Skip to content

Australia Set To Dump Clean Energy Target

October 16, 2017

By Paul Homewood


h/t HotScot


From ABC News:


A Clean Energy Target recommended by Australia’s chief scientist will not be adopted, with the Federal Government instead proposing a new plan to bring down electricity prices.

Key points:

  • The plan will be put to the Coalition party room today
  • It would require three years’ notice of closing a power station
  • Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly also suggested the Government delay action on reaching the Paris climate targets until closer to 2030

The details have not officially been released, but the ABC understands Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will argue his policy will lower electricity bills more than a Clean Energy Target (CET), while meeting Australia’s Paris climate change commitments.

It is understood Cabinet last night also agreed to force retailers to guarantee a certain amount of so-called dispatchable power that can be switched on and off on demand, to avoid outages.

The plan will be put to the Coalition party room today and is likely to appeal to a group of backbenchers who favour coal-fired power and had opposed a CET from the outset.

The target would have mandated a certain percentage of power be generated from gas and renewable energy, but some backbenchers did not like the idea. Former prime minister Tony Abbott argued a CET was effectively a "tax on coal".

Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly, who in July said renewable energy was killing people, said he was pleased with Cabinet’s plan for more dispatchable, switch-on/switch-off power.

"The problem we’ve had in the past is we have hot days, the demand for electricity spikes, and we haven’t had enough power that you can turn on with a switch to get that," Mr Kelly told AM.

"The problem with solar and wind, for as wonderful technologies that they are, when there’s no wind you get no electricity generation and as soon as the sun sets, you also get zero electricity generation as well.

"So as good as technologies as they are, you’ve got to have them backed up in some way, and that’s either got to be a coal-fired power station, a gas generator or some form of battery."

Cabinet is also keen to adopt a generator reliability obligation, which requires three years’ notice of closing a power station, in order to prevent a repeat of the sudden closure of Hazelwood power station in Victoria in March.


MP suggests Paris target delay

Mr Kelly has also suggested the Government delay action on reaching the Paris climate targets until closer to 2030.

"We know that a cost of a lot of this technology is becoming cheaper every year, therefore if we have a target in 2030, we’re far better to adopt those new technologies and to be paying for them in 2025, 2026, 2027, rather than be paying for them early, so you can actually backload into the next decade to achieve your Paris targets," he said.


Make no mistake, this is a stunning victory for Tony Abbott’s campaign to move away from renewable targets, which culminated in his speech at the GWPF last week.

While Turnbull mutters about still sticking to Paris targets( sooner or later), it is clear that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle now.

  1. October 16, 2017 6:25 pm

    Australia seem to have a chief scientist who has a brain, a real rarity.
    He has also said that they should re-furbish their old coal fired power stations as a low cost back-up plan: terrific common sense.

    We ought to prevent the pointless destruction of the coal fired stations in the UK; however, our green-policy people are trying desperately to ensure that these excellent power stations are destroyed before they are found-out. Ferrybridge is about to be demolished!

    • October 16, 2017 7:46 pm

      I think you’ve got Finkel (the chief scientist) wrong, just another blob-approved politburo appointment, as “green” as they come. His concern for dispactable power is just fear that a lack of it may derail the “green” gravy train after a few more blackouts. Leaches are smart enough not to overdo the blood-sucking.

      State control of dispactable power is inevitable in the decadent West, the 3-year rule is a step in that direction, private money won’t go there anymore.

      • October 17, 2017 4:35 pm

        My source was a publication on 6/09/2017 By Diarmaid Williams International Digital Editor, PEI. “Alan Finkel, Australia’s chief scientist, believes the country would be better off extending the life of existing coal-fired power plants, rather than investing in clean coal technology. Finkel says the move would increase Australia’s energy security in an affordable manner.”
        That looks like a very sensible assessment to me and is what the UK needs. However, I know nothing about Finkel and could easily be wrong as you say!

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      October 16, 2017 7:54 pm

      Have you confused Malcolm Turnbull and Alan Finkel ?
      Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg may be the best informed. He does seem to be into AGW, but perhaps not an alarmist.

    • October 16, 2017 8:23 pm

      I picked up a rumour – possibly true – the the UK have already contracted to sell the turbines etc to Germany. So it looks like the UK government has burnt its bridges – in every sense.

      • CheshireRed permalink
        October 17, 2017 3:18 pm

        They did that with one of the turbines from Didcot (I think) so as to render the project irreversible. Comply with EU regulations to shut down UK coal plants then sell a major component that allowed Germany to build a brand new coal power station. Genius, eh?

  2. Broadlands permalink
    October 16, 2017 6:46 pm

    Tony Abbot’s speech at GWPF was truly stunning!

    “Beware the pronouncement, “the science is settled”. It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages. Almost as bad is the claim that “99 per cent of scientists believe” as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts.”

    “The growing evidence that records have been adjusted, that the impact of urban heat islands has been downplayed, and that data sets have been slanted in order to fit the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming does not make it false; but it should produce much caution about basing drastic action upon it.”

    But, drastic action is an understatement for the path that the Paris Accord has placed us on.

    • October 16, 2017 9:56 pm

      “99 per cent of scientists believe” that dissent from climate alarm dogma could be a dangerous game to play, career-wise.

    • dennisambler permalink
      October 17, 2017 9:23 am

      Great speech, ignored by the BBC et al.

  3. HotScot permalink
    October 16, 2017 7:04 pm

    Australia is a bit of a bellweather. It’s been one of the first to maniacally pursue the green ideology and one of the first to see the results first hand, blackouts and sky-rocketing electricity prices.

    They now seem to be putting the brakes on (early days though) as the whole disjointed scam unstitches.

    Meanwhile, back in Blighty, I strongly suspect the EV announcement and every recent green announcement is more to do with pacifying the EU following the Brexit vote. Head them off at the pass if you like “Look how compatible and compliant we are with EU green regulations Mr. faceless bureaucrat, lets get that deal done so we don’t have to leave Europe without one”.

    When Brexit is concluded, we’ll be trading with the rest of the world and like the USA, our energy prices had better be competitive or we’re in trouble as manufacturers are likely to bolt for the US, China or India.

    The problem is, of course, if Corbyn, his communist sidekick and the rest of his anti Semitic mob get their mucky paws on the levers, they’ll screw everything up, not that they wouldn’t, Brexit or no Brexit.

    • October 17, 2017 1:40 am

      Think it’s more to do with the Tories pandering to the brainwashed youth vote who view ‘tackling climate change’ as a priority, typically don’t pay energy bills, and are too dumb to see the damage this pointless virtue-signalling nonsense is doing to both the environment and the economy.

    • Bitter&twisted permalink
      October 17, 2017 7:22 am

      A promising start, but not nearly enough.
      Like Harvey Weinstein the green scam and the fraudsters who promote and benefit from it need exposing, arresting and jailing.

      • HotScot permalink
        October 17, 2017 7:36 am


        No, not nearly enough.

        So far Weinstein is only guilty of trial by media. If he’s found guilty in a court of law, then I’ll condemn him.

        Personally, I believe the accused in any case, sexual or otherwise, is entitled to press anonymity until a verdict is passed.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        October 17, 2017 10:55 am

        I actually believe he believes it when he says it was consenual.
        The fact that he Blackmailed them in to consenting is something else entirely.
        In that way Scientists are very similar, they are either blackmailed in to consensus by threatening their jobs or by threatening their cash stream.

  4. October 16, 2017 7:11 pm

    Paul, a step forward after the fantastic speech by Tony Abbott. Probably the greatest speech of all time on Climate Change. Put the greenies and lefties in their place.
    More to be done though with a paltry $115 saving on power per year after increasing $600 in three years. They need to stop subsidies and new projects that can be initiated until 2020 now. There will be a gold rush on new projects and this could double renewables with attendant costs and trailing subsidies for the life of the project. A crazy situation filling carpetbaggers coffers and helping PM Turnbull to his silly Paris objective. Have no doubt if not careful this plan could be more of the same through another method.

  5. Athelstan permalink
    October 16, 2017 7:23 pm

    “does not make it false”

    Oh yes it effin well does, Mr. Abbot.

    On Aussie finally seeing the light, glory hallelujah!

    No chance of any such sage enlightenment reaching, shining a brilliant light into the Stygian little minds of the fuquits green archpriestesses/soothsayers of Westminster-BEIS.

    Why is it, during the last four decades and counting, the years of despond, why have TPTB in Britain been so over, ever eager to help others even it they are still anti Britain even enemies indeed [Argentina, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, China] but in contrast to almost total exclusion shown by the UK authorities and HMG always been last to do the right thing by its own people? Further to that, and why does the UK establishment so disdain their fellow countrymen?

    Moreover, TPTB surely cannot [feign] exhibit great surprise when the people rightfully think of the UK establishment in terms of some canine deposit which you usually and vigorously scrape off the soles of your boots?

    The green agenda, bin it and bin it now, follow the examples of Japan and the USA, Germany, China and India and latterly Australia. For crying out loud why doesn’t some UK political entity/party pick up on this, surely there are millions of votes to be won by promoting sensible, cheaper, more reliable energy policy?

    Why not?

    • A C Osborn permalink
      October 17, 2017 10:59 am

      UKIP did, remind me again where they are?

      • Athelstan permalink
        October 17, 2017 2:25 pm

        I didn’t hear any message from UKIP other than gobbledegook and they shied away from making any certain promises on aught – that’s their problem.

    • Rowland H permalink
      October 17, 2017 11:03 am

      UKIP’s policy is to repeal the Climate Change Act and it now has a new sane leader!

      • Athelstan permalink
        October 17, 2017 2:33 pm

        People need to have it explained, in easyily understood sound bites.

        What it would mean to rescind that act of idiocy [2008 CCA] and how it would impact on their lives – ECONOMICALLY, ie: get rid of the ACT and YOU save money.

        The necessity of Cheap plentiful power = jobs and prosperity and cheaper energy benefits the budgets not only for domestic consumers but the needs of all sorts of utilities, and services not least in hospitals and schools. [think about it]

        That’s the sort of message UKIP needs to convey and often and every opportunity they get: on National TV.

  6. Ian Terry permalink
    October 16, 2017 7:54 pm

    Why not athelstan?

    Because the main parties in Westminster are scared sh one t less of the greens and the only reason they do nothing they hope to keep their power base.

    Too many of the population are still not aware or wanting to believe that they are paying for all this c**p and still think the water will rise to sink the country. Biggest cock up since Mons!!!

    • Bitter&twisted permalink
      October 17, 2017 7:24 am

      How many idiots actually vote green?
      Not many.
      Votes that is.

      • Rowland H permalink
        October 17, 2017 11:04 am

        In the Austrian election, the Greens lost all their 24 seats!

  7. October 16, 2017 9:16 pm


  8. markl permalink
    October 17, 2017 3:11 am

    The truth is catching up with the falsehoods. It’s easy to sow fake news but truth eventually wins.

  9. Bitter&twisted permalink
    October 17, 2017 7:25 am

    The Trump effect is strong with Abbot.
    I wish it was with our politicians too.

    • October 17, 2017 8:20 am

      If the UK public keep voting for energy cost pain, that’s what they’ll get.

    • October 17, 2017 2:36 pm

      I believe that President Trump’s very comprehensive speech in the White House Rose Garden when he announced that we were pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord really paved the way for others to question. He not only stated the problems with it and the deleterious effects to the citizens of the United States, he set the stage for others to do likewise.

  10. Mike Jackson permalink
    October 17, 2017 10:06 am

    “So as good as technologies as they are, you’ve got to have them backed up in some way, and that’s either got to be a coal-fired power station, a gas generator or some form of battery.”

    – Now, slowly and carefully (mind where you put your feet and hold my hand!), when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine these good technologies are useless, right, son?

    – Yes, Dad.

    – And we know that we need power stations that can come on-line at the flick of a switch?

    – Yes, Dad,

    – And we know that wind can change minute to minute, day or night, so these power stations have to be running all the time for when we need to flick that switch, don’t we?

    – I suppose so, Dad.

    – So tell me, son. Why do we waste money with expensive, landscape-blighting windmills when we are running real power stations at the sane time?

    – Dunno, Dad.

    – Good answer, son. Neither does anyone else, it seems.

    Good to see this crack in the wall, though!

    • NeilC permalink
      October 17, 2017 11:02 am

      A nice analogy, the trouble is as soon as a child reaches key stage 3, their are indocrinated into man-made climate change. Even though, in the UK at least, they have never experienced global warming (UK warming) from ket stage 3 to graduating.

  11. October 17, 2017 11:51 am

    OT – but potentially of some interest…

    I have been comparing what is reported on the variablepitch web site for financial performance of renewables – in particular hydro electric schemes – what I am finding is that payments appear to be being massively underreported – by almost an order of magnitude from the ofgem database vs. purported payments to producers – it really isn’t adding up – at all….

    I think that a big more digging is required

  12. Owen Brown permalink
    October 19, 2017 12:08 am

    Australia seems to be seeing the light, but global porn is still here in New Zealand

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: