this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
49 points (100.0% liked)

Australian Politics

1382 readers
74 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In short:

Australia's peak climate body has published new modelling showing the Coalition's proposed nuclear pathway would result in an additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions in the atmosphere.

The analysis has sparked attacks from the Coalition on the credibility of Australia’s independent Climate Change Authority.

What's next?

The Climate Change Authority's chair Matt Kean said the current pathway of transitioning to renewable energy as quickly as possible was "the only viable option".

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The head of the CCA is literally a former NSW Liberal Party Treasurer, so I have my hopes that this story of partisan bias will be dismissed by any serious media (there's a lot of unserious media in our country, though).

The real danger to the independence of the CCA is politicians making threats against the Authority and its staff because they don't like its findings.

Ideally this sort of threat could be referred to the NACC, but they've shown themselves to be pretty pissweak so far.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Ideally this sort of threat could be referred to the NACC, but they've shown themselves to be pretty pissweak so far.

Which the Greens said it was... By design.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

If the coalition gets in they're gonna be defunded so hard.....

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For confused readers, the problem is "by 2050" not nuclear

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean, the proposal is to build seven new nuclear plants in a country with no existing nuclear industry. That's probably just realistically how long that would take, so nuclear is the problem.

It can't be deployed quickly, and it especially can't be deployed quickly by Australia. If it could, the coalition wouldn't be using it as an excuse to keep burning coal and gas.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

You think the coalition actually want nuclear? They want their best buddies in coal, oil and gas to profit as long as possible