Spot on!

Dont vote.

I opened the article hoping for a policy analysis, but all I got was this recycled libertarian rant with the serial numbers filed off.

For starters, calling the human role in climate change an “assumption” isn't just sloppy, it’s dishonest. Dismissing the mountains of evidence as an “assumption” is the rhetorical equivalent of calling gravity a “theory” to justify jumping off a cliff.

Yes, Australia’s total emissions are small globally, but per capita we’re among the worst offenders. If everyone under 2% opted out, that would excuse about 100 countries, and together they’d account for more than a third of global emissions. Climate action works on collective contribution - not on the schoolyard excuse of “China does it too.”

Speaking of China, Leyonhjelm only mentions coal growth. Conveniently omitted: China is also building more solar, wind, hydro and nuclear than the rest of the world combined. That’s what “doing nothing” apparently looks like.

Then there’s his cartoon villain take on renewables: “fleecing taxpayers,” “unreliable,” “destroying jobs.” In reality, wind and solar are now the cheapest new sources of generation in Australia (CSIRO/AEMO GenCost reports), they’ve driven wholesale prices down during peak generation periods, and the renewables industry employs more Australians than coal does.

- Do they require firming and grid upgrades? Yes.
- Does that make them a “train wreck”? Yes, but only if you ignore all the data.

Finally, his doomsday scenario of people trapped in lifts and cars uncharged is pure scaremongering. Yet, reliability risks come from under-investment and political delay - the very paralysis caused by denialist grandstanding like Leyonhjelm’s.

His closing analogy about doctors breaking legs is cute but backwards. If anything, the “doctor” in this story is government bending over backwards to keep fossil fuels on life support despite cheaper, cleaner alternatives standing by.

Ironically, it's only the decentralised solutions - the ones that literally put power in the hands of individuals - that offend libertarians. Libertarian contradictions are plenty, I know. But at least with, say, marriage equality and abortion the contradictions appear to cause visible discomfort.

On this issue? They don't even flinch.