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.