I'll let you look it up. I'm sure it will make good reading.
But for me at least, they had the goals but I don't believe they were genuine. Especially when part of the coalition were actively undermining them.
If you've just gone through an election and haven't worked it out then I mean, talked about uninformed voter.it's your claim they had different targets, it's your onus.. I'll just assume it's a gut feel of yours.
If you've just gone through an election and haven't worked it out then I mean, talked about uninformed voter.
But it's moot Labor won, I really don't care what you want to think at this stage and it's not my job to convince you.
I do, but you are asking me to prove the earth is flat.didn't you just post that you didn't believe them and that was the difference. Climate change policy doesn't effect my vote. I know the libs committed to the nett zero target and I presume Labor the same. You obviously haven't the faintest clue the difference but just believed there must be. It's ok that you ddon't know. Strange you'd identify it as a major factor without even knowing the difference though.
Don't worry, he knows the difference, I know the difference.Liberal
Scott Morrison has wrangled his party to support the long-term goal of getting our total greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.
The plan highlights a range of technologies it hopes will develop to the point where significant emissions reductions are achieved, including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and "ultra low-cost solar".
Matt Canavan said net zero is dead.
There is no additional spend associated with the plan — it instead tallies up what the government is already doing.
But it notes that if the technologies do develop as hoped, there will still be a large requirement for "offsets" — where businesses are paid to reduce emissions or remove greenhouse gases from the air.
Now, in what climate scientists say is the crucial decade to 2030, the Coalition's target remains the same as that advocated by Tony Abbott: a 26 per cent cut below 2005 levels by 2030.
According to the emissions analysis group Climate Analytics, who advocate for strong action on climate change, the target is "highly insufficient", and consistent with a catastrophic 3 degrees Celsius of global warming.
Labor's 2050 target is the same as the Coalition's — net zero.
One of Labor's central policies is merely a strengthening of an existing Liberal-National government policy.
That policy is the "safeguard mechanism" which puts a cap on the emissions from some of our biggest polluters, and makes them buy offsets (essentially paying other companies to reduce emissions) if they go beyond those caps.
It also promises to spend $20 billion on upgrading Australia's electricity transmission network, which it hopes will spur on $58 billion in private investment in renewable energy projects that will be able to use the new transmission networks.
It's promising electric car discounts, and batteries in communities to help store electricity from rooftop solar for use at night.
Modelling commissioned by Labor suggests the policies will meet the emissions target and create jobs. It also suggests it will lower power bills
According to Climate Analytics though, Labor's 2030 target is consistent with 2C of warming
The Greens have a comprehensive climate policy backing targets in line with what scientists say is needed to do our fair share of stopping warming at 1.5C: a 75 per cent cut in emissions by 2030.
The party has a policy to immediately stop the approval of new coal, oil and gas infrastructure and to put billions into public transport and EV charging networks.
With Australia one of the world's biggest exporters of fossil fuels, the Greens also want to end the export of thermal coal by 2030 and stop oil and gas exports by 2035.
The Greens' targets and policies are the most closely aligned with what climate scientists are saying Australia's fare share of climate action would be. If the Greens hold some power with a minority government, they will work to push climate policies to be more ambitious.
Their emissions targets vary, depending on the candidate. But they range from a 50 per cent to 75 per cent cut by 2030, which is in line with between about 2C and 1.5C of warming.
In the case of Australia's action — or inaction — on climate change, the science has something to say, writes Michael Slezak.www.abc.net.au
If it was actually true that the LNP was becoming “too right wing” to win elections, their opponents would sit back and let it happen. Why interrupt your oppponent when they’re making fatal mistakes?The voters that didn't vote for the moderate Liberals strong on climate change in 2022?
A lot of reasons, but in a nutshell it’s these two things.
a)they don’t understand political strategy and winning ugly (bit like the Crows under Neil Craig…)
b)they don’t understand how pissed off their traditional base is with them
Around the time Tony Abbott was turfed out as PM, Liberal parties across the country started listening to the left about what was “wrong“ with the party. (Which is a bit like a backpacker taking directions from Ivan Milat).
The left, cleverly, said the problem with the Coalition was the RWNJs (of which Abbott, they claimed, was allegedly one), which the party stupidly listened to, and since then, they have done everything in their power to alienate their traditional base.
Steven Marshall did the exact same thing.
Abbott, for all his flaws, represented the politics most conservative voters, and a lot of middle class Australians of all stripes, are interested in. John Howard-style policies.
But now, the Liberal party has basically descended to Labor with lower taxes. That’s it.
The truth is that no Liberal party anywhere in the nation has run a decent election campaign since Abbott in 2013. Morrison won by default in 2019 because the alternative was so untenable, and Marshall won in 2018 for the exact same reason.
But the minute there is some competition, they will fall in a screaming heap, because they’ve totally betrayed their base for years, and the base is starting to respond.
the more conservative liberals got re-elected because the more conservative members of the party have positioned themselves in the safest of the liberal seats.. the outer suburban/rural liberal seats..Yes. The conservative Liberals (mostly) got re-elected. The electorate's rejection of Liberal candidates was (mostly) the moderate Liberals. To say the solution to the electorate rejecting moderate Liberals is to find more moderate Liberals seems unnuanced.