John,

I think that the incredible bsing man might have to relinquish his title to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmt6IoUEb3g

"You keep bringing up subsidies like they’re a smoking gun. But fossil fuels have been subsidised for over a century - both directly and indirectly."

Over 99% of the world's population would die if fossil fuel production were to stop. The prosperity we enjoy today would not exist without them. As for subsidies, the bulk are tax credits for end users and the fossil fuel industry returns the direct subsidies many times over in taxes and royalties. With wind and solar the multi billion dollar taxpayer subsidies are to help them produce energy, something that seems a bit silly for what is spruiked by you as the cheapest source of energy. There is no net government revenue for all the subsidies it pays the renewable energy industry, just the economy wrecking consequences of higher power prices. And how quickly wind and solar disappear when the handouts stop.

"It happened because governments, financiers, and industries pushed it hard for decades - despite the costs."

With tripe like that you could rewrite history for the commies. In those times as now Johnny, things had to stand on merit. Wind and solar fall into the category of a scam. History provides no end of examples.

mhaze,

//If by some miracle of commonsense government decided to back coal or just not oppose it, investors would come roaring back.//

That’s a hopeful guess, not a fact. Investors haven’t walked away from coal just because of government policy - they’ve left because coal is increasingly uninsurable, politically risky, and economically outclassed. And that’s without even factoring in subsidies for renewables. The economics have moved on. You can’t legislate coal back into viability any more than you can legislate the return of VHS tapes.

//...any and all actions we take is futile in the extreme.//

That’s the go-to excuse for doing nothing: “If we can’t fix it alone, why try?” But climate change is a global issue - it only works if many countries act. Australia has some of the highest emissions per capita. If we don’t lead by example, why would anyone else?

//Even if we manage to get to net zero by nuking our economy...//

This assumes climate action must destroy the economy. It doesn’t. Right now, the biggest global investment trends are in clean energy, EVs, green hydrogen, and battery tech. Renewables are already generating more jobs than fossil fuels worldwide. The real economic risk isn’t acting - it’s falling behind.

//In 2005 Australia's power costs were among the lowest in the world because it was based on coal... Now they are among the highest...//

And once again, you’re skipping over what’s actually driving prices. Power didn’t get expensive just because we moved away from coal. It got expensive because:

- Old infrastructure wasn’t maintained,
- Gas prices exploded due to global volatility,
- The transition became a political football,
- And grid upgrades were delayed or avoided altogether.

None of this is an argument against renewables - it’s an argument for managing the transition better. You keep insisting that net zero is “dead,” but none of the evidence supports that conclusion.

Capiche?

Fester,

If we’re handing out titles for BS, your opening line is definitely a nomination speech.

//Over 99% of the world's population would die if fossil fuel production were to stop.//

Which no one is suggesting. That kind of hyperbole might play well in YouTube comment sections, but not here. Nobody serious is suggesting that we ban fossil fuels tomorrow.

//The bulk are tax credits for end users...//

And yet they’re still subsidies - just structured differently. You can’t dismiss renewable subsidies while handwaving away fossil ones because they’re “end user” or “industry tax offsets.” The effect is the same: billions in foregone revenue or direct support, shaping the energy market. The IMF, the IEA, and countless independent reports show fossil fuel subsidies still dwarf those for renewables in many countries when externalities are included.

//There is no net government revenue for all the subsidies it pays the renewable energy industry...//

Because they’re early-stage infrastructure investments - just like what happened with railroads, highways, telecommunications, and, yes, fossil fuels. Every major energy system we rely on today was built with public support in its early phases.

//With tripe like that you could rewrite history for the commies.//

You can throw “commie” around all you like, but history is what it is. The Industrial Revolution didn’t blossom from free markets alone - it was heavily shaped by empire-driven trade, government-backed infrastructure, and social costs that were ignored for generations. That’s not revisionism. It’s context.

You don’t have to like renewables, but pretending they’re a scam because they received government support - while standing on a mountain of fossil fuel subsidies and policy interventions - isn’t a critique. It’s selective outrage.

John Daysh got it wrong again.
Coal station owners did not walk away for the reason he gave,
they went because the govt rules gave their load away to solar cells.
So their operations on sunny days were uneconomic.
Same at night with wind farms.
It was as simple as that !
So the political idiots including the LNC let them close them down
without having replacement generation in place.
The green stood and cheered when they were blown up !

How stupid can they get ?

John Daysh,

" Investors haven’t walked away from coal just because of government policy - they’ve left because coal is increasingly uninsurable, politically risky, and economically outclassed. "

Now let me get this straight. They walked away from coal because its politically risky which SOMEHOW has nothing to do with government policy!! "oh what a tangled web...."

And coal is economically outclassed? Well we best tell those naive Chinese, Indians, Indonesians about John's insights. Because they somehow think coal is economically viable. Perhaps we should also tell the data which I've shown John previously (although as with most data John sees that he doesn't like, he ignored it) because the data shows that the less coal in a power grid, the higher the prices of electricity.

But if you don't want it to be true, then it isn't true....apparently.

" If we don’t lead by example, why would anyone else?"

Oh, we're leading by example are we? Oh good, can you point me to other countries who are following our example? China perhaps? Are they looking south and saying to themselves that they want to follow us?

The facts are that they majority of the planet don't have the slightest intention of sacrificing their economy to the CO2e Gods and its just a fantasy to think we are setting an example that they will follow. A fantasy that the CO2 fetishists made up to justify their support for economic suicide.

mhaze,

Once again, you’ve twisted what I said just enough to argue against a version of my point that only exists in your imagination.

//They walked away from coal because it's politically risky which SOMEHOW has nothing to do with government policy!!//

That’s not what I said.

Political risk includes government policy, but it also includes public sentiment, legal battles, global climate targets, investor pressure, stranded asset risk, and international finance standards. Government is just one piece. The reality is coal is now a reputational and financial liability in much of the world. No one needs a formal ban to read the room.

//Coal is economically outclassed? Well we best tell those naive Chinese, Indians, Indonesians...//

I've already addressed this. China is both building coal and leading the world in solar, wind, hydro, and electric vehicles. Why? Because they're not clinging to nostalgia - they’re hedging bets, overbuilding to meet demand, and aggressively cornering the global renewables market.

You keep treating this like a zero-sum game when most of the world is saying “both for now, but less coal in future.” The direction is clear. The pace is the argument.

//The data shows the less coal in a power grid, the higher the prices of electricity.//

You’ve shared that stat before, and I responded: correlation ≠ causation. High prices often come from early adoption costs, legacy grids, energy taxes, or fossil fuel price shocks. That’s not denial. That’s context.

//We're leading by example? Show me who's following.//

Sure. The US (under Biden), the EU, Japan, South Korea - all have net zero targets and are investing heavily in renewables. Not because they’re copying Australia, but because the economic case is global. We’re not “the leader” - we’re part of the movement. And if we lag, we miss out. That’s not virtue-signalling. It’s risk management.

If every country waited for someone else to move first, we’d never have beaten acid rain, fixed the ozone layer, or made cars safer. You can keep arguing the world isn’t changing, but the world is too busy moving to wait for permission from a forum.