Energy policy: What's good for the party is not good for the nation

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 6 years ago

Energy policy: What's good for the party is not good for the nation

Tony Abbott would do well to not take the public for fools ('Tony Abbott launches warning shot on climate policy', The Age, 16/10). His utterances on energy, I refuse to call them a plan, may lead to the best election outcome for his party or maybe his personal ambitions but they will not produce the best energy outcome for the country.

What a sound energy plan for the long term requires is quite simple. We need the distribution grid to be grown into the areas that best serve renewable energy generation because of their climate, demographic and land suitability. In addition, significant amounts of new storage are required in the form of pumped hydro such as Snowy 2.0, the similar Tasmanian proposal and the Spencer Gulf sea-water pumped hydro proposal.

Illustration: Michael Leunig

Illustration: Michael Leunig

In this era where renewable energy prices are continually falling and the actions of politicians are becoming less relevant the only thing required of government is for an incentives and regulatory framework to support this development. The energy industry knows well what needs to be done and has the capability to design and implement it.

Robert Brown, Camberwell

Abbott is just the decoy to real agenda

If a salesman is having trouble selling an expensive car, he will often put it next to an even more expensive, overpriced one in the showroom. This helps convince people that his car is a reasonable, middle of the road option. This marketing strategy, known as anchoring, often finds its way into politics. So when our smart government wants us to accept the removal of the clean energy target and knows we will object, it makes sense to put up a stalking horse, Tony Abbott, to suggest we learn to love climate change and start building coal-fired power stations.

We shake our heads and laugh at Abbott's crazy ideas, and then quietly accept the real Coalition agenda, which is to avoid spending any money on carbon pollution reduction. Malcolm Turnbull and Abbott may not be good friends but they are working well together to persuade us to do nothing on climate change.

Peter Lynch, Kew

Flawed privatisation model

Advertisement

The ACCC is pretty right as to the causes of higher power prices. The flawed privatisation model (thanks Mr Kennett) is also the reason prices are unlikely to fall despite the lower production costs of renewables. Most of the price is fixed to cover infrastructures etc, so the wholesale power price is only a small proportion of what we finish up paying.

An example of the basic weakness of the model is the way smart meters were financed. The cost of installing the meters was added on to the cost base, which added to the guaranteed return earned by providers. However, the same companies gained a huge cost saving from not having to send out meter readers, which has just been added to their profit margin. Stupid and unfair!

Simon Westfold, Bittern

Renewable scrapping shows contempt

Well, if anyone was in any doubt that big government treats us with utter contempt, wonder no more. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has scrapped renewable subsidies (while fossil fuels attract $7 billion a year) and Labor federally and in Queensland are all for one of the largest new coal mines in the world, run by a person of very dubious character and they'll pay him a billion dollars to kick start this destructive activity.

Chris Hargreaves, Forest Hill

FORUM

Dark ages

This week Holden closes with Toyota and Ford gone. This happened despite assurances by Treasurer Joe Hockey that removed subsidies were unnecessary and the market would provide us with cars, employment and an industrial skills base. That now rings hollow to the unemployed and underemployed and the scientists and innovators moving out of the devastated automotive sector.

Today we are told once again another important industry, the renewable energy industry, as well as energy transition can happen without subsidies, targets or cost. Another Coalition treasurer and current and past PMs assure us we can meet the Paris target of being carbon neutral by 2050 by delaying transition from fossil fuels, removing subsidies and targets for renewables. We seem to be watching a rerun of recent destruction policy; first automotive industry then now the renewable industries. Tony Abbott is returning leading the extreme "Coal-alition" of the regressive right.

Anne Hartley, North Balwyn

Relief of suffering

For any member of Parliament planning to vote against the voluntary assisted dying legislation, could they please watch Professor Brian Owler's address to the National Press Club last week. He clearly explained why we need this reform and how carefully the legislation has been drafted. Relief of suffering is the highest goal, above all else.

As a GP I have seen terrible deaths and suffering despite the best palliative care in both patients and my immediate family. This legislation has the right balance between compassion and safeguards. It is a basic human right to have a choice in how our lives will end if we are terminally ill with only days or weeks of suffering before death. Anyone who disagrees with it need never be involved but why deny the choice to the rest of us who just as strongly believe in it. If an MP truly feels they cannot vote for this reform because of their own beliefs, please abstain.

Dr Doug Gaze, Shoreham

Don't impose on others

Emma Dawson ('Leave the religious argument out of it', The Age, 17/10), and others who argue against assisted dying from a secular basis, deny the influence of religious belief in their thinking, as if that validates their pronouncements. Why can't they see that they are still seeking to impose their philosophy on others, each with different beliefs and attitudes to life and death – and different circumstances. Dawson says that "dying is often painful, and always fearful", and that she "can't accept that an individual's right to avoid that final human tribulation should be given priority in law".

In my mid-70s, I can truly say that I do not fear dying, only the suffering that may lead to it. As for my loved ones, to lose them would be pain enough, without the added agony of watching them beg for relief and a peaceful end. The opposition's argument of concern for society's vulnerable people is a specious attempt to disguise their own philosophical paternalism.

Anne Riddell, Mount Martha

Represent voters

Could the MPs considering the voluntary assisted dying bill this week please remember their job is to represent the views of constituents and not the church?

Phil Bodel, Ocean Grove

He's still here

Alan Whittaker (Letters, 17/10) asks the media to desist from providing space to Tony Abbott on the grounds that he is irrelevant. It is clear from the most recent news of Liberal energy policy, however, that this is not the case. Tony Abbott is, in effect, dictating government policy on energy. His views are deplorable but not, unfortunately, irrelevant.

Greg Platt, Brunswick

TET offensive

If the government fails to meet the TET (Tony's Energy Targets) does Malcolm have to resign?

Stephen Baldwin, Frankston

Praise for stand

Congratulations to Colleen Wilkin (Letters, 17/10) for standing up, as a practising Catholic, and calling out blind obedience to your church as just that. I have been scanning the papers these years looking for voices from any Catholics who might question the infallibility of a hierarchy that has been shown to be so morally bankrupt.

In my view you, and those like you (if there are any), are the only hope that your church has for a future.

Julian Guy, Rye

Sole decisions

The suggestion of "leave religion out of it" devalues the arguments on the issues of same-sex marriage and Victoria's voluntary assisted dying bill.

A decision made by a person should be based on what they think is right, which is influenced by many factors including religion, culture and upbringing and it must be the whole person who makes the decision.

A decision that cannot stand up to examination from all sides is not going to be fully supported.

However, after that the same-sex marriage decision is obvious: people have the right to love and marry whoever they love.

Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill

Science is out

Why doesn't the Turnbull government make a public declaration that it is opposed to science and scientific advice?

Ian Bayly, Upwey

Respect beliefs

As a lay observer, I am increasingly amazed at the similarity of the two current debates surrounding same-sex marriage and assisted dying legislation.

In both, those in favour simply seek the right to take advantage of one or other of the proposed changes, should the need ever arise for them personally. In both, those who oppose the proposed legislation clearly have no belief in their own right to do so, but seek to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of the community.

Personally, I am in favour of both legislative changes. But those are my own beliefs. I respect that others may hold contrary beliefs, and I certainly do not seek to impose my beliefs on them by demanding that they make same-sex marriages or seek assisted dying in their last year of life. I have yet to see any one of those who so vocally oppose either legislative change defend the right to impose their beliefs on others who do not share them – despite it becoming increasingly clear that those who do not share them are in the majority.

In case anyone should accuse me of a vested interest, I am at 81 years in good health, and happily married to a very feminine wife, with no present intention of changing either – though I do admit to having two lovely infant granddaughters, who live in a very stable family relationship with their mother (my daughter) and her partner and their "second mother".

Ronald Burnstein, Heidelberg

Future fears

So the Coalition refuses to accept a clean energy target, basically mandates the continuing use of coal, and fails to consider the impacts on climate change in conjunction with energy policy. This shows that Tony Abbott is again trying to crucify Malcolm Turnbull and lead the Coalition, only now from behind and in the opposite direction to what much of Australia and the rest of the world is heading.

Sadly, Abbott and his cohort seem to think representing the interests of the likes of Gina Rinehart more important than that of the vast majority of humanity that will be affected by climate change, and the future of the planet as we know it.

We shape our own future and it is now looking a bit less rosy, all for a "supposed" saving of about $100 a year on our power bill, while Gina makes another billion.

Rod Eldridge, Derrinallum

Wrong member

Haven't those who elected Australia to the UN Human Rights Council heard of the way we treat our Indigenous people and the shameful history of refugees languishing on Manus and Nauru?

Rod Oaten, North Carlton

Wrong members

Australia has been elected to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, to sit alongside such paragons of human rights as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

James Ogilvie, Kew

Untrustworthy

Julie Bishop stated in the party room on supporting getting rid of the CET: "If we win this argument we will win the election." So that is what this is all about. It not about doing anything to reduce emissions, lower energy costs or what is good for the people of Australia, it is all about winning the next election. No wonder people don't trust politicians.

Alan Inchley, Frankston

Blackbird, only waiting

I recently transplanted 20 tomato seedlings into pots, noting that there was a worm included in one of the soil mixes. Yesterday, 19 pots were intact, one had the tomato plant and top soil dispersed. Were the blackbirds watching me or do they have worm-sensing radar, bearing in mind the odds are 20 to 1 on selecting the "bonus" pot?

David Owen, Camberwell

AND ANOTHER THING

Climate

Perhaps we should rig a generator to the climate back-pedalling of the Coalition's right wing.

Rowan White, Fitzroy North

Coalition power play turns off renewable for "reliable" (The Age, 17/10)? The sun rises every morning. And, unlike gas or coal, it is free.

Helen Moss, Croydon

To hell with the environment, what matters is re-election .

John Edwards, Vermont South

Malcolm, why have a Chief Scientist if you won't take his advice?

Peter Crocker, Strathmore

The Coalition's "reviewable" coal energy policy., reminds me of the Goons' song, "We're walking backwards for Christmas".

Brian Moynihan, Castlemaine

In 2009, Malcolm Turnbull told us, "I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am". It looks like he meant what he said.

Brian Collins, Cardigan

The world's hotter so we burn more coal to run the air-conditioners, and the world gets hotter as we burn more coal, so . . .

Steve Melzer, Hughesdale

It's a crying shame that we can't get reliable energy from the politicians themselves.

Phil Labrum, Flemington

Furthermore

Bearing in mind our treatment of asylum seekers in offshore detention, is our election to the UNHCR the result of a win in a lucky dip?

Annie Wilson, Inverloch

Isn't it great to see Australia now has a Trudeau/Macron-type potential, young and progressive future leader. Sorry, that should read Austria. Maybe one day.

Lindsay Donahoo, Wattle Glen

Archbishop Fisher should be more worried about keeping priests out of the bedroom.

Gerald Purchase, Mildura

Most Viewed in National

Loading