Climate change is solved! Clover Moore has fixed it - never mind China's fleet of ONE THOUSAND coal-fired power plants! PETER VAN ONSELEN on absurd local council move
Clover Moore's decision to ban gas appliances in all new buildings from 2026 is yet another example of local government mistaking symbolism for substance.
It won't meaningfully reduce emissions; it might even increase them if the energy grid needs to rely on coal-fired power to keep up with rising electricity demand.
It certainly won't deliver the promised cost savings, and it won't wean the city off fossil fuels either.
Gas bottles for BBQs will still be allowed, I assume? The inconsistencies are rife, especially when you consider that the NSW Premier has already ruled out a statewide rollout of Moore's idea.
What it will do is generate virtue-signalling headlines allowing councillors to claim they're doing something - despite solving very little. It's just theatre.
And that's before you even consider the consequences for development approvals, which will become even more complicated under Moore's plan.
It could potentially restrict the number and scale of new builds that are necessary to help address the national housing crisis that serious politicians are trying to solve.
Let's start with the economics of this lunacy. The claim that households will save $626 a year is based on optimistic assumptions about future electricity prices and appliance performance.
It ignores the fact that the grid isn't reliably equipped to handle mass electrification, especially during peak demand.
There's also the inconvenient truth that many people prefer cooking with gas.
But personal choice and practical realities take a back seat to ideological grandstanding.
The idea that gas stoves are the new cigarettes is laughable. If gas appliances were genuinely hazardous at the scale being implied, we'd expect to see consistent health warnings from national regulators, not inner-city councils freelancing on public health.
This kind of hyperbole only damages the credibility of the broader climate change movement.
Then you have to consider the global picture. While Moore's council congratulates itself for banning stovetops, China, as the world's largest emitter, is building new coal-fired power stations at a record pace alongside efforts to transition to renewables.
It is building solar farms the size of cities - but also rolling out nuclear plants and expanding coal capacity to stabilise the grid.
Why? Because that's what it takes to decarbonise without blackouts or economic shock.
Sydney's ban won't meaningfully shift Australia's own emissions trajectory, much less the world's. Certainly not while the national grid still leans so heavily on coal.
This kind of misplaced activism diverts attention from real policy levers like grid upgrades, national emissions standards and large-scale energy storage.
The planet doesn't need more stunts - it needs serious, scalable solutions, and Moore's 'idea' isn't one of them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Anthony Albanese criticised for ‘vindictive' move after Coalition MPs see staff numbers slashed
Anthony Albanese has been labelled 'vindictive' by the opposition after cutting its staffing numbers in the wake of Labor's thumping election win. Pauline Hanson also claims One Nation was denied its fair share of advisers after doubling its Senate seats, accusing Albanese of a 'capricious and politically motivated' move against the rightwing party. Almost seven weeks on from the election and with federal parliament set to resume on 22 July, Albanese has finalised staffing allocations for opposition and crossbench MPs for the next term. The prime minister has discretion over the allocation of personal staff, which are typically more senior advisers who assist MPs with policy development, political strategy and media. After weeks of uncertainty, Albanese informed the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, late on Monday night that the opposition would lose roughly 20 personal staff roles, including 16 senior adviser positions. The Coalition had 106 personal staff positions before the election, 39 of which were based in the former opposition leader Peter Dutton's office. Labor sources confirmed Albanese's decision was based on the Coalition's diminished numbers after it lost 15 lower house seats and three Senate spots at the 3 May election. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Albanese also decided to cut about 10 of the government's own positions, reducing its overall staffing numbers despite gaining 21 new MPs and senators at the election. The government had 499 positions in the last parliament, including 65 in Albanese's office. The Coalition maintained it was entitled to 21% of the government's allocation under a longstanding parliamentary convention, which would equate to about 102 positions for Ley's team. Instead, the opposition would receive about 85. Those roles would be spread across Ley's 30-member shadow ministry, which was a similar size to Dutton's frontbench. The shadow special minister of state, James McGrath, said Albanese's 'vindictive and nasty' decision was an 'attack on accountability'. 'The Australian people deserve an opposition that is resourced appropriately to be able to hold the government to account, especially during such a precarious and challenging time for our country,' McGrath said. The Greens' staffing numbers had also been cut after the loss of three seats and defection of Dorinda Cox reduced their numbers in federal parliament from 15 to 11. Guardian Australia understands the Greens will receive about 3% of the government's share, which equates to roughly 14 positions – down from 19 in the previous term. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Albanese infuriated crossbenchers at the start of the last term after slashing their staffing allocation in one of his first acts as prime minister. The government eventually handed all parliamentarians an extra electorate officer – an increase from four to five – to help them manage the workload. Several independent MPs and senators confirmed to Guardian Australia that their staffing numbers were unchanged from the previous term. However, Hanson was furious with One Nation's allocation. The Senate crossbenchers – including Hanson and her colleague Malcolm Roberts – were allocated two senior advisers each in the previous term. But after One Nation won two extra seats at the May election, Albanese has allocated the party four adviser positions – just one for each senator. 'Adequate staffing only applies if the prime minister doesn't deem you a political threat,' Hanson said. 'I will seek an urgent meeting with the prime minister in an effort to renegotiate the staff One Nation are allocated.' The prime minister's office was contacted for comment. In a statement to Guardian Australia, a government spokesperson said it was 'routine practice to revise staff allocations in a new parliamentary term'. 'Staffing allocations are made based on a range of considerations, including demonstrated need and individual circumstances,' the spokesperson said.
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Australia regulator and YouTube spar over under-16s social media ban
SYDNEY, June 24 (Reuters) - Australia's internet watchdog and YouTube exchanged barbs on Tuesday after the regulator urged the government to reverse a planned exemption for the Alphabet-owned (GOOGL.O), opens new tab video-sharing platform from its world-first teen social media ban. The quarrel adds an element of uncertainty to the December rollout of a law being watched by governments and tech leaders around the world as Australia seeks to become the first country to fine social media firms if they fail to block users aged under 16. The centre-left Labor government of Anthony Albanese has previously said it would give YouTube a waiver, citing the platform's use for education and health. Other social media companies such as Meta's (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab, and TikTok have argued such an exemption would be unfair. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said she wrote to the government last week to say there should be no exemptions when the law takes effect. She added that the regulator's research found 37% of children aged 10 to 15 reported seeing harmful content on YouTube - the most of any social media site. "This is not a fair fight where our kids are concerned, vis-a-vis social media sites," Inman Grant told the National Press Club in Sydney. She said social media companies deployed "persuasive design features" like recommendation-based algorithms and notifications to keep users online and "YouTube has mastered those, opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against". YouTube, in a blog post, accused Inman Grant of giving inconsistent and contradictory advice, which discounted the government's own research which found 69% of parents considered the video platform suitable for people under 15. "The eSafety commissioner chose to ignore this data, the decision of the Australian Government and other clear evidence from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users," wrote Rachel Lord, YouTube's public policy manager for Australia and New Zealand. Inman Grant, asked about surveys supporting a YouTube exemption, said she was more concerned "about the safety of children and that's always going to surpass any concerns I have about politics or being liked or bringing the public onside". A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells said the minister was considering the online regulator's advice and her "top priority is making sure the draft rules fulfil the objective of the Act and protect children from the harms of social media".
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Is selling off Santos to a foreign buyer in Australia's national interest? First, define national interest
Amid the multifarious chaos of the past week, many of us might have missed the controversy over the proposed purchase of the energy business Santos by an overseas consortium. But the proposal is likely to create big problems for Australian governments and its resolution will reveal a lot about how Australian policymakers view energy and climate policy. Santos is one of the largest and oldest Australian producers of oil and gas, second only to Woodside Energy (its name is an acronym of South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search). The core of its operation is the Moomba gas field in the Cooper Basin, in the north-east corner of South Australia. The company now supplies gas to the entire eastern seaboard and has assets in the Timor Sea and Papua New Guinea. The consortium proposing to buy Santos, called XRG, is owned by the Carlyle Group and the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). Carlyle, named for the New York hotel where its founders met to set up the business, is one of the world's largest private equity companies, with close ties to what US President Eisenhower described as the 'military-industrial complex'. Its early years are described in Dan Briody's book The Iron Triangle. Abu Dhabi is the wealthiest and most important of the United Arab Emirates. The value of its state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds total over a trillion dollars. Abu Dhabi's wealth is derived almost entirely from oil and gas, so it is unsurprising to see its national oil company pursuing expansion through acquisitions like the proposed buyout of Santos. Unsurprisingly the prospect of handing ownership of a large share of Australia's energy resources to buyers like these has raised concerns. Most commonly, these are expressed in terms of energy security or, more nebulously, national interest. The issue of energy security can be dismissed pretty rapidly. Unlike the oil we import, the gas is physically located here. If we need it, we can keep it, regardless of the legalities of ownership, contracts and so on. At one time, perhaps, such an attitude might have raised concerns about sovereign risk, threats to future investment and so on. Foreign owners might have threatened us with action under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) agreements. But the 'rules-based order' in which such concerns made sense, is largely a thing of the past, for good or ill. ISDS, in particular, is more or less dead. Even so, the government has shied away from fixing the absurdly unfavourable gas export contracts signed by Santos and others a decade ago. Concerns about how the deal might affect our national interest are harder to address, mainly because Australian governments have no clear idea of what our national interest might be. It might be argued that we ought to be maximising the returns from our natural resources, while winding down fossil fuels, in line with the goal of achieving 'net zero' emissions globally by 2050. But there is no sign that Australian energy policy is motivated by such goals. In fact, Santos has been a major player in the expansion of gas exports, notably of LNG from Queensland, and is pushing for even higher exports. The company has just received regulatory approval for the $5.8bn Barossa offshore gas project off the Northern Territory coast, described by critics as a 'carbon bomb'. The extra financial resources available to XRG might accelerate this. What is in our 'national interest' is similarly incoherent in regards to tax revenue. Australia taxes its massive gas exports weakly, and it's hard to see how we would get a worse deal from a foreign owned company compared to an Australian one. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Finally, neither Carlyle nor Adnoc can be expected to have any concern with the wellbeing of Australians. Carlyle, as a private company, is concerned with maximising its profits. Adnoc wants profits but also more influence over global markets. But it is a mistake to think that Santos cares any more, except about those Australians who happen to be shareholders, and who can expect a big payout if the takeover goes ahead. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
