Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
Pointless politics
The passage of any reform, through political action, must stand up to false accusations and fake news. To suggest that any government can bring in effective tax reform, is to ignore the negativism used by political opponents. Tax reform may be needed, it may even be desperately needed, but that will not give it easy passage through the political process. Something like tax reform must be introduced with the support of the majority of voters. The truth in the saying that you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink, may be often seen in political debates. Needed tax reforms have been suggested by politicians. But in political debates, the acid test for success lies in the countering the negativism of any opposition. In today’s political environment the use of outright lies and fake claims makes any rational debate almost impossible.
For the mass media to claim that tax reform is essential or even inevitable, may be true. But truth has little to do with politics. The exercise of political power is all about compromise. When an effective tax reform is introduced into parliament, its original form rarely lasts. Deals are done and the reform package is changed. This may undermine the effectiveness of the tax reform. Yet politicians concentrate on political victories. They lose sight of their duty to serve the public and make life better for the majority. That usually undermines the community support for any tax reform. Not known for their bravery in the face of any loss in popular support, politicians often abandon their own tax reform packages.
The need for tax reform must be so strongly felt in the wider community before any political action can be successful. This was seen in the amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts legislation. So the first step to effective tax reform is not a political process. That first step must be a community education program that clearly spells out the real benefits of the tax reform. Only then can political action be considered.
The exercise of political power these days is all about the money. The possessors of large chunks of billions almost completely control the direction of our entire society. And they are driving it right over the Seneca cliff.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger was a stoic philosopher. Known monoymously as Seneca he died in 65 AD. Originally he was friend and tutor of Nero. Early on he was so influential with the young emperor that he was often able to talk him out of raping young women. But Nero’s wife began exercising power in his son’s name. This was considered unroman and an irresponsible act for anyone in power. When Seneca called on Nero to discipline his mother, the emperor instead sent him an order to commit suicide. One of the great ancient Roman intellectuals was lost due to the failure of Nero to control his mother.
The Seneca cliff warns that any rate of a political system will be surpassed by the rate of decline. Like Seneca the political system may become widely acclaimed, even dominant, but the personal situation of its rulers may lead to its rapid failure.
Democracy has been around for thousands of years. But then so has monarchy and dictatorships. In the twentieth century democracy reached its zenith. But from about 2008, democratic political institutions have been in decline. No more so than on the USA. But this political system is failing worldwide.
Mathematician Professor Eliot Jacobson posted on his blog on 29 Jan 2024 a piece titled How Hot is Hell? I Mean Earth? It began with:
Professor Eliot Jacobson calculates that:
• At the start of 2024, the Earth System is estimated to be at +1.38 °C (relative to the 1850-1900 baseline);
• The current decadal average gain is 0.30°C, rising to 0.35 °C per decade by 2034;
• Global surface temperatures are accelerating;
• The Earth System is estimated to breach the +1.5 °C ‘Paris limit’ by the end of 2028.
Yesterday (Feb 14), John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations published a piece by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop titled Shock as warming accelerates, 1.5°C is breached faster than forecast. It included (bold text my emphasis):
Yet as Australian Senator Larissa Waters found out during Senate Estimates on Monday, Feb 12, per the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee PROOF transcript (from page 50 to 51):
Ms Cathryn Geiger is Acting Division Head at the Climate Change Policy, Adaptation and Risk Division.
Ms Jo Evans PSM is Deputy Secretary at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
It seems to me that the Australian Government is living in fantasyland.
Canberra can often be described as the New Camelot. Public servants seem to ignore facts and just bend opinions to suit whatever government that is in power. Actually doing something is so far down the road that it’s unlikely that current public servants will do anything at all over their career span. If the comparisons with the comedy show Yes Prime Minister were not so sad, it would be laughable. But I am not sure our grandchildren will be laughing after 2050. More likely they will be cursing us for not holding our public servants accountable for their inaction.
Independent Zali Steggall and Nationals Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie were verbally sparing together on Sky News broadcast earlier today (Feb 16) about the Coalition’s nuclear policy.
Bridget McKenzie said:
“Well I think you can’t say you have ambitions to get to net-zero by 2050 as a country, and not have a pathway that’s credible to get there. What we’ve seen from the Labor Party, and their pathway, and the pathway that Zali would be advocating is that we’re a hundred per cent renewable. And that is just unrealistic. It’s untested, it’s risky, it’s dangerous. We’ve seen the implications right now in my home state of Victoria. There is a way to use existing fuel sources, um, longer, as we transition, and then have renewables firmed by nuclear, which is going to be much more realistic, for an industrial-sized economy such as ours.”
Zali Steggall responded:
“Because the reality is it doesn’t exist at an affordable scale. And I think you have to pick-up Bridget for two things she said there, and one is actually very telling. She acknowledged that what she wants really, and other Nationals MPs have said so in parliament. They want to continue on existing fossil fuel energy sources for longer, ah, which is why they don’t have an interim target.“
While Zali Steggall was apparently having video/audio connection problems, Bridget McKenzie also said (bold text my emphasis):
“Well I think… I just wanted to pick-up on where the attack Zali was going on. The fact is they’re going to say it takes too long, and ah, it costs too much. Now, I… When I was in COP28, in Dubai, Dubai commissioned nuclear power plants in Barakah in 2012, they started to build them; they’re online in 2020. That’s the reality of the modern day, ah, version of nuclear technology. So, every time the Labor Party and the teals come out with that argument, ah, they’re absolutely false; they’re using 1950s research.”
I’d suggest Bridget McKenzie conveniently ignores the prerequisite time required to plan, design, procure, and site prepare for the UAE’s three nuclear generator units, which apparently began in 2006. Compelling evidence/data I see indicates to me Bridget McKenzie’s version of reality is a fantasy.
Per IAEA’s PRIS, BARAKAH-1 began full commercial operations in Apr 2021 (NOT in 2020 as Bridget McKenzie claims).
BARAKAH-2 began full commercial operations in Mar 2022 (NOT in 2020).
BARAKAH-3 began full commercial operations in Feb 2023 (NOT in 2020).
Published on 7 Oct 2023 in the SMH was an explainer by Mike Foley headlined Is nuclear energy feasible in Australia (and how much would it cost)? It included (bold text my emphasis):
That would be the UAE’s BARAKAH-1 generator unit. That would suggest preliminary planning began sometime before Apr 2006 – more than 6¼ years before construction began (in Jul 2012).
If an autocratic country like the UAE, that doesn’t need to worry about social licence and community sentiment, that has demonstrated that it takes more than 15 years to get their first nuclear generator unit operational, then why expect a democratic country like Australia, that does need to engage with the community to gain support for nuclear plant proposals, wouldn’t take significantly longer? I’d suggest Australia wouldn’t do it quicker, and more likely would do it slower! I’d suggest that’s very inconvenient for Peter Dutton’s nuclear narrative!
How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy solve Australia’s energy security needs if it’s highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest? How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy keep Australia’s ‘lights on’ in the interim? Answer: It doesn’t, irrespective of how much it would cost!
Nuclear is a stalking horse for fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, Ted O’Brien was on-air this afternoon (Feb 16) telling Radio 2GB Drive host Chris O’Keefe that “Australia could have nuclear power plants on the grid within a decade.” He was asked how much it would all cost, but he declined to answer at this time.
When are Australian journalists going to do their jobs properly and challenge the Coalition on their dangerous fantasy nuclear policy?
CORRECTION: “UAE’s three nuclear generator units” should be UAE’s four nuclear generator units.
BARAKAH-4 is currently still under construction, which began on 30 Jul 2015 (8 years, 6 months & 18 days ago, and counting).