arctic ice (29) population (29) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) bruce sterling (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) ctl (23) economics (22) limits to growth (22) carbon tax (20) coal to liquids (20) distributed manufacturing (20) indonesia (20) iraq oil law (20) lithium (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) buckminster fuller (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) exxon (18) santos (18) ausra (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) collapse (16) electric bikes (16) iceland (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) psychology (15) brazil (14) fertiliser (14) lithium ion batteries (14) al gore (13) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) bucky fuller (13) carbon emissions (13) cities (13) investment (13) kenya (13) matthew simmons (13) public transport (13) biochar (12) chile (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) tinfoil (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) antarctica (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) big oil (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) methane hydrates (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) relocalisation (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) bolivia (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) local currencies (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) scenario planning (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)