John claims our net zero policy is us leading by example.(" If we don’t lead by example,")

I ask who is following our example.

John backtracks with all the rapidity he can manage..." Not because they’re copying Australia"; " We’re not “the leader” -"

I wish getting John to see the truth was always that easy.

Ah, so predictable, mhaze.

When you have nothing left, you re-direct your attention to something you can interpret as an inconsistency or backtracking - hoping that onlookers will fall for it and forget about how thoroughly your arguments just fell apart.

You asked a loaded question - “who is following our example?” - as if the only valid form of leadership is someone copying us step by step. I clarified what I meant, which wasn’t backtracking. It was resisting your usual attempt to oversimplify what was never that simplistic.

Leading by example doesn’t mean being imitated in full - it means acting in alignment with the broader direction of global change, instead of dragging our heels and hoping no one notices. Countries aren’t modelling themselves on Australia. But they are shifting toward the same technologies, market signals, and emissions goals that we’re aligning with - because that’s where things are heading.

If you think rewording someone’s point, dunking on your own misrepresentation, and calling it a win is “truth,” then yeah - I can see why you think you’re always right.

In times gone by whenever someone had a new idea they built a prototype to show off & if it worked, people started buying the product.
Renewable or rather non-renewable energy equipment on the other hand has already had billions forked out yet still, there's no such thing as renewable energy & no energy that has net zero emission nor effect !
It'd be the economic thing to do to have people present their inventions & then get the money !

Indyvidual,

If we applied your “build a prototype first, then get the money” rule to everything, half the modern world wouldn’t exist.

We didn’t wait for someone to build a miniature highway system before investing in roads. We didn’t ask for a prototype Mars landing before funding space travel. We didn’t tell Pfizer to foot the entire bill before developing COVID vaccines. And we sure didn’t build a mini nuclear plant in someone’s backyard before funding reactors.

Big systems - like energy, health, infrastructure - require public investment up front because they can’t be proven at full scale without backing. That’s how progress works.

And as for renewables: they’re not a theory. They’re already running millions of homes and businesses. If you’re still asking where the prototype is, you’ve missed the last 20 years.

They’re already running millions of homes and businesses
John daysh,
Stop trying to convince us of your replacables. They're not cleaner, they're not cheaper, they're not capable of keeping up to the demands & they make the Nation incapable of paying for their upkeep. In the whole scheme of things there are scam, highly polluting one at that !
For the foreseeable future sticking to coal would slow down pollution !
Batteries are several times more damaging for the environment !

Indyvidual,

So let me get this straight: you're now arguing that burning more coal would slow down pollution?

That’s not just wrong - it’s Orwellian.

Coal is the dirtiest mainstream energy source we’ve ever used. It’s not a question of opinion, it’s chemistry. Burning coal pumps out CO2, mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and fine particulates. These aren’t debatable facts - they’re the reason coal is directly linked to millions of premature deaths globally each year. If your argument is that going back to coal helps the environment, you've taken a hard left into fantasy.

Just like coal mines, oil rigs, and gas pipelines, batteries have environmental impacts, yes, but they don’t keep burning fuel every hour of their lifespan. Once manufactured, they store and deliver energy without producing ongoing emissions. And their efficiency, recyclability, and material sourcing are improving every year. Fossil fuels don’t get cleaner with time. Batteries do.

Calling renewables a scam while ignoring the century of subsidies, environmental damage, and market manipulation that kept coal and gas alive is peak irony. The only “replacables” failing here are the recycled talking points.

And no, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m pointing out that the world already moved on. You’re not up against me - you’re up against facts, investment trends, and physics.