The truth behind the Finkel report and your power bills

The placards just write themselves. What do we want? "Orderly transition measures, system planning and stronger  governance." When do we want it? About 10 years ago. But now will have to do.

The final report of the independent Finkel review is not a revolutionary document. It is, however, an important and long overdue acknowledgment of our need, as a nation, to do three things simultaneously: stop burning so many dirty lumps of coal, keep the lights on and keep electricity prices affordable.

At present, of course, we're failing abjectly on all three fronts, with power bills set to soar again on July 1.

Modelling by the review suggests households will save about $90 a year, or up to $1000 over the decade to 2030, by implementing its suggestion of a Clean Energy Target, compared with a business-as-usual scenario.

Read Jessica Irvine’s comment in today’s Melbourne Age - “The truth behind the Finkel report and your power bills.”

We need science, not more hot air

The banners and placards were the first sign this was not your average protest: "science not silence", "yes to evidence-based policy and peer review", "science doesn't care what you believe, it cares about facts". 

Last weekend's protest march in support of science and research saw more than 3000 people in Melbourne supporting thousands more around Australia and tens of thousands in the US and elsewhere including Brazil and Chile. There were plenty of jokes at their own expense, such as battle cries of "nerds rule", but the message at the heart of this action was deadly serious: many in the global scientific community feel that they and their work are under threat.

In Melbourne, two Nobel Prize winners addressed the crowd, each stressing that while the issues at stake were apolitical, there was an urgent need for action to combat the major threats to the global culture of science and robust scientific research.

Professor Peter Doherty, a highly respected immunologist and Australia's eighth Nobel Laureate in science, argued that there had never been a more desperate need for a clear understanding of what is happening with, for example, the atmosphere, oceans and climate. 

Read the Editorial in today’s Melbourne Age - “We need science, not more hot air.”