Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Australian science has gone overboard for ‘climate action’

By Stephen Saunders - posted Thursday, 10 July 2025


Naturally, this ANU is a major propagandist for climate-policy net-zero, not omitting the 11.55pm trope. "Experts" at their Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions lobby for 2035 net-zero, 2050 lacking sufficient virtue.

Including ICEDS, CCA, and CSIRO, Labor government maintains a footy-team of climate-energy acronyms. On the contestable proposition, that blanket-renewables must be our least-cost solution in an inevitably net-zero world.

Out on an ideological limb, Labor's Treasury imagines said "zero" transforming the lucky country into a "post" carbon, energy and economic "superpower". Highly unlikely. Treasury neoliberalism having purged our old industrial base, we don't get a new one on a platter.

Advertisement

Where Australian science ought to be

Here's a thing about science. It's meant to be over-there and curiously dispassionate, tirelessly proving/disproving all manner of testable (or null) hypotheses. Not up close and personal, pressing its thumb on national (and international) applause-meters.

How much would you trust Australian "science" generated by Treasury doctrine and its team of climate-acronyms? By the Sydney UNSW climate-unit, or other state universities?

Whatever our utopian law dictates, anthropogenic emissions "netting" to zero was and is highly contestable, inviting academic sleuthing. Even more so, the elite groupthink that said "zero" can restore our ever struggling environment and "transform" our narrow economy.

For the non-elite, however, net-zero heralds austerity not comfort. But "inconvenient" Australian research is rare – and gets ignored. Conservative stakeholders IPA and CIS wave cautionary flags. Our other resources-titan, Gina Rinehart, dubs net-zero a magic pudding .

With only isolated media and political support, these parties get little traction, against the national (that is, nationalistic) tide of "climate science". You wouldn't be that welcome at PM's upcoming productivity love-in if querying his net-zero open-borders catechisms.

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Saunders is a former APS public servant and consultant.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Saunders

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy