UN climate-czar abuses Australia, cossets leviathan China

But net-zero makes no sense for Australia

For Albanese Labor, Matt Kean at Climate Change Authority, Peter Hartcher of SMH, and in left media generally, the "truth" is clear.

They claim Australians have voted for net-zero "science". Only by capitulating can the Coalition hope to have any future. Let's all look-over-there, embellishes Hartcher, claiming Trump "goes further" than dictator XI.

Debatable stuff – when net-zero wasn't even contested. If anything, voters would rather have cheaper energy.

Once again, Australia is a vast ocean-locked continent with stable democracy and untold mineral and energy riches.

What the Coalition should be offering, what the Australian economy should be exploiting, is low population-pressures, housing being affordable, and cheap energy.

It suits our governing classes to impose the opposite – and lie about it. They ascribe the dire housing stress and homelessness to Mr Nobody. They call it a wicked problem. Look over here, they say, at the artificial Treasury indicators of "progress" or "wellbeing".

Instead of isolating Labor, to fawn over their China-net-zero, the Coalition's tying itself in knots again.

The Nationals' initial post-election split got bandaged over. Then Sussan Ley sent off a mild working party to "look at" net-zero again.

Meanwhile it's the Nationals sponsoring a no-net-zero bill, pushing back against the Stiell assault. And being reviled by the educated left.

The Liberals are still playing UN-nice. Docile Deputy-Leader Ted O'Brien will attend Labor's largely do-nothing Reform Roundtable. Which quarantines our cargo-cults of net-zero and open-borders, intimating that artificial-intelligence is the next cult.

For Paul Kelly at The Australian, the Coalition must respect Garnaut, and find an "Australian Way" to net-zero. Simon Benson recommends net-zero but "not at any cost". To Chris Uhlmann, net-zero is delusional "liturgy" not science. Which the Coalition shouldn't abruptly "abandon" - focusing instead on the heavy costs for Australians.