In which a sloganeering Dame Groan stands alone...

 

For a moment, it looked like the day would be a complete bust.

The pond had been waiting for news of the breaking of the ceasefire, and sure enough it came...

The pond had absolutely no interest in returning to that quagmire, or read the Australian Daily Zionist News version of events, but over on the extreme far right there was little to distract, let alone excite ...

The war on TG folk continued apace ...

What doesn’t Anna Cody get about biological women? 
Why is someone who doesn’t know that a woman is an adult female human and a man is an adult male human employed as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner?
By Sandra Pertot

While the pond would link to the pond's archiving, the pond absolutely wouldn't join that jihad.

And the news that the oracle from the deep north had returned to offer two bob to the hive mind ...

We either innovate, or we will stagnate … it’s that simple
Australia must radically shift towards a knowledge-based economy or risk being left behind as artificial intelligence and China reshape the global landscape.
By Peter Beattie

... left the pond stone cold and deeply unmoved, especially when the archived header suggested we "Back Australia". Whatever happened to "Back Queensland", "go the toads"?

So also the latest round of the bashing of the academic boffins left the pond slumped in a pool of hive mind ennui ...

New pay rules a well-earned slap in the chops for our uni fat cats
Why are these people paid more than our Prime Minister? Now chancellors have been publicly humiliated for ignoring popular opinion, universities will need a formula for setting vice-chancellor pay.
By Stephen Matchett

Even worse the reptiles had discreetly avoided mentioning Susssan's latest contribution to her competition with the lettuce ...

Others loved the follies...

Sussan Ley goes after Anthony Albanese’s Joy Division T-shirt as the Coalition tears itself apart, again

Now the pond will concede that Jimi Hendrix might have been a better fit for Albo, or maybe not, given he was born in '63 and Jimi was dead by '70, and clearly music wasn't the issue so much as looking a little post-punk.

But did Susssan have to publicly display her fatuous stupidity and give the lettuce such a big break? 

That folly was worth a Golding, no more.

Tamworth's shame is always good for a laugh, even as Tamworthians endure endless humiliation.

Sheesh, Golding wasn't helping with this either ...

As if the pond would have the foggiest clue what that was about without leaving the hive mind and visiting another place ...

Suffering succotash, or suffering Susssan...

Luckily the hive mind came good, and help for Katya and other vulgar youffs was on hand.

The always reliable Dame Groan was standing by to save the day, diligently working as advertising consultant, and her rebranding was sure to be a marvel, and make the lettuce work over time to catch up ...

The header: Coalition needs a rival slogan to hammer Labor on net zero, Net-zero 2050 is essentially a political slogan owned by the left. Most agree it will never be reached, but it is a powerful statement of virtue.

The caption for an ominous Susssan: Leader of the Opposition Sussan Ley during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Dame Groan was in top full five minute form, and the pond was wildly excited.

What would she come up with? 

Why all the fuss about climate science, it's a theological hoax? Or perhaps it's a cult, down there with Scientology?

Or would she waver a little, admit climate science might have a minor point, and offer minor salves?

Like "suck it up", "stay calm and carry on completely regardless", or better yet, "eat excrement and die".

Whatever, the pond knew it would be a winner...

Notwithstanding our highly connected digital world, Australia is one or two years behind the rest of the world on many issues. As the world goes cold on the net-zero transition, it’s full steam ahead here, at least as far as the federal government and most of the states are concerned.
While we are unlikely to reach our 2030 emissions reduction target – along with a vast number of other countries – the unfathomable decision was made to set our nationally determined contribution for 2035 at 62 per cent to 70 per cent. This contrasts with Canada’s NDC of 45 per cent.
Of course, there are still some strong supporters of the transition, in part because of the commercial gains that can be made from securing vast government subsidies from green investments.
The Australian Financial Review has declared its support for “Australia reaching net zero by 2050 to help tackle global warming. We also back the sensible 62 to 70 per cent interim 2035 emissions reduction target announced by the Albanese government last month, which provides a policy anchor for businesses to make the big switch to cleaner technologies over the next decade.” (The AFR has been deep green for some time.)

Poor Dame Groan, apparently she's unaware of the deep green that infests News Corp ...

Damn you AFR, you're clearly making News Corp compete with you, but happily the reptiles slipped in a distracting snap of Satan's little helper, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

At this point the pond should note a glut of 'toons about the environment this day... including the infallible Pope ...

Pooh, Dame Groan wasn't going to have any of that nonsense ...

What Australia will achieve from these moves and what it will cost are not made entirely clear. On its own, Australia certainly won’t be shifting the dial on emissions or the climate. We also know that global emissions continue to rise and are likely to do so for at least another decade.
Some insight into the thinking of the reputationally damaged Treasury on this topic was revealed by a note from Commonwealth Bank chief economist Luke Yeaman, who until recently had been a senior Treasury officer. According to him, “the global move towards net zero may have lost some momentum with the election of President Trump, but it is not going away. A massive investment task still lies ahead to deliver new energy systems and redesign industrial, business and household processes.” While conceding the transition may involve “higher power prices for consumers and industry”, he claimed “carbon border adjustment measures will also become far more prevalent, as those taking early and strong action on climate try to prevent laggards from ‘free riding’ and hollowing out their industries”.
In other words, unless Australia goes along with net zero, we will be punished by carbon border adjustment measures. Let’s be clear, this is simply an assumption. To be sure, Europe is keen on them, but we don’t trade much with Europe. In any case, these measures are simply a version of industry protection dressed up as having something to do with the climate.
The European steel, cement and car industries are all on their knees mainly because of the EU’s unhinged climate policies. The EU is likely to be amenable to measures under any name if they are designed to save the vast number of jobs in these industries. Agriculture in the EU has always been highly protected and will demand more intervention if farmers are adversely affected in any way.
But what other countries will impose these carbon border adjustment measures against Australia because of our poor climate policies? The US is currently imposing a raft of tariffs on many countries but this action doesn’t have anything to do with carbon border adjustment. It’s unlikely that Canada, Britain, India, China, Russia – and the list goes on – will be imposing these kinds of tariff any time soon.
Treasury’s unfounded assumption of impending green tariffs simply suits its enthusiastic support for the net-zero transition, something that was particularly apparent in its substandard – and that’s being kind – modelling of the energy transition.

The reptiles slipped in an AV distraction, with Tamworth's never ending shame featured in the thumb, Sky News host Paul Murray discusses the return of parliament how the Nationals are split on net zero.

Meanwhile, Wilcox turned philosophical ...

Yes, but what about Dame Groan's slogan? 

What about the rebrand? What about the marketing? Would it never arrive?

We can indirectly observe the international retreat of support for net zero from the behaviour of the investment community. There was a time, particularly when the ESG (environment, social and governance) movement was in full swing, when capital was being allocated to anything green and hang the returns. Of course, government underwriting was always a big plus.
These days there is a growing aversion to investing in large-scale renewable energy projects, particularly offshore wind, although there is considerable interest in investment in batteries. To be sure, middle-class households that own their homes have invested heavily in subsidised solar panels and now subsidised batteries. But one of the main impacts of this development has been to crash daytime wholesale prices while creating instability in the grid.
The clear trend overseas is investment in nuclear power, in both R & D and construction. This is true in the US, Britain, some European countries and particularly China. A new source of thorium is likely to lead to a massive expansion of thorium-fuelled nuclear plants in China.
There is also heightened speculation that nuclear fusion plants will finally be developed by China in the next several decades, with talk of a wholesale price of $US25 ($38) per megawatt hour. Small nuclear reactors almost certainly will become part of the mix.
Our Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, may prefer to ignore these developments but the facts speak for themselves.
The point is that Australia risks being left at the starting gate, having overinvested in highly subsidised, land-hungry and short-lived renewable energy assets. The relentless increase in electricity prices combined with the loss, both actual and pending, of energy-intensive manufacturing underscore the damage being wrought. So where does this leave the Coalition and its dithering stance on net zero?

Weirdly, the joyless division left the pond with a snap of Maggie, and her sidekick, who loved a drink enough to have nicknames for different ones throughout the day, including an “opener”, a “brightener”, a “lifter”, a large gin and tonic without the tonic, “a snifter”, a “short” and “a snorter”. (here) 

Margaret Thatcher, with husband Denis Thatcher, waves to wellwishers outside Number 10 Downing Street following her election victory, on May 4, 1979.

Was this a sign that Dame Groan was going to come up with a snifter or a snorter of a new slogan?

It worth recalling that memorable statement of Maggie Thatcher that “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides”.
Some members of the Coalition – the moderates – think some sort of compromise can be reached on its commitment to net zero by 2050. Ideas include insertion of qualifiers such as “only at reasonable cost”, removing the target from legislation or delaying the final date. None of these ideas will work.
Net-zero 2050 is essentially a political slogan owned by the left side of politics. Most people agree it will never be reached. But it’s a statement of virtue, of people declaring they care about the climate and the future. Failure to endorse the slogan is equated with climate denial.
What the Coalition needs is a different, competing slogan that deals with the climate but avoids punishing those on low incomes, deindustrialising the country or rewarding commercial green rent-seekers, some of which have close links to the Liberal Party.
Adapting to the changing climate has a great deal of appeal because people can understand that Australia alone cannot affect what happens to the global climate. Spending money on flood levies, bushfire prevention, redesigning cities to deal with hotter temperatures – these are all practical suggestions and can be targeted at the least well-off.
Adaptation, not mitigation, is the way to go. It’s an alternative that could work for the Coalition. And getting rid of the ban on nuclear power in Australia is a needed first step that can be part of the messaging.
Just don’t stand in the middle of the road.

That's it? That's the best she could manage?

Just don’t stand in the middle of the road.

And if you didn't want to know why the silly old chook crossed the road, perhaps you'd have to settle for ...

Adaptation, not mitigation, is the way to go.

The pond is no aficionado of Gruen, but the pond reckons they'd have a field day with that sort of feeble attempt at a slogan ...

Surely the panellists would want something a little punchier, even a bit Denis punch-drunk:

So perhaps it should have been "eat sh*t and die" (blogger bot approved version). 

Or "live in sh*t and suffer".

Or pace Oscar Wilde, "we are all in the gutter, but forget about looking at the stars, enjoy frolicking in the mud with Dame Groan instead."

Or perhaps "I'm rich enough to avoid the worst of it", or "I'll be dead before the worst of it, so enjoy what I've bequeathed you" ...

Or: "nuke the country to save the planet", though really what's the point of that, because the point is, such gestures simply won't change anything? So just settle back and "eat sh*t and die".

Did Dame Groan realise she was accepting that climate science was real, and now she was just quibbling about who might survive the folly?

Did she realise she was proposing a little nuclear window dressing, a fig leaf designed to hide the plunge to doom?

Never mind, what a joyless old chook she is, beavering away in an increasingly joyless reptile division, growing more clueless by the day ... and if she's going to be chief coach, bottle washer and slogan deviser the team might be in trouble ...

On the other hand, who could doubt the potency of this pack of thugby boofheads?