If you are brave, watch this You Tube clip.
The approach to climate change advocated in this clip is sure to ruffle more than a few feathers.
To dismiss this bloke's point of view simply because you don't like him, his party or where he comes from, or because considering such an approach might diminish the certainty of your current political aspirations and world view, is to not take seriously the importance and difficulty of the global climate problem.
We have recently had a wake up call seeing the energy problems that Germany is now confronted with after Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, because of its self inflicted energy dependence on Russia. It seems that by not properly considering that its increased vulnerability, created by its over reliance on renewables causing a necessity for dependence on Russian gas for warmth and power, Germany has exposed its people to unnecessary and preventable discomfort and even real peril. This is a lesson that the rest of the world would seem foolish to ignore.
The glib certainties expressed by the Climate 200 independents running against sitting government representatives in the Australian Federal election in May 2022, seem quite superficial and counterproductive to some of us in this light. They are asking us to vote for them because of their commitment and ability, if elected, to turning the tide of global carbon emissions by pursuing zero net emissions from Australia in under a decade by a singular focus on renewable sources. There are concerned and serious individuals who have a different sense of the enormity and complexity of how humans might actually effect material and useful changes in global climate, without disproportionately inflicting large collateral damage to the prosperity and comfort of the world's citizens. This is manifestly a global carbon emissions problem and Australia represents only about 1% of global emissions. Advocating for Australia to go to net zero emissions by 2030 is to promote an outcome that would have no material effect the planet's climate but does put Australians at risk of widespread blackouts and reduces our productivity and prosperity. Furthermore achieving such an overly ambitious and pointless target will not reduce droughts, fires and flooding rains in Australia, as these wishful thinking virtue signalers keep suggesting. If you are genuine about Australia addressing and contributing to a global solution to climate change you have to be also advocating for an increase in natural gas power generation in substitution for base load coal and introducing nuclear power here. This would help model to the world meaningful ways to sustainably and equitably reduce carbon emissions to slow and reverse adverse man made climate change. Promoting going to 100% renewables over a short time frame as a solution does not do this, except by recklessly modelling a failed policy to be avoided.
Australia's Climate 200 candidates, and their equivalents in other jurisdictions around the world, cannot be serious about climate if they are offhandedly dismissive of view's like those expressed by Mr. Crenshaw. Gas and nuclear power seem to have legitimate and realistic contributions to make to solving this problem at scale. To dismiss such options because they are not Green enough is not to appreciate the scale of the issue. A genuine discussion needs to incorporate such practical and realistic contributions and these ideas need to be at the centre of the world's climate debate. If such ideas are ignored because these views are not ideologically pure enough for true believers in Green deliverance, then the global climate problem is unlikely to be solved and the people of the world are likely to needlessly suffer as a consequence.
So Climate 200 supporters, please explain to me what parts of what Dan Crenshaw says in this clip don't make sense, and why?
Comments