Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Again
.... Sorry, I forgot to address yer point there, mate.
No, I think the Liberals selected more pro-labour coalitions.
Which will surely set "us" back three years or so.
Though I've been living here in America for awhile now,
so it's all less of a concern.
But no worrys - all the woke green shit won't play very well
when people are forced to pay for the decisions.
Just look  how it's all playing-out here in America.
Not well.
#### Salty |
I’m just an outsider looking in. But you read the press, which has 100% bought into the woke green thing, and you’d think the election is all about climate change. I’m not so sure. Yes the so called teal independents, who campaigned on climate change, picked up some seats from the Liberals. But the Greens only have two seats so far. And Labour’s carbon agenda, comparatively, wasn’t all that radical. Liberals wanted to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, Labour by 43%. Neither wanted to handicap coal and LNG exporters. As to your point, I understand the Nationals are now looking at abandoning a target for “0” net emissions as a result of the loss.
Anyway, maybe the Liberals just ceased to excite people, and became wishy washy, on climate, as well as other issues.
It’s looking like Labour will be able to form a majority, without taking in partners. That might be a good thing. If they form a coalition with the Greens and Teal independents, you’re going to see a lot of blowback against coal exports and LNG. The greens and teals want to stop a big LNG project off Western Australia. That and putting a damper on coal exports would be a mistake, even if the fears of the climate change evangelists are realized. LNG and high BTU Australian coal produce less carbon emissions and less pollution than the Indonesian, Indian and Chinese coal they’ll replace.
