Energy policy ‘righteousness’ misses the forest for the trees

Despite every kind of energy-saving in our house, though we have not for various reasons achieved solar, our electricity price has skyrocketed and it is painful to look at each month’s account.

Your editorial (“Higher power prices are something beyond debate”, 11/04) quotes Energy Minister Chris Bowen as saying this election represents a fork in the road. Hopefully that translates to him having taken a wrong turn and perhaps losing his seat?

He and Anthony Albanese have managed to turn energy, that basic right, into part of their questionable ideology by not continuing to use coal as a baseload to a degree and selling off gas. Victoria is a failed state and is now pleading for gas. What is the matter with this country’s politicians?

Are they too mired in their own righteousness that they are unable to see the forest for the trees? It would be revolutionary if they would even tell the truth regarding the whole energy situation and afford some relief to long-suffering users.

Claire Jolliffe, Buderim, Qld

Your objective editorial summarising the energy debate between Labor’s Chris Bowen and Liberal Ted O’Brien showed admiral civil restraint, given it was bloodcurdling in its blend of snake oil salesmanship and truth fighting to be heard. The pre-election debates reveal that our political scenario is teetering on the edge of re-electing an irresponsible, failing government explicitly promising to double down on the same dysfunctional strategies it perceives as morally superior, hence destined to win and beyond criticism.

The debates reveal that ethics doesn’t match the ideology. The pre-election debates are delivering lethal report cards, and the opposition is not matching the crazy talk and the full-team meltdown fury the situation demands.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

How any right-minded Australian could possibly want our land and seascapes disfigured and our agricultural and fishing industries destroyed by the construction of grotesquely huge wind turbine factories is utterly mind-boggling to me.

Each monstrosity costs up to $6m to install, with ongoing maintenance costs of approximately $50k per year, and decommissioning costs of half a million dollars – per turbine.

That is, if they don’t fall apart or are destroyed in the interim. The ground sacrificed to erect these atrocities can never be used again and no one knows where they’ll be disposed of, or what other unknown costs are actually involved. Just another Labor Party scam constantly draining the public purse.

The only logical and factual solution is the multitude of energy sources that include gas and nuclear power, as proposed by the Liberal National Party Coalition.

Lynne McCullough, Bundaberg, Qld

It was confirmed during the energy debate between Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen and opposition spokesman Ted O’Brien that both Labor and the Coalition are committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, which is required under the Paris climate agreement.

Australians should not have to be put through the worry that pursuing net zero entails. The cost is enormous, whether it is Labor’s renewables-plus-storage experiment, which no other comparable economy wants a bar of, or the Coalition’s plan for renewables to be propped up by gas, accompanied by a vague promise of a domestic nuclear power industry being established some time down the track.

China, India, Indonesia and some of the world’s other most populous nations are rapidly shoring up their energy security by building new coal-fired power stations. But not us.

We are shutting down our coal plants to pave the way for net zero. Here’s a message for Labor and the Coalition: reducing our emissions is the last thing on our minds. What keeps us awake at night is worrying how we are going to pay our next power bill and whether the lights will go out.

But that’s the price we are being forced to pay trying to reach net zero. The only light on the hill is O’Brien’s indication that a Coalition government may think about leaving the Paris Agreement on the basis of a review.

It is incumbent on whoever wins the May 3 election to always act in the national interest. And chasing net zero does not meet that requirement.

Dale Ellis, Innisfail, Qld