That’s not just wrong - it’s Orwellian.
John daysh,
Really ? Well, follow the process from extracting the raw materials to the final useable product when it produces the first few Amperes. You'll find solar panels & wind turbines & batteries involve ten times more chemical pollution than coal smoke.
Ever watched a chemical smoke billowing in comparison to coal smoke ?
Alternative energy has not yet reached a worthwhile stage on a large scale & therefore calling it environmentally superior to coal is not just wrong-it's Orwellian !

Yes, really, Indyvidual.

You’ve misunderstood what “Orwellian” means. It doesn’t just mean “something I disagree with.” It means taking reality and flipping it on its head - redefining pollution as clean, or regress as progress. That’s why claiming coal helps the environment fits the term so precisely. It’s not a disagreement over degrees - it’s a reversal of basic, measurable reality.

Coal is the dirtiest major energy source we have. That’s not just “my view” - it’s a fact backed by decades of atmospheric data, health research, and emissions records. The environmental impact of building solar panels or batteries does not compare to the ongoing, continuous pollution from burning coal 24/7. One creates up-front impacts, the other creates perpetual ones.

//Follow the process from raw materials to first amperes...//

Sure. And follow the process of coal - from open-cut mining, methane release, toxic runoff, and mercury emissions, all the way to burning it and pumping CO2; and particulates into the air daily. Every form of energy has environmental costs. The difference is renewables stop polluting once they’re built. Fossil fuels don’t.

And yes - wind and solar are already working at scale, powering millions of homes around the world. The idea that they’re not “worthwhile” just because they’re not perfect is like saying computers weren’t worthwhile in the 1990s because they were slower than today’s models.

You’re free to dislike renewables. But claiming coal is cleaner isn’t contrarian - it’s fantasy.

John Daysh wrote: "You asked a loaded question - “who is following our example?” "

Not quite. You claimed without evidence, as is your wont, that we were leading by example. I asked who was following our example. You've now spent three posts trying to say that we AREN'T leading by example without admitting that you just made up the original claim.

As to net zero, its now clear from the policies of the two major parties that they've abandoned efforts to reduce emissions but can't bring themselves to admit to the electorate that the whole process was always smoke and mirrors.

I expect that the originators of this ridiculous policy sincerely believed that some version of net zero was possible and that the rest of the planet would follow the same policies. They were never going to succeed and most of the rest of the planet have now moved on from these failed fantasies.

We won't go back to coal - those bridges have been burnt - but other icky fossil fuel power sources like gas will come to dominate, replaced eventually, by SMR's.

mhaze,

Again, I didn’t claim Australia was leading the world. I explained why we could lead by example - which doesn’t mean “being the global front-runner,” it means demonstrating responsible action others could follow. It’s about modelling behaviours and values that are worth replicating - not assuming everyone will instantly fall in line behind us. Yet, you reframed my point in a way that let you attack it.

So, "yes really" - your question was loaded.

You asked “who’s following us?” as if that question alone debunks the need for action. That’s not how leadership - or shared global responsibility - works. The idea that we should only reduce emissions if others follow us like climate groupies is bizarre and ignores how every collective global effort (ozone, smoking, vaccines, leaded fuel) has ever worked.

Now to your pivot: after pages of attacking renewables as “fantasy,” you casually suggest SMRs - small modular nuclear reactors - as the solution. Here’s the thing: SMRs don’t exist at scale anywhere. They’re massively expensive, still in development, unproven in real grids, and would take at least a decade to deploy in Australia even under ideal conditions.

So let’s get this straight - you reject wind and solar, which are already deployed, already working, and already getting cheaper… in favour of a technology that doesn’t yet exist commercially, requires huge upfront investment, and would need massive government support to survive?

You’re not against subsidies, then - you just want them to go to a different fantasy.

The irony here is thick. You call renewables “unaffordable” and “unrealistic,” then pin your hopes on a niche, expensive, long-term nuclear gamble. That’s not pragmatism. That’s moving the goalposts to stay angry.

And if SMRs ever do succeed? They’ll still rely on renewables and storage to manage demand variability - because no energy system runs on a single source. So like it or not, the transition is happening - with or without your permission.

We can not afford Green energy from every aspect in it's present stage !