The Meeting Place

Aussies expect more droughts and floods

Eight in 10 Australians (81 per cent) are now concerned about climate change resulting in more droughts and flooding according to a new benchmark report released on Wednesday by the Australia Institute.

The annual Climate of the Nation benchmark report has tracked Australian attitudes on climate change for over a decade. This is the second Climate of the Nation report produced by The Australia Institute, after being produced for a decade by the Climate Institute.

The report found that:

  • Eight in 10 (81 per cent) Australians are concerned that climate change will result in more droughts and flooding, up from 78 per cent in 2018
  • Majority of Australians (68 per cent) agree that the Government should plan for an orderly phase-out of coal so that workers and communities can be prepared
  • Majority of Australians (54 per cent) reject the idea that Australia should not act on climate change until other major emitters like US and China do so (25 per cent agree we should not act, 21 per cent neutral/don't know)
  • Almost two thirds of Australians (64 per cent) think the country should have a national target for net-zero emissions by 2050, similar to the United Kingdom
  • Most Australians blame increasing electricity prices on the excessive profit margins of electricity companies (57 per cent, up from 55 per cent) or the privatisation of electricity infrastructure (55 per cent, up from 52 per cent).


The report was launched by Zali Steggall, the federal member for Warringah.

“This latest report shows that Australians support far more ambitious climate and energy policies than the Federal Government is currently delivering,” Ms Steggall said.

“Australians are rightly concerned about more extreme heat waves, droughts and bushfires and they want the Morrison Government to show leadership on climate change and do more to prepare for the impacts that are already locked in.”

What do you think? Should Australia prepare for more natural disasters if climate change is not addressed?


What beats me is the group (farmers and rural dwellers) which is suffering most from climate change is the same group that votes for and keeps in power the political party that denies climate change and is most strident in preventing Australia adopting a more ambitious climate policy. Now they've got their hands out because climate change is real and is jeopardizing their livelihoods.

Even if man made climate change was all a hoax the main result would be cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier rivers and oceans and less polluted soil. It doesn't sound like too bad a downside to me. 

I agree Viking. When you see those massive drought parched fields stretching to the horizon and hardly a tree in sight or a natural wind break to reduce wind blown soil errosion; its hardly surprising that our farmers are in trouble. A few are learning to care for the soil and environment but still there is the general belief that its not climate change. Well if its the natural, predictable cycle as many seem to believe they should be able to anticipate and prepare for it. 

The farmers need to plant back some trees that they fell to extend their farming.

GeorgeM, read the following article if you dare, it makes a fool of you, - time to wake up. Paradise is finally dying ... and that's a very good thing Mark SumnerDaily Kos Staff

Throughout my youth, my mother got up at 5AM and drove off to work on a single huge project—the construction of TV’s Paradise Steam Plant. It was at the time the largest plant in Kentucky, and the largest coal-fired plant in the world. “Largest” was the word that described everything about the genuinely massive “Unit 3.” Largest boiler anywhere, the largest generators, largest cooling towers, and the largest capacity of over 1,100 megawatts. The plant was, and is, truly gigantic. To a slack-jawed kid visiting a construction site littered with bolts the size of cars and wire-coils the size of houses, everything there seemed to have been lifted from some updated version of Gulliver’s Travels.

Now it’s closing.

While coal plants have been going down at a rapid clip over the last few years, many of them have been the smaller, older, less efficient units. Now the economic factors that are driving coal out of the energy marketplace are coming for the giants. Paradise is just one of the large plants that are on the list to close over the next year, as the percentage of electricity made from coal—and the market for steam coal—continues to shrink.

Another of those going down in the next few months is the Navajo Generating Station at Page, Arizona. It’s closure will mean the end of one of the largest single sources of carbon in American history. It’s of the same generation of plants as Paradise, with the first unit coming on line in 1974. Over it’s 45 year span, it’s cranked out carbon dioxide at a rate of greater than 18 million metric tons a year—greater than the output of three million automobiles. It’s also been a large source of both the sulfur dioxide that fuels acid rain as well as a variety of nitrates. For visitors at the Grand Canyon who have found views of the natural wonder blocked by a low-lying brown haze, the Navajo Generating Station was the primary source.

Those visitors should expect the air to begin to clear before the end of the year, because Navajo Generating Station will soon be closed. With it will go Peabody’s Kayenta Coal Mine, which is connected to the power plant by an electric railway. The plant gets all of its coal from that source. The mine serves no other plant. The two will go down together. For several years, work will continue at both the mine and the plant to remediate environmental issues, salvage materials and equipment, and reclaim the huge scars in the earth. Then, after five decades, the place will go quiet.

The total amount of CO2 production at Paradise is only slightly smaller than that of Navajo. That’s what makes these closures, and others like Bruce Mansfield in Pennsylvania, so substantial. These aren’t part-time “peak usage” plants or small plants filling in a local gap in the supply. These are the big dogs, the mainline plants that are the backbone of electrical production. But they can no longer keep up. 

The cost of building a new coal plant, which demands enormous size to achieve high efficiency, is so daunting that there have been no new plants on the drafting tables for decades. Now the cost of simply maintaining the plants is driving power companies to either shut them down or convert them to natural gas.

In fact, in the last two years, the cost of maintaining a coal powered plant has tipped past the point where it exceeds the cost of completely replacing the power produced by that plant. That’s not just replacing it with natural gas, but with wind or solar. A company could start, right now, and build a Paradise or a Navajo worth of solar, for less than it costs to keep the existing plants operating.

That kind of economics is why the closure of Paradise is expected to save TVA over $320 million.

Trump can dig all the coal he wants. Pretty soon .., there will be nowhere to sell it. Steam coal is used for power generation. You can’t eat it. It’s not a building material. The destruction of the coal industry has nothing to do with over regulation taking jobs away from workers. It has everything to do with the market simply moving along.

I don't believe in wasting my time reading biased garbage, as there is lots of it out there written by interested parties. Individual cases also don't mean anything. Technology has moved on, and there are heaps of new clean coal power stations being built as we speak by smart people in China, India & Japan. As I said, we should also use Gas and Uranium, not just coal.

Australia MUST NOT get conned by shifty Green-inspired, UN-backed self-interested rascals out to destroy Australia's economy and it's people's living standards, and even the lives of those struggling to afford power or those businesses unnecessarily going out of business.


Lookfar, an interesting comment.  Remember though that there are over 1,000 new coal burning power stations either under construction or planned around the world.  The percentage of electricty being provided by coal power stations may be going down, but not the actuall Giga Watts of power being generated.

Gross power generation capacity is increasing from many different sources as new technologies are refined and brought on line.

To date, the only reliable consistent generation sources that can ensure 24 hour year on electricity are coal and nuclear.  Nuclear remains the cleanest and safest in overall terms and the Australian quality of life can only be ensured with the withdrawal of coal is if nuclear can be brought into production.

GeorgeM, the only reason you can say the truth is if you understand both sides of the problem, otherwise what you say will always be biased garbage, so when you are confronted with a true story such as I have put before you, and which totally contradicts what you say you are virtually admitting that you are the home of the biased garbage and can't live without biased garbage.

Just be honest with your self, - if the entire American electricity system is shrugging off coal fired power and America is the home of free enterprise, then that must mean that coal fired power is way too expensive.

Because much of Australia's electricity system is very similiar to the American one, if it is too expensive for America, it is too expensive for Australia also.

If you come out with demands that Australia must not this and must not that because of biased garbage in your own mind then you need to put your feet on the ground and take stock. We can't plan the future on rant and cant, we need to study the facts.

Lookfar, your bias is clearly showing when you use selective facts. Internet is also flooded with mountains of garbage and lies, with fraudsters (as Mary quote above) and misguided people making the situation akin to a war on sensible people. America has ramped up massively the Gas production out of the ground, and that is a key reason for their lower costs, however Australia which already had the largest (or 2nd largest) offshore gas reserves in the world chose to sell it off cheap to China & Japan who get it cheaper than we get it here - blame Howard in case you wish to remember. Also, let's look at Facts as you seem to want to:

The calculation of our (Australia's) effect on the CO2 levels is as follows:

CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04%,

Human contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere = 3% of the above,

Australia's contribution to CO2 levels = 1.3% of the 3% above, i.e.

.04% x .03 x .013 = 0.0000156% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

As a result, the Chief Scientist advised that there would be no effect to the climate even if Australia fully shut down!

It's very much a con industry pushed along by vested interests who have gains coming out of such climate-based industries, all of which are heavily subsided by taxpayer (our) money.

Note also, that compared to Australia's 1.3% contribution out of all countries as noted above, China contributes 30%, USA 15% and India 7% - all these major polluters have refused to be bound by any targets for emission reductions under the Paris accord at least until 2030. It would be sensible for Australia to get out of this stupid meaningless accord.

The whole scare campaign reminds one of The Emperor's New Clothes story - when he was actually naked! 

So, to conclude Australia can do bugger-all about the climate, and MUST immediately revert to looking after the real interests of it's own people as I mentioned earlier by using the massive resources we have been blessed with.

All these are FACTS, so any biased garbage must be in your mind.

Well George M as you are in such an assertive fact based mode lets look at a few other facts. According to the UN's July 2019 figures the respective populations of the world and the countries that you mention are as follows: the World 7,713,468,100 so Australia at 25,203,198 is 0.32674 per cent of the global population but you say that we contribute 1.3% of the global CO2 so on a per-capita basis we contribute almost four times the global average of CO2. The US at 329,064,917 is 4.26611% of the global population but contributes 15% of the CO2 so it makes a per-capita contribution 3.5 times the global average. China with a population of 1,433,783,686 represents 18.58805% of the world population but emits 30% of global CO2 so its per-capita contribution is 1.6 times the global average. However, considering they manufacture almost everything except food and cars that Australia and much of the world consumes that's quite impressive compared to us. India with a population of 1,366,417,754 represents 17.77147% of the world's population but according to you contributes only 7% of global CO2 so its per-capita contribution is only 0.39 times the global average. So per-capita none of these countries contributes as much CO2 as Australia and per-capita Australia is the biggest contributor of CO2 in the world. On this basis surely Australia has a responsibility to make a bigger contribution to change than any other country? You readily accuse others of bias but don't you exibit exactly this quality yourself?  

Mondo, if however you use the metric of CO2 production on area of the country. Australia drops back to a very low producer.

Also, you would be aware that all of the human generated CO2 in Australia can be absorbed by our existing naturally occurring vegetation.  Our high limestone content soils and limestone also can absorb a similar amount.  The phyto-plankton within our 200km EEZ surrounding the country can also absorb every molecule that we create.

To a very large extent, gases and other airborne emission entering the atmosphere at higher latitudes than 40% stay there for decades.  The spill across the Equater (both the Geograpical and the atmspheric one) is limited and can take many years.

Couldabeen, lots of ideas but no facts. It could equally be argued that other countries have similar geological and marine features. One fact is that the oceans are acidifying due to their CO2 absorption and the soil does not have an infinite capacity to absorb gases. Another is that the oceans are warming, negatively affecting our climate, facilitating more vegetation burn off contributing to CO2 and further reducing the ability to absorb it.

Anyone who denies that climate change is occuring must have their ears and eyes closed and their senses turned off. Virtually every news report includes an unprecedented extreme weather event. somewhere in the world and Australia is having it's fair share. It's likely that populated parts of  our country will be uninhabitable within ten years if current trends continue. Australia's problem is we don't have the skills to economically add value to almost any raw material we produce so we cling to the lifeline of digging crude carbon from the earth. We even need foreign capital, machinery and brains to do that.. we need to smarten up while we have time.

When you start comparing Denmark to Australia you have to consider the relevant size and population

Denmark is about 180 times smaller than Australia.

Australia is approximately 7,741,220 sq km, while Denmark is approximately 43,094 sq km.

With the population of Australia is 25,265,422 million people

...the population of Denmark is 5,776,898 million people

A totally different infrastructure is required.

Mondo, you don't seem to get the bottom line (Facts are a means to get to a point). As mentioned earlier,

"Australia's contribution to CO2 levels = 1.3% of the 3% above, i.e.

.04% x .03 x .013 = 0.0000156% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

As a result, the Chief Scientist advised that there would be no effect to the climate even if Australia fully shut down!"

So, no need for ANY action here, other than to use all our resources for the betterment of this country.

Suze,  so what you are saying is that we have 180 times more space to erect wind turbines and nearly five times the population to build them than Denmark?   Would you use the same argument for Poland and coal fired power stations with Australia being around 25 tomes larger? With Australia being around 70% desert and increasing, why would size be any more relevant to wind generated power than to coal fired power?


Anyone who denies that climate change is occuring must have their ears and eyes closed and their senses turned off. Virtually every news report includes an unprecedented extreme weather event. somewhere in the world and Australia is having it's fair share. "

It is good you read and listen to the media eggspurts

...if the story sells, media keep repeating and embellishing it.

10 years ago hardly any media allowed talk of Climate change/global Warming, but too much info got around, too many 'never happened here before ' stories, eventually the media caved in to 'natural' disasters with a surge, - only rarely acknowledging that maybe global warming was to blame, - even today that side played down, - after all the media are owned by the .01% and their pronouncements have to be carefully weighed, as they have the hidden agenda's of their owners who own the fossil fuel industry lock, stock and Barrel, so kudos to you Suze, to suggest caution about the media, - an approach I found interesting is the writer Caitlin Johnston, what do you think of her approach?

 Well Suze, fortunately I don't live in an alcohol induced delusional haze dreaming that the acrid smoke from the bush fires surrounding me emanate from a Liberal Party fund raising barbecue. Some of the media that you mention is of course the LNP fund raising Channel 9, Macquarie Radio and the Murdoch press.. None of these sources seem to sugar coat the extreme weather events so if you are suggesting that their disaster reports are dishonest why wouldn't that extend to their political coverage?

Like all Australians I live in an area affected by climate change; if you think you are not, the prices in the fresh food department of any supermarket will tell you otherwise. I travel the country and see the devastation. I see regular ads and receive calls on behalf of LNP voting climate change denying farmers asking us to contribute towards feed for their starving stock. I smell the smoke from a 300,000 acre fire burning out of control nearby and it's not even summer.
Fortunately I have worked, lived and travelled around the world including many of the countries that are affected by some of the worst weather events. I still travel there and I have friends and family who are directly affected so I share neither your belief in climate change denial nor your belief that these disaster reports are bogus.

Whatever is going on we need to get on with the solutions, stop tree clearing, stop coal fired energy, and plant more tree's and encourage more use of electric vehicles. We need clean air to breath for a start.

musicveg, without the coal fired energy, how do you propose finding the electricity that is need to recharge your electric vehicles?  It is alreay anticipated that we will have significant shortfalls in generation capacity to meet expected demands this coming summer.  And that is including the power coming from the miracle solar panels and wind farms.

In the Queensland agricultural enviroment, tree clearing leads to greater and more sustainable vegetation cover that better protects the soils than the natural shrubs and grasses.

The Australian air is already very clean compared to many other countries and sacrificing our quality of life to false targets helps no-one.  Other than in the CBDs of three of our capital cities and in a handfull of heavy industry areas, our air is clean and clearer by the day as industries are driven off shore.

The fact is there is enough solar energy and wind energy that can run electric cars and if the infastructure is fixed there would be no shortfall of energy in summer.


How on earth can tree clearing lead to more sustainable vegetation cover in QLD? It just adds to the drought problem, when the land is cleared it is exposed to the sun more and makes it drier.

And just because Australian air is cleaner than other countries does not mean we need to keep polluting, ask anyone who lives near coal fired power stations whether their air is clean.

Couldabeen, If Denmark, a country with one of the highest standards of living and levels of education can produce 40% of its engery from wind and the Netherlands can run its entire electric railway system on wind power I think the quetion of whether we can charge our electric cars without coal is the least of our worries. 

musicveg, none of your links disprove my statements.  No where in the Econonews is their any discussion about actual power supply.  At this stage we have been advised that we can expect significant shortfalls in available power during the coming summer.  And that is without the gigawatt demand every evening that recharging electric cars would place on the grid.  Remember that solar only provides appreciable power for 30% of each day.  Wind also only delivers 30% of plated output capacity over any extended period of time.  This means that there will be times where neither are delivering to the grid.

This is leaving out the fact that at this point there is no electric car fit for purpose in the full Australian environment.

Do you think that State Governments subsidising wind farms at $200,000 per turbine per year for the 20 year life of the farm is creating a level playing field in the energy provision industry?

The Australian open and closed forests have very poor low level ground cover and are subject to extreme erosion in heavy rainfall events.  Cleared forests are replanted with ground covers that provide very good soil protection and reduce the losses of topsoils.  As the article you linked to says, most rain events in inland Australia are just recycling the water that was sucked out of crops and forests upwind of the rain event.  You will be aware that the eastern slopes of our coastal ranges are much greener than the western sides as a result of orographic lifting of moist sea breezes squeezing the moisture out.

It has always been a theory that trees and forests create and maintain the rainfall that keeps them green.  As the article you linked to says that is not a universal story and can be driven by many other factors.

No-one pretends that the air downwind of most of our power staions is clean, however for many of our power stations in Queensland, they are relatively remote from urban areas and the particle emissions are well dissipated with no identified adverse health effects.  It remains though that the skies over Australia are consistently much clearer than over most other countries, especially those in the Northern Hemispshere.


Viking, can you give a validated link to show that the Dutch are running their entire electric railway system on wind power 24 hours a day for 365 days a year?  The beauty about all of the European power system is that they can always draw on the French nuclear power stations and the Polish coal.

Dutch electricity company Eneco won a tender offered by NS two years ago and the two companies signed a 10-year deal setting January 2018 as the date by which all NS trains should run on wind energy.

This is not surprising considering the history of the Netherlands and windmills. Until Australia thinks seriously in terms of renewable energy and that includes nuclear, it will be lagging behind.

Thanks Aviator there are other references too too but I'm not going to humour him as I'm becoming convinced that Coulabeen is  a pseudonym for the ex One Nation Malcolm Roberts who of course is a Couldabeen. 

Anyone who believes that cleared forest and Bush leads to improved ground cover, improved ground protection and reduced soil erosion needs to explain why we are seeing countless thousand sq/km of totally bare grazing and broad acre farm land where there is hardly a tree in sight and which is the source of the dust storms recently experienced. Just to pre-empt Couldabeen's demand for proof  it  is the farmers not the foresters complaining of losing their top soil. 

Aviator, thank you for those links.  Things are both clearer and less clear.  28% of the Netherland rail network is diesel, so the wind power isn't helping them. The 100% does not mean 24 hours of every day is coming from wind farms within the Netherlands.  They do buy in additional power from Scandinavia and Belgium.  The Dutch electric rail network turns out to be not very large.  Certainly no where near the size of the electric train network in Queensland.

To date, no full renewable power generation method can operate 24 hours a day every day.  Wave generation has not been able to keep working beyond small scale "proof of concept" Government funded projects.  Similarly with tidal methods that all have two periods of zero output every day.

Pumped hydro gives a return of only 80% energy out over energy in.  More than one of the proposed pumped hydro schemes in Australia are for areas where the rate of evaporation is greater than the rate of precipitation.  In otherwords, non sustainable.  Even Tasmania ran so low in water in the recent past that they had to import large numbers of diesel generators.

Over the past 30 years, nuclear remains the safest form of power generation on terrawatts against loss of life.  I've addressed the myth of scary waste previously.  The old Soviet Union spent millions of Ruebles over around 30 years fostering the fears of nuclear power in the Western World.


Thanks for the comment Viking, but you are not substantiating your position.  The native grasses that exist as predominant ground vegetation in natural woodlands are clumping by nature and offer almost no soil cohesion.  Improves pastures are runners which provide both protection from rain drop erosion and hold top soil together.

Clearing of woodlands for broad acre farming represents only a small percentage of land clearing.  All areas can be devastated when droughts continue.  Droughts are not caused by farming methods.  Please review the history of and the effect of the Federation Drought.  It certainly predated any large scale clearing and was more severe and of longer duration than our present droughts.

Malcolm Roberts raised very real and honest questions about the claims made by the climate alarmists and many remain unanswered in the public domain.  If you have a problem with any of his statements, please raise them here and let's address them from an objective perspective.


No nuclear needed, too costly to build and too dangerous, we already can supply enough renewable energy if infrastructure is improved.

musicveg, again, I dont think that you have actually read the article that you are linking too.  No where does it say that we either have, or will have the capacity from exisitng renewable technologies in Australia to meet our demand.  The renewables do not provide the base load that is essential to maintain all of the systems of our society.

Nuclear is not dangerous.  Please study some objective assessments of it.  There are several hundred nuclear power stations that have been in operation for decades with no risk, either short or long term to health.



I don't know what all the fuss is about. Every time I wash my car it rains, true. We had 29c. here in Sydney on Sunday so I thought I'd wash the car, it only took 2 buckets of water and looked lovely. Yep, you've guessed it, it's  been  raining for the last 2 days now. This has happened on two other occasions. So I say, MORE RAIN DANCING. It works wonders. Remember in years gone by the long range weather forcaster Lennox Walker could predict the weather for the forthcoming months and years.?   I noticed at the car wash around the corner had a roaring trade on Sunday, about 6 cars all lined up to be washed, looked like a wedding group. On Monday when the rain started one car was going through the car wash????? only to be wet when it came out. Some people are strange. 

Quote George M….”As a result, the Chief Scientist advised that there would be no effect to the climate even if Australia fully shut down!"

So, no need for ANY action here, other than to use all our resources for the betterment of this country”

Geoge M, can you please supply a link to the effect of which Chief Scientist said that?  You are both misguided anyway. 

Have a look at the chart below, take no notice of the 2015 date, nothing much has changed. As you can see, there is a plethora of countries with similar emissions to Australia.Now if all of them decided (like Australia) that they do not need to do anything because they do not produce as much as China and the US, guess what would happen..well I'll tell you, the planet will be in dire straits. 

Australia owes it to humanity to get on board with climate change.



Image result for pie chart showing carbon emissions of various countries

My good lady wife always tells me it takes a woman to explain things properly. She's not wrong, well done Sophie!

Excellent visual Sophie and logical argument.



Sophie, I do not need to supply links, as you (and other Climate Change action fanatics) should be equally good at searching on the Internet - check for Senate Hearing of 01/06/2017 Economics Legislation Committee hearing where you will see the comments quoted below:

"Senator Ian Macdonald:.. I simply asked a question: if we reduce the world's carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?

Dr Finkel : Virtually nothing."

I know I am wasting my time here trying to explain things to hard-biased brainwashed people, hence I won't continue....other than to reiterate " need for ANY action here, other than to use all our resources for the betterment of this country.', as your chart changes nothing with China, India and USA, who have refused to follow any Paris targets, contributing 50% of CO2 emissions. We can have the lowest energy prices, instead of possibly the highest energy prices in the world here destroying people's lives and also businesses and jobs, and THAT is the priority for action.

GeorgeM, I notice you describe any body with views different to your's as a fanatic, so let's look at your'e hard biased brain, hey? 

Firstly Mr Finkel, I have a lot of respect for Mr Finkel, I submitted a detailed submission to the Finkel report, and it was well received as I was then asked to submit to the NEG, - my submission, 

However he said Virtually, in reference to Australia producing 1.3% of the world's greenhouse gases, so although much should have been included in that, and wasn't, but, just taking that minimalist figure, given that another 30 or more countries are producing similiar, that is nearly 40%.

When I was young, tradies I knew used to say, "many a mickle makes a muckle", a young person these days will require explanation, - it is just, "many a little thing adds up to a big thing" so we are part of a group of countries that contribute nearly 40% of the world's greenhouse gases, - presumably by your logic, none of them should do anything yet we are part of the group that is producing more than any single big emitter, so where is your logic on that? - Gone.

Also, Australia is the third largest Coal exporter in the world, not that we get much for it.

Next, to your assumptions on coal prices, where did you get your evidence that coal fired electricity is cheaper than Renewable energy?, - just liberal party propaganda is no answer.

In America the coal industry is virtually bankrupt, only produces 14% of America's electricity, - Moodies estimates 11% next year and has lowered their credit rating as the credit was based on the un-dug coal, the which Moodies estimates will now not be dug up.

How could this be? well, Solar and Wind costs retailers app. 20cents /megawatt hour, coal 40 cents and Nuclear over 60 cents, that is how and why Nuclear and coal are disappearing.

In Australia, not long before the election of Morrisons coal party, the AEMC (Australian Energy Market Commission) announced that Australian electricity prices should go down as there was a whole slew of cheap renewable electricity entering the market, and if anybody knows it is the AEMC. Of course Morrison had that information removed from their web site quick smart, and the retailers declined to pass on their savings to the people of Australia, - as the coal party had won, they could get away with that.

If you read that article on the above link, you will realise thta Australia has a lot of renewable energy happening all over it, by connecting the renewable sources up Australia can produce huge amounts of very cheap electricity, and create huge numbers of jobs - yes and export it also, - probably earning far more than by exporting coal, - after all you can only export each lump of coal once, whereas the renewable energy Renews each day, - who would have thought that? :)

Thing is, George, the price of renewables and storage has been falling for years, and will keep on falling, the price of coal has gone up and will continue to rise, and you as a reasonably well read person would have been exposed to that information, but chose or could not accept the new information as to how the world is changing, due to what sort of brain George?

Just because you support a political party that lives in la la land does not justify you calling people in touch with the real world, or who you just disagree with, Fanatics, in fact it says more about you than them.

As mentioned before:

"Australia's contribution to CO2 levels = 1.3% of the 3% above, i.e.

.04% x .03 x .013 = 0.0000156% of the CO2 in the atmosphere."

Only Fanatics would claim that number (0.0000156%) needs to be reduced and can actually create any difference to the climate. Yes, that number is "Virtually Nothing' - so accept it and move on.


Support your children and grandchildren and all future generations by attending a rally in your area. We need committed government action NOW!!!



A healthy planet needs healthy children. Children who are traumatised by unrealistic demands that are not being met, lose hope, they lose faith in society, they take risks, they ask themselves 'what is the point in living?' 

Adults who encourage children to march are doing them no favours, but are themselves irresponsible.

There are other ways to make an impact.. sometimes the "Pen is Mightier than the Sword."


I have tremendous admiration for the children who organise and attend the student strikes for climate action. They are passionate, well educated warriors committed to creating change and fighting for what is right. You are showing ignorance Sophie when you say adults are encouraging them. It is the other way around, they are asking adults to support them in their efforts to make governments listen and take action. As made very clear in their speeches, they are only children and so are dependent on adults to act for them. Of course they are traumatised by the climate emergency facing our planet...many adults are traumatised too. It’s not too late yet to create effective change, their demands are NOT unrealistic, they are both REALISTIC and NECESSARY!  It is government inaction that creates powerlessness, loss of hope and faith. Quit blaming it on adults who are right behind the kids in support. We need government action NOW!

I have no time for conservative, controlling bullshit that voices children should stay in school, keeping quiet, being good little powerless beings when their future existence is so threatened.

What was our coal loving PM doing while millions marched around the world? Dining at the Whitehouse with his invited mining magnate friends Gina and Twiggy. What is his government doing to alleviate climate change - NOTHING!!!! 

Use your pen Sophie and see how far that will get you. We who really care about our kids and grandkids will get out and support them in every way possible.

Image result for rubbish left after climate change marches

Why the garbage and placards left behind ???

Sounds like fake news Suze. Was it reported by The Australian?


Quote Sophie "A healthy planet needs healthy children. Children who are traumatised by unrealistic demands that are not being met, lose hope, they lose faith in society, they take risks, they ask themselves 'what is the point in living?' 

Adults who encourage children to march are doing them no favours, but are themselves irresponsible.

There are other ways to make an impact.. sometimes the "Pen is Mightier than the Sword."

Could not agree more - well said Sophie

Good the kids are letting off steam. Now all they gotta do is tell their parents besides marching, to get off their ar**s and do something practical.

Like working longer, use public transport and not have two or more family cars, install solar panels, recycle, clean up the environment themselves. Give up air travel and like their leader Greta from Sweden, don’t fly, take a boat trip across the Atlantic when you want to go on holiday. Give up the iphone, become vegan, grow your own food. If they do none of these things, they are all hypocrites.

The kids want 100 per cent renewable energy generation and exports by 2030. Yep ok, now all they have to do is convince the governments to utilise all renewables incuding nuclear power.


I totally disagree. Clearly these kids are already smarter than the politicians who oppose them and most of them will be old enough to vote at the next election, three years is not long to wait to realise a humanity saving dream.

Let's face it, the cohort represented by the extreme climate change denying NP part of the coal-ition have got their begging bowls out at the moment to feed their stock because their lives are already affected by that which they deny.  What would you prefer, kids who are smart enough to foresee the catastrophe and try to campaign against it or people who deny it even when it hits them in their faces and then expect others to pay to pick up the pieces?  If this is not climate change and just a regular part  of the weather cycle, then why haven't they prepared for this ' predictable' event?


NO it was not the Australian ...

I agree with Abe

"Now all they gotta do is tell their parents besides marching, to get off their ar**s and do something practical.

Like working longer, use public transport and not have two or more family cars, install solar panels, recycle, clean up the environment themselves. Give up air travel and like their leader Greta from Sweden, don’t fly, take a boat trip across the Atlantic when you want to go on holiday. Give up the iphone, become vegan, grow your own food. If they do none of these things, they are all hypocrites."

@ Suze. The Daily Mail is renowned for it’s far right stance and writing crap. I rest my case.


Unfortunately it is in the nature of humans to plunder, litter and destroy

Any venue wheteher it be the movies,concert or some sort of festival ...there is always heaps of litter left behind.

Whilst you yourself if you had participated in the march may have seen to it that you and your children did not litter ...

... there were thousands of others around the world which you would have no control over.

In view that another March is planned in October, I cannot help but wonder if all the marchers kept their plackards to recycle them next month ???

My guess would be NO.



@ Viking

I understand what you are saying, but when the kids are old enough to vote ..whom are they going to vote for? The present government has made its stance on how they are gong to tackle CC..Labor hasn’t got a clue.  Is it not better for our environmentally conscious youth to buckle down get themselves educated, get into career paths which will enable them to make a greater impact on decisions regarding the planet and how to sustain it? Try to get into politics themselves and change things that way? It can be done with lasting effect.

Climate change exists without a doubt in my mind....however..adults whipping up a frenzy and politically using young children and teens is not going to advance anything. Some of the world’s powerful fossil fuel users and those who have mega agricultural interests are supporting politicians who are apathetic or even hostile to action being taken to reduce emissions. 

I hope I am wrong, but honestly believe there is another way of achieving success and I would prefer not to see our youth become professional card carrying protestors but valuable and intelligent agents for social change.

Sophie, firstly if you could read Greta Thunberg's short life story (in Swedish) you would learn that it is not her parents brainwashing her but she is leading the family on her mission. She has persuaded her parents to give up air travel, something that's possible in Europe but difficult in Australia because of years of misguided policy of cheap petrol and little public transport infrastructure.

I know our Pollies are not very smart (our Deputy PM  thinks fruit picking will save the Pacific Islands our Ag. Minister doesn't believe in climate science) but surely they won't turn up their noses at the prospect of hundreds of thousands of extra votes?

I don't totally agree with your views on Labor, it was the LNP which abandoned the carbon tax, because it added cost, so is your power cheaper as a result?

You say 'get themselves educated and get a career' in what? Psychology, depression and anxiety counselling, suicide prevention?

A major issue for the young is that successive governments have overseen the demise of most manufacturing and value adding industries and the jobs that go with them. It's a disgrace that our biggest industry is virtually zero value adding, low skill, low paid retail trade and around the western world this is in steep decline. So we have a bind of what do we do and how do we earn enough to replace mining? This and the fact that a large part of the LNP's life support system is funding from the largely foreign owned resource industry.

So more than climate change is at stake for these young people. Greta is spot on when she says that her generation has been betrayed by our political leaders. The best response our PM can give is ' Canberra bubble' or gossip' that's the level of political debate in this country plus of course 'fruit picking' to prevent climate change and you wonder why the kids are demonstrating. I'd be asking why they've left it so long?


Well said Viking, did you happen to catch Q&A? Kerry O'brien was on and talked about how they knew the climate was changing in the late 70's and early 80's and they knew the damage that was going to happen.


@ GeorgeM

This is a letter written by Alan Finkel .. I have posted some excerpts but you can read the letter in its entirety using the link provided below...

Dear Editor,

On Monday 3 December you published an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt titled, ‘Less marching, more learning’*, which included a reference to me ‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car, shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’”.

Those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a complete misrepresentation of my position. They suggest that we should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish to correct the record.

Similarly, if all countries that have comparable carbon emissions took the position that they shouldn’t take action because their contribution to this global problem is insignificant, then nobody would act and the problem would continue to grow in scale.

Let me be clear, we need to continue on the path of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. The fact remains that Australia’s emissions per person are some of the highest in the world., Sitting on our hands while expecting the rest of the world to do their part is simply not acceptable..

Signed Dr Alan Finkel AO.

Alan Finkel's words "Virtually Nothing" were quoted from his statement to the Senate as I mentioned earlier, he cannot deny it. All further statements by him about what Australia "should" do are his biased opinion, NOT facts, and anyone (even scientists) can have wrong opinions. Virtually Nothing is our effect, and therefore Nothing should be our action in this regard. If you want any serious reductions in emissions, go talk to China & India before you talk to us, and let us know if they will meet any targets.

I do support actions to tackle Environment pollution as much as possible, but not to screw ourselves for meaningless pretend actions to fix the climate - something well and truly beyond us.

George M so when Dr Finkel says something that supports your views he's an expert but when he disagrees its 'his biased opinion?' And you claim that everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed and biased? Have you ever considered how your inability to conside others' points of view discredit your cause?

Both China and India have lower per capita emissions than Australia and if Australia had not off-shored its manufacturing to China our emissions would be far higher and Chinas' correspondingly lower. Country size is irrelevant (China is 25% larger than Australia anyhow) as well managed land absorbs CO2 and desert is CO2 neutral. 



@ GeorgeM

I am in no way concerned about convincing you of anything..however..I believe in clear and honest reporting. Unfortunately, people read into anything what they wish to hear. It might not have occurred to you that Finkel’s words “virtually nothing” were taken out of context. Back in 2015 Dr Finkel said “Australia should think nuclear and ditch coal, oil and gas.”

Since then he has said many things including this ..”my purpose is to urge all decision-makers – in government, industry and the community – to listen to the science.”

It seems to me Dr Finkel’s views are constantly changing and many people are puzzled. Should he really be Australia’s Chief Scientist?

FirstPrev1234NextLast(page 2/4)