Turnbull government MPs ridicule claims of 'looming backbench revolt' over electric cars

A Liberal MP purportedly leading the charge against increased taxpayer support for electric cars says there is no looming backbench revolt, as other Liberals dismissed divisions over the issue as “nonsense".

Liberal MP Craig Kelly at Parliament House in Canberra.

Craig Kelly, the chair of the Coalition's energy and environment committee, played down ructions despite having warned that electric vehicles have a bigger carbon footprint than conventional cars - a view that has since been rubbished by the expert who created the website upon which the assertion was based.

Read the story by Nicole Hasham and Mark Kenny in today’s Melbourne Age - “Turnbull government MPs ridicule claims of 'looming backbench revolt' over electric cars.”

(It has been argued that only a child sees a project half completed and that is what has happened in the electric car debate - Craig Kelly argues that an electric car using power generated by a fossil-fuelled power station is more carbon intensive than existing traditional, existing cars, ignoring the fact that power drawn from solar plants would significantly reduce that carbon footprint. The electric car must be paired with solar or wind power - Robert McLean)

Optimistic, innovative and confident humans face adaptation challenges

H

umans are generally optimistic, innovative and so confident that they can adapt to most things.

Many see global warming and just another of life’s “speed bumps” that will be easily smoothed out through technology and the adaptation that has been the hallmark of homo-species, particularly modern human beings.

However, global warming raises the bar even higher and so the need for adaptation is going to even more pressing and as suggested in a story by Vox, even “messier than we think”.

The story - “Adapting to climate change is going to be a lot messier than we think” – discusses adaptation, saying: It's a hopeful idea. Except you can also find quite a few examples of places where we're doing the exact opposite of that — places where we're actively increasing our exposure to risks like floods and wildfires, either by building more homes in disaster-prone areas or by subsidizing those who do with taxpayer money.”

This is America, but here in Australia, the equation is strikingly similar.