Thee recently released studies show that GDP could take a hit if renewable energy transition is delayed.

A study by Ortec Finance states: "Under .... a delayed transition scenario, the average Australian superannuation fund could see around 9% decline in investment returns by 2050, whereas an orderly transition helps superannuation funds to exceed current expectations."

An analysis from the Australian Treasure regarding transitioning states: "Real GDP per capita is expected to increase by $12,000 in 2035 and $36,000 in 2050.
Employment is projected to rise by 5.1 million by 2050.
The economy could be $2 trillion smaller by 2050 under a disorderly Transition Scenario."

A third study by the Investor Group on Climate Change concludes there is a possible "$6.8 trillion GDP hit if renewable energy transition is delayed."

It's easy for energy transition alarmist to dismiss the push for renewables as being all about ideology.

When it becomes about economics few will care if these denialists are left behind.

When the wind and solar transition was first proposed, it was done on the basis of economic forecasting which predicted that power prices would fall, and the more wind and solar installed the further the drop would be. The reality has been a rise in power prices and all the economic harm that comes with it.

Now I am to believe, on the basis of further economic forecasts, that if Australia doesn't persist with this nonsense, things will get worse?

Are those forecasts like the one predicting the drop of $275 in power prices. Are those forecasts funded by entities sharing in the $10+ billion in annual taxpayer dollar handouts?

This Fester bloke is anti Australian. He denies everything with flimsy reasons. Ten pound poms are just non believers that societies can prosper without being surrounded by English coastlines.
Lets look at the mess they live in over there.
They blame everybody else for not assimilating but forget about themselves.
I would rather live with a Collingwood supporter than an unassimilated pom. All of their trust is in a disintegrating political party.
This is not Europe it's AU and our nearest neighbours is Indonesian, Malaysian, Thailand, Cambodian Vietnamese. All excellent immigrants.

Hi doog,

A couple of good friends, English migrants invited us around for a true English breakfast recently. They served up baked beans with those disgusting cheap supermarket sausages chopped up in it, on toast. I didn't have the second course which was some rubbish they said was Pikelets, more crap! I'm still recovering after a week of the runs from the beans and sausages! If that's what the Poms eat for breakfast, I'd hate to see what they are consuming for lunch and dinner!

It is pathetic to see people with no influence at all continually scrabbling around, looking for “studies” that deny what most countries except Australia now realise is bullsh.t.

The bullsh.t being:

. Net Zero
. Carbon dioxide causes climate change
. Renewable energy is cheap
. Renewable energy can power industry
. Australia's puny efforts to stop its tiny emissions will make a difference
. Climate change can be stopped

The very people who started the bullsh.it - well-known public figures - are now backing off, or shutting up in embarrassment. Even the loudest villains and virtue-signallers, still clinging to the man-made climate change lie, are looking to achieve their wankery in ways that don’t ruin the economy as it is now being ruined by the insane Albanese regime.

But here, a couple of unknown idiots, with an audience of 4, keep banging out bullsh.t that is falling by the wayside (gradually, admittedly: most people don’t rush to admit that they have been wrong) as all bizarre ideas have done over history.

doog,

So I'm un-Australian because I voice my concern about giving billions to a bunch of grifters and destroying the economy, farmland and the natural environment? Presumably you're a good Australian because you support those grifters and all the harm they are doing? All those billions they take in subsidies has a direct impact on services like health, as does the economic destruction and the loss of farmland.

"Lets look at the mess they live in over there."

Yes, they are pursuing net zero aggressively with wind and solar just as we are here, and with the same consequences. Maybe you could explain why power prices haven't fallen when Albo told you they would, or explain why nuclear needs a 50km exclusion zone, just like Lucas Heights doesn't have?

I suggest that you present arguments rather than rather than engage in stereotyped ethnic based personal attacks more befitting a racist. Resorting to hatred and ethnic stereotyping suggests that you don't have much of an argument in support of your grifting anti-Australian buddies.

Time to ditch the grifters.

The current approach to energy and environmental policy isn’t just unsustainable—it puts us on a collision course with reality. When that collision happens, the economic and social disruption will be far more severe than it would have been had we taken a more measured, reality-based approach from the start.

WTF has this habit of trying to hide how bad his sources are by not mentioning them, even when called on to do so as I did in a previous thread. He just scarpers when asked.

So its difficult to know where he goes wrong when misinterpreting his sources. Although on this occasion just a glimpse of how he gets it wrong or deliberately falsifies it can be discerned.

He says 'The economy could be $2 trillion smaller by 2050 under a disorderly Transition Scenario" which he purports to be from the Australian Treasury. Now that is laughable on the face of it since the Australian economy today is barely more than $2 trillion. If true then it means the entire current economy would be gone. Again laughable.

What Treasury actually said was that "the economy is projected to be up to a cumulative $2 trillion smaller by 2050". Rather important that word "cumulative" and we can only speculate as to why WTF decided to leave it out.

On top of that the Treasury numbers have been roundly criticised because they buy into the government assertions, in the face of all evidence, that electricity prices will fall dramatically in the next few years. If that assumption is even partially wrong then all the claims about alleged losses goes out the window.

Dear Oh Dear mhaze.

I had such high hopes for you but your comprehension seems to be regressing.

You say "WTF has this habit of trying to hide how bad his sources are by not mentioning them..." But I gave you three different sources one of which you even mentioned in your post.

I schooled you a number of months ago about how to find the sources that people use when posting on OLO when they are left out for brevity's sake, but you seem to want everyone to do the hard work for you. I have little problem finding people's sources unless they are behind a paywall or are some youtuber's rantings. I thought you understood that but alas I was too optimistic.

Well of course the Treasure figure is a cumulative figure - it is a projection up to 2025. I thought that was obvious but then we do know how you look to build an argument around your own obscure word definitions and interpretations.

The only thing missing here is you research and comprehension skills.

Unhinged Australians are not the only people threatening our economy and security with climate hysteria: the UN we know, but worse, freelancers (rapporteurs) funded privately are getting in on the act; this time in the form of a woman called Astrid Puerto Riano.

This woman has spent the last 20 years fighting in an international court to get a lead smelter in Peru shut down. She now has her sights on Australia's Woodside plan for expansion of gas extraction on our North West Shelf.

The MWS has been producing since the 1980s. Prior to the recent election, Albanese delayed the expansion to keep sweet with the Greens.

Rapporteurs have been described as “friends of the court” rather than being directly involved with the court themselves. They give advice: this time to the UN and international courts involved in the “slippery notion” of international law, interfering with the sovereignty of individual countries: trying to usurp the role of elected governments.

As for the UN, there is growing concern about its connection with people not directly involved in the UN, and the organisation ‘s acceptance of ‘philanthropic’ funding by private corporations, including Bill Gates, Microsoft and George Soros. And their stooges: so called rarapporteurs.

We will probably never know which activist group is paying this one, given that we don't have a government prepared to protect Australia, its interests or its people. The Albanese government doesn't need to be usurped. It will just do nothing - as always.

Back to the unhinged Australians.

This one, Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, has slobbered that the Coalition's decision to drop Net Zero by a certain time, but still cling to the stupid idea that climate change can be stopped, will cause “more fires, more floods, more deadly heatwaves. It’s saying to hell with our kids' future".

What an idiot! What a demented fear-monger.

But, I suppose if your salary depends on idiocy and fearmongering, that's what you do. Particularly if you are not good enough to get a proper job.

And, Albanese, also incapable of getting a proper job, got all shouty about it too. The fool also added the ‘right wing’, as if wanting cheap, reliable power without ruining the environment is right wing.

Hang on. It is. It's the left wing that wants - and is giving us - expensive, unreliable power whilst wrecking the environment.

I'll bet Albanese is changing his underpants more than he did before he took on a job that he is not capable of doing.

On the other hand, I'll bet that Xi, Modi, Trump and other big emitters are also pissing their pants - with laughter, not fear, like Albanese.

"I schooled you a number of months ago about how to find the sources that people use"

Well I highly doubt that. But I suspect asking for a link would be futile.

And I'd point out that just leaving people to try to guess your sources is highly suspect. But it does allow you to hide your true sources like you did when you made your climate claims a week or two back.

"Well of course the Treasure figure is a cumulative figure - it is a projection up to 2025."

Well why did you try to hide the fact that it was cumulative by doctoring the quote and trying to hide the source? Was it because it made it all sound so much more scary or did you just not understand the economics of it?

Oh and its a projection up to 2050 not 2025!! Good to see how well you understand this stuff.

WTF?

Yes mhaze that should read 2050.

You were given sources, to say otherwise is just a sad desperate deflection.

The schooling I gave you was about how to navigate a web site I used as a source. You could not even use the search function to find the relative article. You appeared to stumble even with the concept of drop down menus. Go back through your posts and you will find it.

By all means dive down the conspiracy rabbit hole as much as you like and contort whatever bizarre meaning you wish over the inclusion of the word cumulative. It seems to pain you to accept my clarification.

I stand by the statement that I gave three sources at the start of this thread. Get back to me when you can show that I have not shown my sources when I began this thread.

I have no idea what a grifter is. I know I would not prefer to follow an eighty year old technology That is still in transformation.
Australians know what is best for them. I do not take any interest in overseas projects, that has no comparison to Australia.
Solar is excellence in the making there is no comparison on earth to match such output unsupervised and free energy without any ongoing pollution.
All the whinging and whining will not solve anything just get on with it.
IT"s always the liberals that want to shortcut projects. Do they still exist or have they evaporated.

free energy without any ongoing pollution.
doog,
?? What kind of drugs are you playing around with ?

"I have no idea what a grifter is."

Think about this doog.

You have 1gw of coal fired power. How much dispatchable power do you have if you add a)50gw of wind and solar generation, or b)1gw of nuclear generation? For a, the answer is 1gw. For b, the answer is 2gw.

A grifter is someone who tells you that all you need to do to replace your coal generation is to build more wind and solar. Unfortunately, wind and solar are not interchangeable with coal generation. Nuclear is.

South Africa is developing nuclear.

https://www.joburgetc.com/news/the-new-nuclear-race-south-africa-bets-big-on-africas-atomic-future/

Albo says Australians are too dumb for nuclear power, so we need Chinese wind mills and Chinese solar panels.

Grifters are the people ripping us off and sending the nation up Boggy Blop Creek without a paddle.

Time to ditch the grifters.

A ‘recent study’ shows that Communist China produces Australia's YEARLY output of CO2 every 12 DAYS. Their GDP is predicted to rise by 27%.

Australia's predicted GDP rise in the same period is predicted to be 2.0%.

Just imagine what it would be if we used our own coal to do what China does with our coal now. Just imagine the jobs (unemployment is on the up again as mass immigration continues).

Whoever came up with the idea that quitting Net Zero and the other climate nonsense, renewables etc, will lower our GDP, is talking through his/her arsehole, and WTF is just repeating the rubbish through his own orifice.

Well, well, well WFT?

I tracked down your source (or was it sources?).

Was it this one.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqB8PWyNuU

or perhaps this one.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wMzJAFLCfI

or perhaps this one.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHsdeBzjmcY

You see WFT when you just regurgitate others views and pretend they're your work, you almost always end up cocking things up. Which is how you end up with clangers such as not understanding that the Treasury figures were cumulative and that they referred to 2050 not 2025.

Not your finest hour WFT and that's saying something.

"The schooling I gave you was about how to navigate a web site I used as a source."

Well I'm sure you think that's true and actually happened. Meanwhile in the real world....

WTF?

Still wrong mhaze.

One thing I can assure you of is that I never (and I do mean never) source from youtube and certainly do not follow the links to youtube on OLO.

So maybe just a school boyesque blunder on your part.

And I do mean blunder as the three sources are all mentioned at the start of the thread. If you need to go to youtube rather than the sources themselves it is no wonder you struggle.

I have clarified what I mean mhaze and I'll follow that up in my next post so that you can understand.

I still stand by the fact that I gave you three sources at the start of the link (one of which you referred to) so your assertion that "this habit of trying to hide how bad his sources are by not mentioning them" is pure nonsense.

As an aside in his previous post ttbn mentions a "recent study". He does not mention the source but it took me all of 5 seconds to see that he was referring to an article on the Institute of Public Affairs web site.

Now that's what living in the real world can look like.

mhaze - now the follow up I mentioned.

I'll use a real world example so that you don't get yourself into a tizz.

Back on 26th August this year I was posting on a thread that our host Graham started.

Graham made this statement: " I can remember a time when an industry organisation actually stood up against a government except around the edges."

I responded, in part, by saying "So it appears that Graham's default position is that industry organisations should stand up against government regardless of the policy. I would suggest that industry and government being constantly opposed to each other would benefit neither."

Graham responds with: "Thanks WTF, you quoted an obvious typo on my part - "can't" fits better into the sentence than "can". So that's part of the mystery solved."

Now how did I respond? Did I suggest that Graham "gets it wrong or deliberately falsifies it" as you responded to me?

The answer of course is No.

My response was: "I think typos are part and parcel of posting. Thanks for the clarification."

No cheap attempt at an undergraduate level "got ya! moment but an acknowledgement and a thank you for the clarification.

This is an example how a mature and adult debate takes place.

I imagine that Graham and myself differ on a number of topics but still take the time to to seek and accept what the other says when clarification is required.

If you think that is too high a standard for you to aspire to I can assure you it is not.

The unreliable, expensive energy lobby is in panic mode. So is Albanese. Bowen is too stupid to notice.

The Coalition has to go further than just dumping Net Zero; emissions reductions - the myth of man-made climate change - have to go too.

But, even the scrapping of Net Zero has the hysterics getting even more hysterical.

The wild and silly shouting by climate morons will only get worse as their stupidity is finally being challenged in Australia, as it has been in more enlightened countries for some time.

For the non-political corporate investors in the renewables shame, it means big losses are on the way. The far left Albanese government and Teal and Green stooges look like losing their ideological suck blanket and the biggest virtue-signalling opportunity ever.

They are going down, and they will be screaming all the way to the bottom.

Still trying to hide where you regurgitated this from WTF?

The info is so vague I can't really blame you. But selectively quoting and misquoting ephemeral data isn't really all that honest.

And trying to make it seem much worse than it is by failing to mention that the calculations are about claimed CUMULLATIVE losses over 25 years rather than losses in one year isn't a good look.

But I suspect that no matter how many websites I find that use the same data you are selectively relying on, you'll continue to assert that wasn't the one. All very childish.

Still, 3 youtube reports all using the same obscure reports (well two of three obscure) as you used and you assert that they had nothing to do with your research!! Oh look up there... a flock of pigs just flew by.

That's like saying GDP could take a hit if corruption is delayed !

I suspect that our whole economic system is destined for disaster.
I thought this when I first heard we were committed to install
28,000 polar panels a day for 8 years and 40 windturbines a month for
8 years.
I remember I wrote on hearing it, "didn't any public servant pick up
his own hand calculator to realise it is impossible.
I wrote that the number of trucks and workers needed to be on site
and to be fed and accommodated in all these locations is impossible.
WELL I TOLD YOU SO !

They believed in fairies and so allowed some power stations to be blown up !
Now they are in a position where they cannot get them all installed
before the economy needs the power so it follows the natural law.
The economy will collapse because we will run out of money & electricity.

Hi WTF,

You are arguing with a bunch of "flat earth" people, who are captives of a political rabble that opposes the science of climate change, and use it as a weapon to attack those they philosophically oppose, ie Progressives.

You posted; "So it appears that Graham's default position is that industry organisations should stand up against government regardless of the policy. I would suggest that industry and government being constantly opposed to each other would benefit neither."

People like Graham believe Capitalists must always support their vested interest, that being the profit motive, and always oppose governments that don't put their interests first. Also GY is personally supported by Big Coal as we know, biased in the extreme, so what else would he say.

People like Graham believe Capitalists must always support their vested interest,
Paul1405,
Just like Paul1405 believes the revenue created by those who work must always be for the benefit of those who choose no effort to contribute.
Reward for effort is what makes a society, reward for no effort is what breaks it !

Indy,

"Reward for effort is what makes a society, reward for no effort is what breaks it !" That may be true, how do you class those receiving aged welfare, being rewarded for no effort for 20 or 30 years. You for example, there is no way society could support you for all these years on welfare, based on your so called "contribution", if that was the case you'll be getting a pension of 50c a fortnight, no over $30,000 per year!