Posted on 10/10/2017 10:27:37 AM PDT by catnipman
Leading Australian Politicians and economists are piling in against renewable political favouritism, comparing renewables to the Bernie Madoff and Enron scandals.
Tony Abbott has doubled down on his scepticism of climate change science, reigniting a decade-old debate in a major speech in London after the Turnbull government moved yesterday to rule out proceeding with a clean energy target proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel.
The former prime minister has labelled the likely backdown on a CET [clean energy target"] “belated” gesture and warned that the Coalition is courting a “political death wish” if it fails to put cost of living and protection of jobs ahead of reducing emissions.
In a speech delivered early today that will further test the political fault lines over energy policy in the Coalition party room, Mr Abbott resurrected his 2009 declaration that the so-called settled science on climate change was “absolute crap” and claimed that any effort Australia made to reduce emissions would be futile in a global context.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
Simple.
Unreliable energy cannot replace reliable energy, unless there are great cost increases.
Inform the voters of the eventual cost, let them decide.
Renewable is sold as if it is a reliable source, then when the cost increases come, it’s too late. Pay up or freeze in the dark.
Like NFL protests it doesn’t work.
No kidding!?!?!
Neither wind nor solar has an acceptable environmental footprint as measured by kilowatt/hour output.
Its worse when we note that the unreliability factor dictates that we have RELIABLE carbon or nuclear based backups available.
A legislature, call it parliament of call it Congress is supposed to be composed of representatives of the people who elected the members. The net gain versus the loss should certainly be a guide to policy in government. The Congressmen or Delegates or Members instead vote for what their corporate and pressure group backers want then it is time to change the system. We can do that if we will with the Article 5 Convention. defined terms for federal judges and specific language that defines their role as being one of three divisions of government without no Final Say. Strict one term limits. Repeal the 17th and the 16th. I suppose it is too much to hope for to ask for repeal of the 19th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.