Rapid increases in the deployment of solar and wind power generation – which grew by 46% and 11% respectively in the third quarter of this year – meant China’s energy sector emissions remained flat, even as the demand for electricity increased.

Despite the delusions of some here on OLO, one of the world's big polluters is taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously.

Evidence?

But if flat emissions is proof that they are "taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously" then the USA must be the serious-est nation on earth given that their emissions have fallen by 30% in the past two decades despite and increasing population and massively increasing national production.

mhaze states: "then the USA must be the seriousest nation on earth."

Who knows - maybe they are or were. That might not be the case if the current president continues to have his way with renewables.

The biggest cuts to U.S. emissions has been associated with electricity produced by burning coal. Down from 2016 TWh in 2007 to 675 TWh in 2023.

This has been the result of the use of both natural gas and renewables.

In most of the Great Plains states renewables now account for at least 30% of their power. This bodes well for the future as most coal production on federal land is west of the Mississippi River and coal production peaked in 2008.

Some people say emissions have dropped; other people say that have not or they are actually increasing.

It makes no difference one way or the other.

Climate change cannot be stopped.

All this faffing around by people who think that they can change the climate is just making people poorer.

79% of Australian want cheaper power, not a reduction in emissions - especially not thec piss farting level of our country's emissions.

The most dangerous emissions are those coming from the mouths - or is it the arseholes - of loonies like Chris Bowen and anonymous nutters here passing on crap from other nutters.

Come on, mhaze. This isn't your first round with WTF.

You've seen plenty of evidence posted before. So let's not pretend this is an honest inquiry.

The data isn't hard to find. CREA and Carbon Brief have both published detailed analyses over the past year showing that China's CO2 emissions have flattened or declined, even as electricity demand rose. That's because of a record-breaking rollout of solar, wind, EVs, batteries, and grid upgrades - in many cases, outpacing the rest of the world combined.

You know the data exists. You only ask as though it doesn't to set the tone for what you know you're going to do once it's presented:

- Ignore key stats
- Highlight a caveat as if it's a contradiction
- Accuse others of distortion while subtly shifting your own position

This leaves the people you're really speaking to (i.e. your audience) confused or unsure of who's right - which is usually enough for your purposes. After all, creating a sense of uncertainty where there is none is the best denialism can hope for. Anything more than that is a bonus.

So here you are again - confidently declaring there's no evidence, before anyone even posts any. That confidence only makes sense if you're planning to twist whatever is posted anyway.

For the data presented to you in this particular case, you're going to:

- ignore the clear trendlines,
- cherry-pick lagging sectors or caveats,
- act as if any admission of nuance discredits the whole picture,
- then re-frame your opponent's engagement with the nuance as flailing, and their willingness to discuss it as desperation.

That said, your point about US emissions falling by approximately 30% since 2005 is valid. No one's denying that. It's just not the gotcha you think it is, because both the US and China have been trending in the right direction - albeit via very different mechanisms.

The fact that China has halted the relentless growth in emissions, while still growing its economy and energy use, is not trivial. It deserves to be acknowledged, not dismissed with a rhetorical shrug.

Cherrypicking is the hallmark of climate change alarmists, and this is yet more cherrypicking. China's growth emissions varies from year to year, going into reverse frequently, as you can see from this series of graphs https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china.

That having been said, if it is topping out, according to IEA projections, at this stage of the game that topping out is most likely to be caused by increasing amounts of nuclear and gas,but they'll still be emitting huge amounts of CO2 even by 2040 hhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/346279197/figure/fig1/AS:961925106126862@1606352225952/Projected-China-electricity-generation-by-source-EIA-Source-US-Energy-Information.png when coal is projected to be 47% of the energy generation mix.

The coal-fired power stations they are building at the moment have a 40 to 70 year life span. They know renewables are only ever going to be an occasional supporting act.

Today the Liberals make up their minds about the crippling nonsense of Net Zero. Hopefully, Bragg will move to the back bench or, better still, resign from politics.

Yes I'm aware that there's all sorts of analyses around purporting to show that this or that country's emissions are slowing, rising, falling, or plummeting. The notion that we can measure CO2e emissions to within a few Gigatonne in any particular year is rather deluded. All we can hope for is these analyses provide a general trend over time that is in the realms of reality. Only a decade or two after the event can we say which decade or half-decade was the inflexion point.

I was hoping WTF? would point to the 'Carbon Brief' analysis as his evidence which would then have allowed me to point to this other 'Carbon Brief' report without it being rejected for not supporting the narrative....http://tiny.cc/sxwu001. Alas WTF was didn't play along. JD OTOH....

My point about the USA was that reductions in emissions is a result of modernisation, not renewables. The USA, a renewables pariah, has nonetheless managed to reduce CO2e emissions by gigantic amounts over the past few decades, even as it remains equivocal about the climate change mantra. So China reducing emissions or stopping increasing emissions doesn't say anything about their adherence to the CO2 jihad or being renewables evangelists, and more about them becoming a modern industrial nation

Whatever emissions are caused by China, they're intrinsically linked to the rest of the World's population which buys, uses & discards China's products every moment of the day. The only way China can reduce its emission is for the rest of the world not to buy its products.
To point the finger at China is nothing more then hypocrisy by the finger pointers.

Hydrocarbon fuels (coal, gas, and oil) still provide more than 90 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption as of 2023-24 (most recent data)

"In 2024, China's coal consumption was at a record high, with demand reaching approximately 4.9 billion tons due to strong electricity needs and reliance on coal-fired power plants"

I think that the flattening might be due to lower concrete and steel production. Heaps of thermal coal being used for power generation. Cherry picking time lines, and I'm sceptical of stats from authoritarian countries, the CSIRO gencost report for example.

WTF?

mhaze states: "I was hoping WTF? would point to the 'Carbon Brief' analysis as his evidence....."

WTF? I've never heard of the Carbon Brief but I may look it up.

Once again mhaze is exhibiting some bizarre behaviour by assuming the sources that I use.

I wasn't making a comparison between China and the USA so it is strange that mhaze took that path.

Most people realise that the USA is shifting from manufacturing to services and that China is still heavily into manufacturing and so their energy needs are different and changing.

The "renewables are bad" alarmists want to dismiss changing energy patterns. The shift is happening - not because of some "1960s kumbaya save the planet mindset" but because of economics.

Time for the renewable alarmists to move on from the 1950s mindset

Graham,

You've just cherry-picked a graph to argue that the other side cherry-picks, and an obsolete graph at that.

//Cherrypicking is the hallmark of climate change alarmists.//

That's a bold claim in a thread where the only cherry-picking done so far has been from the denial camp.

The OP simply noted that "China's energy sector emissions remained flat, even as the demand for electricity increased" - if that's what you're referring to - which is a new trend backed by Carbon Brief and CREA, based on monthly emissions data. That's tracking a shift in real time, not cherry-picking.

//China's growth emissions varies from year to year, going into reverse frequently, as you can see from this series of graphs.//

The chart you linked to shows a clear long-term rise, with brief dips during the GFC, coal crackdowns, and COVID. What's different now is that emissions have plateaued despite demand growth, which is a first for China.

//...if it is topping out, according to IEA projections, at this stage of the game that topping out is most likely to be caused by increasing amounts of nuclear and gas.//

China's solar additions in 2023 alone exceeded 216 GW. That's more than the US has in total. Gas remains just 3-4% of generation and is constrained by cost and supply. This flattening is being driven by renewables, not fossil fuels.

You've cited a chart showing that coal is projected to be 47% of the energy generation mix by 2040. But this comes from a 2017 EIA projection. In reality, China has already blown past that chart's forecasts for wind and solar. More recent forecasts show coal dropping to below 30%.

//They know renewables are only ever going to be an occasional supporting act.//

China's own Five-Year Plans, massive battery deployment, and grid reform contradict your claim here.

So basically, your sources are dated, your trend analysis misreads the data, and your argument assumes nothing's changed - when it clearly has.

WTF?

mhaze states: "My point about the USA was that reductions in emissions is a result of modernisation, not renewables."

Brandolini's Law does not apply here (the relevant rebuttal can be easily found) as analysis by Tsangyao Chang presented in ResearchGate concludes: "results imply that an increase in the consumption of renewable energy and technological innovation can curb CO2 emissions in the USA; these effects tend to be more lasting when technological innovation and the consumption of renewable energy are combined. Therefore, future policies focused on curbing the emissions of CO2 should pay attention to the combined effect, which is the promotion of technological innovation and the exploitation of renewable energy sources in the USA."

//They know renewables are only ever going to be an occasional supporting act.//
John Daysh,
Once your eyes are fully open & your wallet is thick enough you'll see that that statement is in fact correct when one looks at the renewables technology of today. They're not even workable as a stepping stone to renewable energy. We can't as yet foretell what future inventions will put on the table but one thing is certain, the renewables of today are exactly as described above. They're not working on the grand scale we're being told & cost too much in every way imaginable.
There'd far less pollution without them & using coal until a real solution is found would prove far more realistic & better all round.

mhaze,

So first it was "Where's the evidence?" - now it's "Well we won't really know until 2040." Sounds like the goalposts are solar-powered.

No one's claiming CO2 emissions data is pinpoint accurate - but when multiple independent sources show China's emissions flattening despite growing electricity demand, that's not noise. That's a signal.

The US reductions you're celebrating? They're based on the same level of emissions tracking - and driven by a mix of gas and yes, renewables (which now dominate new capacity in most states).

You mock with emotive language like "CO2 jihad" and "renewables evangelists," but then criticise China for modernising without climate rhetoric. So which is it? Should they chant the slogans, or just get on with cutting emissions?

And citing an old Carbon Brief article to try to "gotcha" a newer Carbon Brief article isn't the slam dunk you think it is. It just shows you'll use a source you don't trust when it suits your angle.

If we're being honest, what bothers you isn't the data - it's that the transition might actually be working.

If China is burning more thermal coal every year, then how can the CO2 emissions from power generation not be increasing?

It is probably a consequence of less concrete and steel production. It is certainly not because of wind and solar.

WTF?... I wasn't assuming who your sources were, just hoping one was 'Carbon Brief' for reasons already stated. Struth, you comprehensions skills are almost as bad as JD's.

The point is this (I'll write slowly).... you asserted that the mere fact that China's emissions were stabilising or even falling proved they were "taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously." I was just pointing out that under that logic, falling US emissions would mean that they must be "taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously" as well. A proposition I knew you couldn't stomach.

"The "renewables are bad" alarmists"...

This'll probably go over your head but most of us don't think renewables are bad, just that the way they are being implemented in Australia and Western Europe is bad.... and expensive...and unsustainable.

Struth JD, how many errors can one bloke make in one post.

""Where's the evidence?""

No. The question was which evidence WTF was using, for reasons already stated. Do try to keep up. I already knew that there were many lines of evidence for this so he could have been using one or more of many. Although I would point out that most of the articles written about that I've seen were ultimately based on the 'Carbon Brief' analysis. (I'd also note that WTF hasn't told us his sources which suggested he was just regurgitating an assertion from one of the China-apologist sites he seems to frequent.)

"The US reductions....[are] based on the same level of emissions tracking [as China]."

Precisely. But I was talking about a 20yr trend in the USA data which rather was my point, which, if you look up, you'll going over your head.

"then criticise China for modernising".
Criticising China?? ?? Where? Do you just make this rubbish up or are you truly that incapable of understanding a train of thought?
Far from criticising it, I hope it continues and even accelerates. The more comfortable life becomes for the Chinese, the less likely they will be to risk it in foreign adventures like Formosa.

"And citing an old Carbon Brief article to try to "gotcha" a newer Carbon Brief article isn't the slam dunk you think it is. It just shows you'll use a source you don't trust when it suits your angle."

Where do you get the daffy notion that I don't trust 'Carbon Brief'. I use them regularly (which is how I knew about the article I linked) and accept their data is better than most and based on a relatively unbiased, non-ideological assessment.

"what bothers you isn't the data - it's that the transition might actually be working."

Factual data never bothers me. And if the transition to a non-carbon world is working, I'd hate to see it when its failing.

Struth, mhaze!

You say "how many errors can one bloke make," yet almost every paragraph of your reply moves the goalposts, rewrites your own position, or attacks a straw man.

Let's walk through it...

//The question was which evidence WTF was using...//

You may frame it that way now, but your original comment was a classic "gotcha" setup - "Evidence?" - short and simple for maximum impact. No mention of Carbon Brief or any qualifier, just mock-doubt.

If you knew about the reports and wanted a specific citation, you could have asked for one. You didn't. So claiming hindsight clarity is… convenient.

//I was talking about a 20yr trend in the USA data which rather was my point...//

And yet you used that long-term US trend to imply China's recent flattening isn't meaningful - a false equivalence. The entire point was that China's emissions are now flat despite demand growth - unlike the US trend, which heavily relied on economic shifts and outsourcing emissions. You used that as a comparative dismissal, not just a separate point.

//Criticising China?? Where?//

You framed their emissions plateau as irrelevant to climate action:

"...doesn't say anything about their adherence to the CO2 jihad..."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10681#373050

You also described climate concern as "the climate change mantra," and framed emissions changes purely as a function of becoming "a modern industrial nation." That's not neutrality. It's minimising and mockery.

//Where do you get the daffy notion that I don't trust Carbon Brief?//

From over a year of forum posts where you mock mainstream climate sources.

But even if we accept your claim here, you cited an old Carbon Brief article as a "gotcha" while ignoring their most recent emissions analysis, which showed the plateau. That's cherry-picking - by your own standards.

//If the transition... is working, I'd hate to see it when it's failing.//

Flat emissions in the world's largest economy, despite demand increases, led by renewables, is what a bumpy transition looks like - not failure, just not perfection.

Your problem isn't with the data. It's with what the data implies.

JD,

I'm guessing the math is too difficult for you. Because calculations about level of emissions are so nebulous and open to significant error in a particular year, they should only be used in a multi-year scale. Thus I spoke of the multi-decade trend in the US data as showing something of note, whereas a single year of Chinese data, while it may well represent and inflexion point, can't be definitively said to do so.

Apparently, because I often critique alarmist sites and data, that means I dislike ALL sites that support the CAGW theory? In trying to explain how utterly bonkers that type of thinking is, my vocabulary, I'm afraid, fails me.

BTW I hate Revolution 9 on side 4 of the White Album. Apparently that proves I hate The Beatles.

Just for clarification, Carbon Brief is a reputable site that does good honest work with little overt bias. They lean alarmist but not overly so and gather their data in an unbiased fashion. I visit the site regularly since the only way to follow the entire issue is to read advocates from both sides.

There was no maths, mhaze.

//I'm guessing the math is too difficult for you.//

There was a trend - 18 months of emissions data, from multiple independent sources, showing a plateau in China's CO2 output despite rising demand. Your "math" insult is nothing more than a lazy segue into goalpost shifting. You dismissed the data when it was first raised. Now that it's clear and consistent, you declare that nothing counts unless it's spread across multiple decades.

You then frame this as some kind of elevated epistemological position - one you claim I'm too slow to grasp. But really, it's just a rhetorical parachute. Had the data shown a sharp rise in emissions instead of a plateau, we both know you wouldn't be demanding a multi-decade average before drawing conclusions.

//Apparently, because I often critique alarmist sites and data, that means I dislike ALL sites that support the CAGW theory?//

No.

The issue is your track record of dismissing mainstream climate sources - until you find an older post from one that suits your point. Then suddenly they're valid. Your use of a dated Carbon Brief article to discredit their more recent emissions analysis wasn't an act of balanced inquiry. It was cherry-picking.

//BTW I hate Revolution 9 on side 4 of the White Album. Apparently that proves I hate The Beatles.//

No. Terrible analogy.

You didn't say you disliked one Carbon Brief article - you used one against another, and ignored their latest findings entirely.

That's not selective taste. It's strategic omission.

for crying out loud. How'd any of you know what's going on in China ? Some of you can't even grasp what's going on here !

John, can you please stop embarrassing the Trumpster, the poor boy will once again have to get out of the sandpit and go home, with yet another bloodied nose from you. This is too embarrassing for the kid.

Trumpster, on another subject, there have been embarrassing emails dropped from the paedophile Epstein about his fellow traveller, your man Donald. Anything to say?

I propose a fart tax, 5 bucks per fart for the sake of the environment.
I'll start a charity called 'Fartless future', where we 'advocating for Fresh air'
Obviously I'll become the CEO, and each time one of you farts, you can send me the $5.
You see now I'm a greenie.

Hi AC,

Great idea, did you know the average person farts 20 times a day, by Liberal party calculations that's $5 x 20, equals, carry the 1, add 17, minus 4, the answer to that is a lot of dosh! I got that calculation straight from the mouth of Liberal party leader, Barnyard Joy, and he should know, they're full of it. Will that tax apply to Old Farts as well? I don't want to over tax poor old fellas, as they're rather over taxed already, so one tells us, and besides, he's always saying he'll be gone soon. I assume he means by that, he's going "up the chimney"! More CO2 into the atmosphere!

BTW, the Clown Party made a world shattering decisions yesterday; From now on ALL members will have to bring a bikky for morning tea to all party meetings. Ditzy said her names not Flo, and she wont be baking anymore Pumpkin Scones for future meetings! I do believe the UN Security Council went into emergency session on hearing the world shattering news from Clown Party HQ! The US has already imposed a 5,000% tariff on all Australian made pumpkin scones entering the United States, and Russia said they will declare war on Australia as soon as they're finished with Ukraine, China said their new big navy will attack Darwin immediately, but wont tell Albo. This kind of unilateral decision by the Clown Party goes against, world order, its morning tea and pumpkin scones today, its atomic bombs tomorrow! No worries Albo will nip it in the bud!

JD,

Again you can't follow the thread of the issue:

1. I didn't use one Carbon Brief article to discredit the other. I just use one to segue to the other. Both in my view were accurate.

2. I didn't disregard or dispute the Carbon Brief article's accuracy. I merely gave it nuance in that the findings on emissions in any particular year for any particular country are nebulous and open to wide revision. That's why you have to look at trends - a concept obviously beyond you.

I'm getting the feeling that the idea of someone who you'd (incorrectly) call a denier, looking at a site friendly to the climate alarm and accepting its findings to be an alien concept. I assume that's because you'd never look at what you'd call (incorrectly) a denier site with anything other than rage and would never look at their findings with anything but dismissal.

Its that type of thinking which causes so many alarmists to so badly misunderstand the issues and the data.

Paul,

What do you think was embarrassing in those emails? I suspect that you just think they were a problem for Trump because that's what you've been told to think and you always do as you're told.

In fact the emails vindicated Trump. Hint: look at who they redacted from those emails and why.

Stuff China. More importantly, the Liberals have done the right thing - at last - although they are still clinging to the carbon dioxide, man-made climate change myth.

Now, the Liberals need to get an immigration policy.

The Albanese government believes and promotes the hoax that climate change is caused by people and their activities emitting carbon dioxide; yet, they added to the supposed cause by bringing into Australia nearly 477,000 new CO2 emitters in the form of immigrants in 12 months to September 2025.

The Liberals should take note of the Nordic position on immigration.

While Australia brought in close to half a million immigrants in 2024-25 Sweden was getting rid of immigrants. They have raised their standards, and more people left Sweden than arrived.

They are even planning to pay migrants to leave.

The largest party of the governing coalition, Swedish Democrats (nothing ‘far right’ about them) plan on having more migrants returning to their own countries.

Unlike Australians, the Swedes are “proud of our country and culture and cherish what we have inherited from previous generations”.

The same thing is happening in Denmark. There, the left wing PM refers, in relation to immigrants, “reckless driving; threats; stabbings; shootings; gangs”, etc.

The Prime Minister believes that unregulated globalisation, mass immigration, and free movement of labour is “paid for by the lower classes”.

You're off your rocker mhaze
The way the orange faced man has carried on
Tried to sweep it under the rug, he's definitely exposed / compromised
And democrats have found his achilles heel.

Nick Fuentes, Mark Levine, Ben Shapiro, Charlie KIrk
The whole things a mess and MAGA are divided and turning on Trump.

Now he's begging Israeli PM to pardon Netanyahu.
Why doesn't Miriam Adelson just assume the Presidency of both Israel and America, because that's who is behind both of them having funded their campaigns.

Trumps not America first and Tucker Carlson has been screaming about it.
But you know this is what happens when you allow the congress and presidency to be bought with shekels.

It matters not ttbn,
Because people aren't going to vote LNP back in.
Even when Albo bans single mums vapes and their kids from social media, and imports more foreigners than we can handle...
People still won't vote in LNP, so get over it.

According to the OECD, only “17.7 percent of global emissions are covered by legally binding net zero pledges” (and how are they enforced anyway).

The expansion of international climate policy commitments increased by a mere 1% in 2024.

Momentum behind emissions reduction has “slowed significantly since 2021”.

Hi AC,

Did you know that China is using more coal every year? That means that its electricity generation is responsible for more emissions every year. So how can renewables be responsible for its emissions flat lining?

More plausible is the construction slump and its impact on concrete and steel production.

China is very active in developing nuclear. Don't expect a peep from WTF or Johnny Bullsheet if China starts replacing its coal generation with cheap and mass produced nuclear reactors.

Here is a leading UK climate scientist discussing the idiocy of net zero as pursued by nations like the UK and Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyzum0jUFj8

ttbn if you are happy to accept and broadcast legally binding net zero pledges from a OECD report then you should be happy to accept and broadcast their conclusions as well, such as those that "highlight the urgent need for enhanced global climate action amid rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related disasters".

OECD examples include:

Global temperatures reaching critical levels, with 2024 being the warmest year on record.

Countries with high exposure to heat stress often having limited adaptive capacity, exacerbating inequalities.

Projections that indicate worsening heat stress in both high- and low-exposure regions, necessitating tailored adaptation strategies.

There are many others that probably challenge your world view as well.

WTF?

You are very confused Fester. I don't hold a dichotomous world view.

I have never discounted an energy future where nuclear energy is involved.

It is much easier to consider a future with many possible energy sources, from those who want their own decentralised independent electrical supply to wherever technology may take us.

To ignore all possible energy sources to concentrate one just one centralised option seems illogical.

I'll believe it when I see it wtf?. It is a shame to see debates like this corrupted by ideology and the lobbying of wind and solar grifters. The problem with wind and solar is that system costs are expensive and require backup with dispatchable power (unlike nuclear). The experience of countries seeking to become "renewable energy superpowers" is the loss of industry to countries with cheaper power and declining living standards. Prof Helm at least has the sense to call out the madness. A good interview if you are interested.

The anti-nuclear tripe being bandied about could damage efforts to improve the world's living standards and reduce CO2 emissions.

End the ban.

WTF?

Time to start believing me Fester.

Here is a cut and paste from one of my posts back on 14th August:

"I for one would not discount an energy future that included nuclear..."

It's not the first time I'm made similar comments but it is the only one I could be bothered finding for you but at least now you can believe what I tell you.

Believe me Fester when I say the main driver of the current energy trends is not ideology but economics.

You can bemoan the current acceleration in the uptake of renewables all you like but that is where investors are pouring their money into.

Hi Fester,
China makes 5 and 10 year plans and sticks to it.
I'm sure they probably will do away with many of the coal plants one day, but firstly comes manufacturing and bringing people into the middle class, and I'm sure they will continue to add renewable capacity as well.
China needs cheap energy, it's not going to cut it's nose off to spite its face though. It will not rely on one type of energy but make sure its diversified and not reliant on any one source, but jobs and production must continue.

I agree, end the ban.

that is where investors are pouring their money into.

WTF? - Not Again,
I predict that in only a few years these "investors" will bleat poor me & demand that the ordinary Taxpayer bail them out again as per usual.
Government of the day at investing should stipulate the investment at own risk ! If they did, the proponents of the renewables' schemes will back off in troves ! Their trust in the future of renewables will vaporise before they can download a negative gearing claim form !

“.... the moment of madness has gone. The country has seen the bill and is starting to feel the consequences”.

Professor of economics at Oxford, Dieter Helm, writes that the more intermittent generation that is built, the more expensive and infrastructure-heavy the system becomes. ‘Transition’ is land-hungry, capital-intensive and socially fracturing.

Even Bill Gates, “long a champion of rapid climate action”, has said, rightly, climate change will NOT end civilisation, and any transition away from fossil fuels “should not occur by pricing energy at a level unacceptable to the community.

Electricity prices have already gone past what is acceptable to the Australian community.

Described as “wise elders of the decarbonisation club”, ex ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, and Ross Garnaut are backpedalling.

Sims warns that transition risks becoming politically unsustainable because prices are “falling so unevenly”.

Garnaut says that “scaling up subsidies” for wind and solar will not get Australia to its targets, and risks “buying failure”.

Climate change cannot be stopped. We should not be paying billions to do the impossible.

From no climate change to climate change will not end civilisation does that mean climate change is real now.
Au is unique for sunshine and wind, fossil fuels are to blame for climate change. The more solar we have the better we get. nothing can compete with the cost of solar, sunshine is free coal costs largely.
Transition is progressing very well, being only 2025 and solar is trading in negative figures. Peak times are being flattened with negatively costed solar. When we have the amount of solar in the grid and contracts kick in massive drops in the cost of generated power by unattended solar

"And democrats have found his achilles heel."

Well I'm sure you've looked into this with all the thoroughness you normally display eg when you looked into the US bombing of Iran and then spent a week wiping egg off your face.

But since Paul has obviously done a runner on this, perhaps you can explain what the Democrats have found on Trump re Epstein. Was it the evidence that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Epstein in 2017? Oh no even The Democrats have now retracted that one. Or perhaps it was the evidence that Trump spent several hours in Epstein's home with a girl whose name was redacted. Turns out the redacted name was Virginia Giuffre who specifically said Trump never touched her.

Come on AC, regale us with your research showing the Democrats have the goods on Trump.

It seems to me that every week or three since 2015, we get stories that they've finally got Trump over whatever is their latest hoax. And then we find out that its rubbish. But I'm sure they're thrilled to know that there are still some bozos who fall for this....every...single...time.

Trumpster,

It's a fact Trump is a sex grub, and a grub in general, I haven't "done a runner" as you put it. As I said before Trump got the gig for the second time, I don't much care whose in the White House. Now doubt you would sing the praises of that grub Randy Andy Windsor given the chance. I understand they are your kinda people!

Did you know, Randy Andy is 8th in line to become King of Australia. What do you make of that, the grub is preferred as your King over 27 million Australian citizens!

"You can bemoan the current acceleration in the uptake of renewables all you like but that is where investors are pouring their money into."

All they are interested in is the billions in handouts: When the handouts stop, they disappear. And an Arche Energy report looking at recent coal power station builds around the world determined a cost of $70-$110 per MWH, less than that claimed by CSIRO. The cheapest option, as Bazz suggested, is to refurbish existing power stations.

Low cost and reliable supply should be the primary drivers.

"I for one would not discount an energy future that included nuclear..."

That statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Do you agree with removing the nuclear ban and opening the electricity market up to competition via long term supply contracts?

Pauline Hanson doesn’t trust the Liberals on Net Zero; they are sticking to the Paris Agreement and the emissions nonsense, still clinging to the even more nonsensical idea that climate change can be stopped.

She isn’t the only one who doesn’t trust the liberals after their appalling and cowardly performance that put the abominable Albanese regime back into power.

‘Across the country, Liberal MPs tie themselves in knots trying to finesse positions that satisfy no one. They’re paralysed not by complexity but by cowardice – listening to people who aren’t their friends, taking cues from the Age and the ABC, craving approval from the very class that loathes them. The party that once championed enterprise now worships bureaucracy. Risk aversion has become its only conviction”. (Anon)

A Trump-style clean break from Paris is the only way to return sanity and prosperity to Australia.

So Paul after I asked you to show what was the problem with the emails you said were embarrassing to Trump, you decided to change the subject to Andrew Windsor!!

Just s I thought...you actually don't know what was embarrassing, only that the people you rely on to tell you what to think told you what to think.

"sunshine is free coal costs largely"

The world's coal deposits were made for free by nature and sunshine. They have helped humanity build the living standards and civilisation of today by providing dispatchable energy.

With coal, the cost is from mining it and building generating and transmission infrastructure, which amounts to 60% and 40% of the power cost.

With wind and solar the cost comes from building solar panels and windmills to generate 150% of the power you need (a third of generation is wasted), a transmission grid to handle the intermittent generation (twice as much as a grid for dispatchable generation), storage (batteries and pumped hydro costing who the hell knows how much), as well as extra control and stabilisation equipment. Add to that north of ten billion dollars a year in taxpayer handouts to the wind and solar con artists, loss of vast amounts of farmland and the natural environment to wind and solar installations, and a lifespan of 20year for generation and ten years for batteries before they become toxic waste, filling our world with pfas forever chemicals.

Time to get rid of these grifters.

Time to get rid of these grifters.
Fester,
Yep, drain that particular swamp !

Trumpster,

Trump on his good mate the paedophile Epstein; "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,".... "a lot of fun to be with"....."It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

If I was talking like that about a paedophile mate and myself, then I'd be embarrassed, I don't know about you, but then again we are talking about your man Trump! Maybe he's not embarrassed at all, given his reputation, as sex grub with a prostitute, good old Stormy!

Yes Trump is reported to have said that. But that has nothing to do with the emails you originally claimed were the embarrassment based on what others told you to believe.

But the quotes you have there are from 2002, way before Epstein was outed as a paedophile and way before Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for inappropriate behaviour around young girls. Even way before Virginia Giuffre worked at Mar-a-Lago where she once met Trump and reported that he was very nice to her and that she never saw or experienced him doing something inappropriate.

Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.

Trumpster,

When your man Donald said; "many of them are on the younger side" what did he mean, how young 10? Since Epstein was a paedophile, having sex with under aged girls, Trump must have been aware of those children's ages. AND why doesn't Trump have all of the dirty Epstein files opened, as he said he would. Seems Trumps MAGA base is not happy Jan!

I'm in the top class, I'm not coming down to your bottom level, in the numbskulls class! I see a pattern with you, supported Rolf Harris, then Archy Pell, now Dirty Donald, next thing you'll be defending that Jones Boy, when he has to front court, for you know what!

Fester says an oversupply of solar is wasteful. Maybe he should talk to his maker to solve that issue. The sunshine's every day somewhere. Solar is free so what is he saying. We can not shutdown the sun, so we store it for times when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, in your area.
If you have not noticed AU is very large island and very diverse. From four seasons in one day to tropical one one day to Antarctic blasts the next. Diversity is the great advantage AU has.
Maybe you need to study a map of AU To see what is on offer in this great land.

doog,

I just look at the experience of Australia and of other nations with wind and solar, as well as research on system costs. I compare the outcome with other generating technologies such as nuclear.

The material I view indicates that wind and solar are supplying a more than optimal amount of energy to the grid.

Nuclear, which is a dispatchable energy source, could contribute from 0% to 100% of supply without the integration issues of wind and solar. The French completely supplied themselves with nuclear generation in less than fifteen years, starting half a century ago. No nation has got much above 25% in twenty years from wind and solar. That is why I think nuclear a better option.

CO2 is a world problem and needs a world solution. A multinational effort to do even better what the French did half a century ago, but on a multinational scale.

The wind and solar grifters are doing sfa for CO2, ripping off over 10 billion in annual subsidies paid for by taxpayers, destroying farmland and the environment, destroying Australia's prosperity and future.

Time to get rid of the grifters.

"AND why doesn't Trump have all of the dirty Epstein files opened"

And why didn't the Democrats open those files when they had the presidency and both houses if there was anything there that condemned Trump?

I can't help but notice that you still can't explain why you thought the emails you mentioned were an embarrassment for Trump. I guess just believing what you were told to believe didn't work out for you.... but then again it never does.

There is no comparison between France and Australia.
When you get stumped for words you resort to the welfare of koalas the trees and the environment in general.
Tell us why SMR,s do not exist in any capacity to be viable.
Large scale nukes require large scale safety zones and large scale permanent water supplies, The only permanent water supply here is ocean water.
The world shows the science in nukes is still in motion and far from settled as a source of heating water, when the heating medium needs cooling to make steam to drive generators there is significant risk of oversight and irreparable damage in the making.
Lets not forget what destroyed your political party.

"There is no comparison between France and Australia."

So a nation builds its electricity supply one and a half times over with nuclear in fifteen years starting half a century ago, and that is of no relevance to Australia or the world looking for cheap, low carbon electricity? How so? Wind and solar have struggled to get over twenty percent after two decades in every state which has deployed them. How then is wind and solar faster than nuclear? French nuclear power is a third the cost of German renewables. How then are renewables cheaper than nuclear?

"Lets not forget what destroyed your political party."

My support of nuclear is my own. You are the cult member. If cult leader Albo declared that nuclear power was a great option for Australia, you, WTF, the CSIRO, the ABC, and propably even Johnny Bullsheet would fall in straight behind him.

I own my thoughts. You think what your cult leader tells you to.