Fester,

That’s a catchy little rhyme, but unfortunately, the facts don’t scan quite as neatly.

//…on something that didn’t work, for something it never did!//

Let’s be serious. Net Zero isn't some mystical end-goal - it's a framework to stabilise the climate, not to reverse it like magic. Nobody promised we'd end heatwaves by 2030. The point is to avoid catastrophic escalation, not eliminate every hot day.

And the idea that it "didn’t work"? That’s premature at best. Most major countries only began serious decarbonisation efforts in the past 5-10 years. Australia's emissions have dropped 24% since 2005, largely due to changes in electricity generation. That’s not nothing.

Meanwhile, most of the actual trillion-dollar losses have come from climate-related disasters - floods, fires, and heatwaves - not from transition spending. According to Munich Re, 2023 saw $250 billion in global climate-related damages. Net Zero isn’t waste, it’s damage control.

And if we’re talking taxpayer dollars, the fossil fuel sector still receives billions in subsidies - direct and indirect. So if we’re going to do poetry, maybe this one’s closer to the mark:

That old king of coal,
got rich off the dole,
then blamed the renewables
when prices took a toll.

All jesting aside, if you’ve got data that shows Net Zero policies cause more harm than good, bring it. But if all you’ve got is rhymes and vibes, I’d say the Duke of York has better odds of holding a hose than that argument has of holding up.

Appreciate the clarification, AC.

You're right to say that obscurity and deception aren’t the same thing, but that doesn't make the former sinister by default.

The fact that Ballmer Group, for instance, isn’t a traditional non-profit foundation but still publicly lists its grants - including millions to early education and health - isn’t proof of stealth. It's just how many philanthropic entities operate these days: a bit bureaucratic, rarely advertised, but still discoverable.

You made a good analogy with NED and USAID. But here's the key distinction: those organisations are state-funded, and often operate with foreign policy objectives baked in. Their funding of civil society in other countries can function as soft-power regime change - especially when coupled with covert ops, sanctions, or military pressure.

That’s simply not what’s happening with climate philanthropy in Australia.

No one’s overthrown a government by installing rooftop solar or defending native forests in court.

If a Ballmer or Rockefeller Foundation gives money to an Australian NGO that challenges a coal project or supports emissions reform, the agenda isn’t geopolitical - it’s environmental. And it's enforced via domestic legal pathways - media, litigation, and lobbying. You still need public support and legislative wins.

That’s not obscurity. That’s advocacy.

And let’s not forget, fossil fuel majors do the exact same thing. They fund think tanks, buy influence, seed talking points into media, and bankroll campaigns - often without disclosure. But when climate NGOs get disclosed philanthropic support, suddenly it’s a scandal?

You said, "they don't hide it, but barely anyone in the world knew." That applies more to fossil fuel lobbying than anything Greenpeace or CANA has ever done.

So yes, most people may not know where all the money flows. But that’s a transparency challenge, not a conspiracy.

And unlike the Ballmer-funded solar groups, Exxon and Boeing didn’t fund grassroots democracy, they funded war. Big difference.

Net Zero , and everything resulting from it, is a train wreck. Even if you believe Bowen’s buffoonery, the ‘transition’ will not be fast enough to save the Australian economy from ruin.

Only private enterprise and the market - the Australian way until all this nonsense started - can do that; not politicians who have overreached themselves instead of trying to improve their performance related to the relatively few functions required of them.

Let’s flip that, ttbn.

//Net Zero is a train wreck… the transition will not be fast enough to save the Australian economy from ruin.//

It’s precisely the failure to transition fast enough that poses the greatest economic risk. Every serious modelling body - from the IPCC to AEMO to the IEA - shows that delayed action = higher long-term costs. The physical impacts of climate change don’t pause for ideological grandstanding.

//Only private enterprise and the market… can do that.//

Strange then that the market is already voting with its feet:

Origin voluntarily slated Eraring for closure because it couldn’t compete.

Super funds are dumping fossil assets.

Investment in wind, solar, and storage is booming - not because of government fiat, but because the economics have shifted.

And guess who helped make that shift possible? Public R&D, policy certainty, and government-backed infrastructure.

You say "Bowen’s buffoonery" - but what specifically are you blaming him for? Keeping the grid running? Extending Eraring to ensure reliability while new capacity ramps up? That’s pragmatism, not wreckage.

//The Australian way until all this nonsense started…//

Ah yes, the golden age before climate policy - when government built the Snowy Hydro scheme, owned telecoms, subsidised coal rail, and funded CSIRO to invent Wi-Fi. The myth of a purely market-led Australia never existed.

Climate policy isn’t some foreign imposition. It’s the necessary evolution of infrastructure in a world where clinging to 1950s coal tech makes both economic and environmental outcomes worse.

You want to "save the Australian economy"? Then maybe don’t bet it on the energy source that’s bleeding investors and being outcompeted in its own backyard.

Hi John Daysh,
Thanks for your time and responses.
You've a busy schedule responding to everyone.
You won me over, by acknowledging what the U.S. does...

"That’s simply not what’s happening with climate philanthropy in Australia."
Maybe you're right, I'm not sure.
I just wanted to deal with this idea of deceit, I like Fester, and I think it's somewhat valid that many people aren't impressed with the 'idea' that foreign funding is used to push an agenda that many are 'lead to believe' results in coal plants closing prematurely and in turn impacting electricity prices and increased costs for everyone.

The reason I mentioned helping that lady at woolies was to point out that if I choose to open my wallet and give my munny to others, then that's completely different to allowing those I don't know or care about to help themselves without asking.

I know you stated other factors for domestic energy prices are responsible, such as war in Ukraine (don't get me started on that), and fluctuating gas prices.

"And let’s not forget, fossil fuel majors do the exact same thing. They fund think tanks, buy influence, seed talking points into media, and bankroll campaigns - often without disclosure. But when climate NGOs get disclosed philanthropic support, suddenly it’s a scandal?"
- I can't argue with your logic, big oil certainly aren't saints.
Anyone watched 'Landman' on Paramount with Billy Bob Thornton?
I thought it was a good watch, but it may depend on ones taste regarding tv series.

"So yes, most people may not know where all the money flows. But that’s a transparency challenge, not a conspiracy."
- I can accept that, but it probably isn't entirely unreasonable to say that some of these funders prefer we don't 'follow the money'.

I like your dedication to facts and the truth.
One day soon I'm sure you make me look stupid, [smile] but I like discussions with those who seem smarter than myself.
I get smarter too, and you'll help to keep me from going too far off track as I often do.

Here's a question though...

If renewables are the most cost effective, then why is China who manufactures renewables still building coal plants?