In short: The Coalition says Labor will fail to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reductions target but will damage Australian industry in trying.

Recent projections indicate Australia is not on track for the 2030 target, but could get close if existing policies are implemented as promised.

What next? The Coalition is focusing on gas and nuclear power, which the Australian Conservation Foundation describes as a "fantasy which Australia does not need".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Psiczar@aussie.zone 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s such a 1950’s mentality, nuclear energy is the future!

It cost $500m to build RAC arena in Perth, construction of a nuclear power station will cost 10’s of billions, and we’d need more than 1. Who is going to run it? We don’t have trained nuclear technicians so we’d have to headhunt them from overseas in the short term until we can train local people.

Given we don’t have a nuclear power history, we’d be better to invest all that money in renewables. We have the land mass for solar farms, we have the coast line for wind and wave energy generation and there is no waste that lasts for 50,000 years that we have to store somewhere.

[–] zik@aussie.zone 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It just seems dumb at this point. Nuclear energy is so incredibly expensive compared to the alternatives. Most countries are moving away from it due to it being commercially unviable. And yet here we are with the NLP acting like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I know they see it as their duty to push the opposite of whatever Labor's doing but they don't seem to care that it's just a bad idea.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

I know they see it as their duty to push the opposite of whatever Labor’s doing

Their duty is to look after their donors