.

Dear Graham,

.

No need to search for complicated explanations. The reality is simple.

Aussie voters rejected with horror the perspective of Dutton proposing to introduce Trump-style politics into Australia.

Heaven forbid !

Better to stick with the devil they knew than Trump.

.

You're right Bezza. I will correct that as it is a substantial error. Thanks.

"You're right Bezza. I (Graham Young) will correct that as it is a substantial error"

Graham, make sure you run that correction past the bosses down at BIG COAL, after all its BIG COAL that pays the bills for the so called Australian Institute for Progress.

"A Liberal-aligned thinktank running last-minute anti-Greens advertisements targeting young voters received more than $600,000 from the coal industry during last year’s Queensland election, disclosures show."

"On Monday evening, the Australian Institute for Progress released a “Can you afford the Greens?” video advertisement pushing claims, based on its own commissioned research, that the Greens’ housing policies would lead to increased rents."

"Emails to supporters from the AIP executive director, former Queensland Liberal vice-president Graham Young, seeking donations to push anti-Greens advertisements show the campaign is specifically aimed at helping elect Liberal National party candidates Trevor Evans and Maggie Forrest in the seats of Brisbane and Ryan."

The exchange between Bezza and Graham illustrates perfectly a point I made on another thread about echo chambers.

To clarify:

Graham’s original figure of $7-9 billion was actually plausible if referring to the annual investment required for Australia’s current domestic energy transition - including renewables, transmission, and grid upgrades under existing government policy. That figure aligns with previous modelling from sources like RepuTex and the Clean Energy Council.

The $7-9 trillion figure comes from the Net Zero Australia modelling report - but that figure refers to total capital investment across the entire economy out to 2060. It includes not just domestic energy, but decarbonising exports, scaling up hydrogen, and building out Australia as a clean energy export superpower. It’s an aspirational scenario, not a price tag attached to Labor’s policy platform.

So while the original $7-9 billion figure lacked context, it wasn’t necessarily inaccurate. Now the "correction" makes the article even more inaccurate, with a vastly larger number drawn from a much broader and more speculative model cited as if it were a direct cost comparison.

It’s a reminder that fact-checking shouldn’t stop at reader suggestions - especially when the correction ends up less accurate than the original.

But since we're taking corrections. Here are a few more that are required:

- Australia did not have the worst economic performance in the G20. GDP and employment figures place us solidly mid-pack or better.

- We still hold a AAA credit rating. No major agency has signalled that’s at risk.

- The recent immigration surge reflects a post-pandemic rebound - a trajectory locked in under the Coalition, not newly created by Labor.

- Wholesale electricity prices have fallen significantly due to renewables - grid stress is more about outdated infrastructure than solar panels.

- The $600 billion nuclear estimate came from CSIRO/AEMO modelling - not a “dodgy” report. The Coalition offered no alternative modelling of its own.

Frustration is fair game. Fabrication is not.

Hi John,

When you are being paid $600,000 by BIG COAL, as is the case with the so called INSTITUTE OF PROGRESS, you will say whatever suits the interests of that magnificent benefactor. $600,000 buys a fist full of lies, as is the case with this sites attacks on progressive policies, and those that support them.

Indeed, Paul.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread. I started to, but didn't get very far because it felt like a waste of time.

I mean, the list of corrections I provided cannot possibly be news to someone as politically engaged as Graham.

But when you've got a large audience who expect a comforting tale, and would revolt with accusations of going "soft" or being a traitor, if that's not what you gave them, then providing providing alternate facts becomes a kind of obligation.

Yes, then there's Big Coal. The thought of being financially tethered to them terrifies me. If I woke up one day to find myself in the same position, I'd put whatever spin you wanted on any topic you chose.

But the exchange between Bezza and Graham handed me an opportunity I simply couldn't resist: a live example of something I'd just spoken about only days ago.