Yes, we do. Reopen the closed coal mines and stop selling our natural gas to China. Australia’s natural resources should be for Australians.

As a planet, it matters not which country is burning coal. If at least 2 of the largest countries burn it we might as well all burn it. Australia is only hurting itself by not burning it whilst the rest are still burning it. Time for some commonsense in the reality of global harm.

We'll be living in the dark without coal.

We need more coal fired power stations. It’s extremely hypocritical to say that our country is going green and yet we are happy to sell all the coal other countries want to burn and have no intention of stopping or even reducing their use of coal. The rest of the world is building new coal fired power stations because it’s the most efficient and economical option atm . Meanwhile Australia intends to shut down our remaining six coal fired power stations to save the planet. Total lunacy

Wouldn't it be nice . Would love to see this net zero business put to rest. Also one nation holding all the cards.

We do

Can't make all these electric cars ,solar panels and wind farms without it

China has 3,092 coal fired power stations, Australia has 19, yet the government & the greens believe shuting down our 19 will save the world! And to top it of, they use coal from Australia to make so called "environmentally" friendly products like solar panels, and then Australia buys these! To believe this is good policy, one must be intellectualy handicapped...

And we have it in abundance.

thats because people running our country are morons and selling every thing to over sea

Would love to know how many Aussies want our coal fired power stations reinstated and more built, that would be a poll worth doing Australia wide for born and bred Australians.

So one hand you say you will slash my electricity bill by 20% overnight and now you will "aim to slash them by 20%"

We need to sell it too.

Why are we getting rid of our coal fired electricity, when the rest of the world is building more.....WHY. .

As infrastructure is in place and don’t have to be built and paid for by consumers

Build new more efficient coal fired plants

Amen

We need to build a new coal fired power station, and keep the lights on

It would help if the big nobs in labor and liberal didn't receive huge kickbacks from the renewables sector. A look in their finances would probably reveal huge shares in electric cars, solar power, wind farms. Why else could these peanuts be so dismissive of coal fired power stations if they weren't going to get a buck out of it. No matter how many babies albanese holds, or falls down stairs you don't this pelican in charge of our country for another 3 years.

Keep coal fired power station as they are cheaper than green energy

Yes! Wake up politicians - this should be an obvious choice! It's not rocket science!

Just interested in how much more carbon in the atmosphere is optimal ?

Jeff Cuthbert coal fired power stations were built next to a coal deposit. Once the coal is used how do you keep it going? How do you maintain a hole in the ground?

The abundance of coal in this country and not one HELE power station any where why ?

Pure insanity!! And this also affects the smaller towns throughout Australia, where these industries are. We all know it

100 percent

Being pushed by 2 dropkicks Albo and Bowen

It is about control,wake up Australia before May 3rd.

Here here Senator Malcolm Roberts yell it out loud say no to communism

I always ask people, and they can’t answer it, so let’s so we achieve this mythical state of net zero. What does that actually do for the environment? By how much will it lower global temps? The answer is of course nothing. It is just virtue signalling pure and simple. We all pretend we’ve done something great and pat ourselves on the back, meanwhile people can’t afford to cool/heat their homes and are losing their jobs as businesses shut down due to high costs.

they want everyone broke so everyone has to work there guts out to pay for taxes. A country thats too busy working is too busy to fight back.

Can Australia become a communist country? Well yes, it can and right under our noses. This is what is happening to Australia. To have Australia become a socialist communist country: 1. Have a PM and members of his left wing party, that have strong ties and membership to the Search Foundation formerly known as the Australian Communist Party. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 2. Have a PM and members of his left wing party that have strong ties with the Chinese communist party. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 3. Have a "back up party" (greens and teals) who support the current government's agenda. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 4. Increase cost of living, then dish out paltry amounts to gain votes, which leads to dependency on government handouts to survive. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 5. Create division and chaos among its citizens. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 6. Create policies so small businesses and farmers can't survive. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 7. Import into our country, vast numbers of immigrants to create a shortage of rentals and home ownership. Yep, we have that under Albanese and the labour party. 8. Kill off business development and infrastructure, the most notable is the NSW gold mine, that was quashed, that revenue into the government coffers, would have re un into the $Bs. Plus closing down the timber and fishing industries and banning WA sheep export, just to name a few. We have that under Albanese and the labour party. 9. Garner support from large businesses and multi-national companies. Proof of this is the massive donations for the Voice campaign. Yep we had that under Albanese and the labour party. 10. Leading up to an election the use of scaremonger - maliciously maligning those in opposition. This is being carried out by albanese, repeating over and over "you will be worse off, under Peter Dutton". Unfortunately by saying this repeatedly, many people will believe it. This is called brain-washing and many people will fall under this spell. We have that under Albanese and the labour party. This is where we are headed, under a labour government. Please share this.

That about sums it up folks !

It’s not called ‘the green new deal’ for nothing. It’s all about the money.

Spot on

Well said

We have always been net zero. Only takes 46 trees to offset 1 tonnes of CO2. All these wind turbines are removing trees which were absorbing CO2 and producing oxygen.

We need someone with balls to stand up or someone like pauline 👍🏾

Those who control the energy control the rest of us

It would be almost impossible for One Nation to secure enough votes to govern in their own right but they can be very effective in the Senate, the house of review. One Nation always the voice of common sense and reason. VOTE ONE NATION into SENATE.

You're not wrong Malcolm. They won't stop with the new world order crap. What did they say....... "You will own nothing and will be happy." Not bloody likely.

It's better to have an economy than climate

I see you guys are going through the same problems as we are in Canada. They want total control and trying to starve us out with carbon tax. They have let in way to many immigrants that really throws the whole economy off balance

Yes Malcom .. a fact not lost on many people!

I suspect that this net zero aim is to reduce world population. The ideal CO2 in the atmosphere for plant growth is around 1000 parts per million. By keeping it low the plant growth is limited and the ability to grow plants as food is limited. Millions of years ago the CO2 was much higher than today and plant life thrived, all the coal was plants that grew and were deposited and under pressure became coal. When dinosaurs were around the CO2 was 2000 to 4000 parts per million and there was lush plant growth back then with the temperature slightly warmer than today. The CO2 for those plants was once in the atmosphere. There were no humans back then to increase CO2.

The heat capacity of a gas does not affect its greenhouse potential on the Earth. The frequency/wavelength of its Infrared (IR) absorption/emission lines in relation to the frequency/wavelength of the IR being emitted by the Earth and the air above the surface of the Earth is very important in determining the Greenhouse potential of a gas. The other important issue is the concentration of the Greenhouse gas (the concentration of CO2 is much lower than that of water vapor and the molecular mass of CO2 is 44 compared to 18 g/mol for water vapor). Therefore the greenhouse potential of CO2 is much less than that of water since the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 5 times that of CO2 and molecule for molecule the spectrum of water vapor is a better match for the IR emissions of the planet. Depending upon who you believe the Greenhouse gas potential of CO2 is between 3% of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) and 24%. Almost all of the rest is water vapor and clouds (methane/ozone and NO2 are almost negligible). The greenhouse potential of the much more prevalent diatomic molecules in the atmosphere, i.e. N2 and O2 is almost nil because their IR spectrum in almost blank. HOWEVER, there are effects which are important in the heat balance in the atmosphere and for which N2 and O2 are important. They are much more concentrated than CO2, i.e. 790,000 ppm for N2 compared to 400 ppm for CO2, and they carry away heat from CO2 molecules. The contribution of heating in the atmosphere from conduction and radiative absorption is therefore more than a little controversial. Also, the contribution from convection by thermals and clouds is also HUGE. Saying that this “science is settled” is ABSURD. There is a LOT to learn. Simply plugging in 3–24% of the 20 degree C total GHE for CO2 as a percentage of the total and then compared the human contribution to CO2 compared to natural sources, can provide a ROUGH estimate of the best and worst case contribution of humans. In so doing, with the <5% human contribution to CO2 emissions (38 Gt CO2/year) compared to the total CO2 emissions (e.g. plant decay, forest fores, volcanoes, exchange with the oceans, etc. of >800 Gt CO2/year and the 0.06–5 deg. C total CO2 GHE, you can come up with a very approximate estimate of the possible human contribution to climate change (before cloud feedbacks) of 0.006 to 0.5 deg. C. That is too small to worry about and almost certainly beneficial. CO2 increases are beneficial for reasons of plant growth. Bottom line: CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas but changes in its concentration are too small to cause any concern for the climate but DO have a huge positive effect on Plant Growth.

Greens too

That’s what the government in place now is built on and represents “ Communism” not us the people

Aust is at net zero already?

net zero basically means ZERO ENERGY