' Mr Morrison argued a tax or "reckless" commitments would push up electricity prices and destroy mining jobs in regional communities.'
Scott from marketing might well ask that question. That is the standard shockjock response.
Here's another way of looking at it.
Let's look at the cost of not having a proper renewable energy policy. We can use the past ten years in eastern Australia as an example.
Because of political differences, SA shut some of their fossil generation down too early. Vic leaned on Hazelwood and they shutdown prematurely. At the same time, governments ignored the warnings that we should have created a domestic gas reserve for the east coast prior to the Gladstone LNG export development.
Federal governments refuse to align with the states in order to develop a sensible transition to renewables going forward.
As a result of all that, power prices went through the roof. Gas supply was restricted. The energy retailers had a field day while the gormless politicians stood by pointing fingers at each other. Meanwhile the customers were getting it in the neck and continue to do so.
All because governments, particularly fossil favoring federal governments, were dodging the issue.
Turnbull nearly got the NEG up which the business council embraced and was widely accepted as a good start but ScoNo killed it.
Energy generators had no policy ( and still haven't btw
) to give them the certainty to invest in new infrastructure. Political parties ( Lib/Nats/Labor ) are too busy internally shafting each other and bowing to their financial masters to actually do anything about a national power policy.
So, I would argue that not doing anything has been more costly to the community as opposed to actually doing something.
I am going to enjoy watching Scott from marketing squirm as he attempts to modify their climate policy now that the public has given him a backhander . They are already talking about it. I can only imagine the spin doctors are working overtime .
