Indyvidual,

This is exactly the kind of rhetorical fog that makes productive discussion so difficult. You’ve shifted from debating policy or outcomes to broad declarations like “nothing mankind created is renewable at Net Zero.”

What does that even mean in practical terms?

Are you suggesting that because no human-made system is literally infinite, all clean energy efforts are a scam? That logic would disqualify everything we’ve ever built - including coal plants, roads, and even agriculture.

Your claim renewables don’t exist “at this stage” is yet another manifestation of your confusion about what the term "renewables" refers to. It's shorthand for "renewable energy," not "renewable energy hardware."

And while oil is currently used in manufacturing and construction - including for fossil fuel infrastructure - it doesn’t follow that renewables are therefore invalid. Every energy source requires materials and logistics. The difference is that renewables don’t burn fuel every day to keep producing energy. Coal and gas do. That’s the core point of transition - cutting ongoing emissions, not pretending we're building utopia.

As for the "billions handed over to con merchants" line - if you think rorting and mismanagement are unique to clean energy, I’ve got bad news. Fossil fuels have received far more in direct and indirect subsidies, and have been home to some of the biggest corporate welfare arrangements in history. If you're angry about waste and grift, fine - so am I. But let’s aim that at bad governance, not the entire concept of renewable energy.

You can be sceptical. You can ask hard questions. But sweeping claims that renewables "aren’t real" and that nature is the only true energy source aren’t serious arguments - they’re slogans. And they don’t move the discussion forward.

John Daysh,
Your attempts to confuse the debate aren't working.
As for; "And they don’t move the discussion forward".
Well, if it prevents more good funding wasted on the folly of "renewables" then that is a good thing in the eyes of those whose Tax Dollars don't reduce pollution & merely line the pockets of those who knowingly accept funding for no result in return !
As someone recently stated "first they told us to stop cutting trees because they're so vital to the environment & now they're cutting down even more trees to make space for Wind farms" !
Paradoxical alright !

Indyvidual,

Accusing me of “confusing the debate” doesn’t make your argument clearer - it just avoids having to defend it. What I’m doing is pointing out when you make sweeping, absolute claims that don’t line up with reality.

Saying it's “a good thing” if this discussion stops funding for renewables isn't moving a debate forward - that’s shutting it down. No modern energy system is free of trade-offs, including coal and gas. The question isn’t whether renewables are perfect - it’s whether they’re better than what we’re currently stuck with long term. And the data overwhelmingly shows they are, especially when it comes to emissions and long-term operating costs.

As for the “tree cutting” comment - it’s a simplistic meme, not a serious argument. Yes, some projects have raised land-use concerns. But if your standard is “never cut down trees,” then coal mining and oil extraction should’ve been off the table long ago. Let’s not pretend fossil fuel projects have a gentle footprint - they flatten forests, blow up mountains, and poison rivers. At least renewable projects can coexist with farming, be decommissioned more easily, and increasingly include replanting and offsets.

Contributing nothing but one-liners designed to rile people up doesn't to help your case. You’re free to oppose renewables, but if you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need more than recycled punchlines and blanket cynicism.

It seems both major parties are now promising to put more gas (you know that icky fossil fuel stuff) into the system.

Tell me again how we are going to get to net zero by burning MORE fossil fuel.

It looks like we've already abandoned net zero even though the pollies won't admit it... yet.

Indy, I hope you have opted for a burial rather than a cremation...we're burning too much FOSSIL FUEL as it is!

mhaze, NET ZERO is a long term goal, and adding gas to the system in the short term is not relevant to the final outcome. Australia will have to rely on fossil fuel power generation for some time. The reality is coal is in decline, whilst renewables are on the increase. There is no prospect of new investment in coal, and the existing assets are rapidly approaching end of life. Nuclear at best is a rather vague thought bubble preposition from Dutton, with no business case relevant to Australia. Under the Coalition, a decade was wasted with no energy policy, and that led to uncertainty in the market, with a lack of investment. Labor came to power and quickly established their energy policy. For good or for bad, at least we now have a coherent policy, which is giving certainty to the market.

No modern energy system is free of trade-offs, including coal and gas.
John daysh,
That's precisely what I've been on about all along. It's you who keeps bleating Net Zero from non-renewable renewables !
Talk to me again when you get your hands on renewables that are indeed renewable & don't have to be discarded in landfills for future generations having to deal with the pollution effects of your taxpayer funded idealism !
Over & out !