How to do nothing and call It policy

Independent Australia has obtained what purports to be a briefing paper on net zero to be presented to Liberal Party MPs this week. Found by Steve Bishop.

GENTLEMEN – and ladies,

We face a big political issue about what we should do about net-zero emissions policies. United Nations and the world scientific academiesHis claims have certain scientific consequences, such as the end of the world as we know it.

Option 1: We accept National Party policy Don’t throw away net zero now.

Positive effect: This will solve the political dilemma by saving it. Coalition and to please the National Party and its pundits. Australian, Audience, Institute of Public Relations And Sky News. They may not have scientific expertise, but they know that the world’s scientists are frauds.

It will also gain the support of voters. 13% of Australians Those who think the government should do less to limit the effects of extreme weather events.

Minor adverse effects: The policy will be criticized by the world scientific community and Pacific nations who oppose their countries being swallowed by rising sea levels. Labor, the Greens and the Blues will find some support in labeling us as climate change deniers, which is a joke and out of touch with reality. The long-term effects mean we may not regain any of the Teal seats and may lose more seats.

Option 2: Say that we will always support sensible action for reduce emissions… but unlike climate alarmists, you don’t need to urgently try to reach net zero. In fact, in our September press release about our climate risk assessment, we avoided mentioning it altogether. Z word.

Positive effect: This could save the Coalition and would probably please the media climate experts mentioned in option one.

Adverse effects: Probably the same as option one.

Option 3: This is the least preferred scenario. It will please those who want to save the world by adopting a policy of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030. Net zero by 2050. But it will fail to solve our urgent and major political problem.

Reasons to adopt this policy: This fits with warnings from the world’s science academies and the United Nations that this is necessary to protect the planet livable For our grandchildren and future generations.

InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), which includes scientific academies from around the world, warns this:

Climate change is a real and rapidly increasing danger to people and the planet.

Science tells us that if we want to prevent further dangerous warming, we need to act now and continue to act in the future to achieve net-zero emissions. Now is the time for all countries to take urgent measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action.

IAP deadline? ‘…Actions to achieve net zero by 2050 or sooner.’

Most of us have no time for intervention by the unelected United Nations, but there are those who believe it has some credibility.

UN warns:

‘Science clearly shows that global temperature rise must be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst effects of climate change and preserve a habitable planet.’

Currently, the Earth is already about 1.2°C warmer It’s more than it was in the late 1800s, and emissions continue to rise. Not keeping global warming above 1.5°C Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced and reached by 45% by 2030 Net zero by 2050.

Andrew Hastie He speaks for many of us when he describes the people advocating these measures: “net zero fanatics”.

Positive effects: This policy will enable us to win back inner city seats from Teals, increase our appeal among young voters and pave the way for winning elections as it will meet voters’ expectations. 61% of Australians Those who support the government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Adverse effects: It completely fails to solve the pressing and major political problem.

It will destroy the coalition, half of us will continue to speak out against such a radical policy, the Nationals will attack us for falling into this trap. fraud and we will be attacked relentlessly by affiliated experts Australian, AudienceInstitute of Public Affairs and Sky News.