In which CCS and nattering "Ned" are all the go ...

 

A pond correspondent kindly asked the question ...

A late thought regarding the front page; that’s the second day running the Lizard Oz has featured allegations of financial shenanigans in the Vatican. Given the prominence with which he is featured, presumably this is some sort of campaign to rehabilitate the reputation of the late Cardinal George Pell?

Most likely, but the Pellists have this day fallen down the charts in the Catholic Boys' Daily.

These are the top stories that made the cut early in the morning after the 6 am changover ...

A yarn could still be found, but it was way down the page and the Pellists weren't glorified in the header ... and woe of ancient Catholic woes, it wasn't labelled an EXCLUSIVE...

HOLY SEE BUDGET
Vatican announces $110m profit on real estate assets
Vatican celebrates its ‘best budget in years’ with $110m windfall, while shocking details emerge of money-laundering schemes from the Francis era.
By Paola Totaro

Still, that's better than the mass famine in Gaza, with the only mention of matters middle east seeing the UK move to recognise Palestine dubbed "a reward for Hamas".

Cockroaches have their own take on the matter, a strategy of out of sight, out of mind...

Instead of any of that, this day climate change was all the go, familiar turf for the hive mind, with the reptiles gloating on the one hand ...

EXCLUSIVE
Labor’s energy target all miss and wind as turbine construction slumps
Australia’s wind farm construction has ground to a complete halt as costs soar, putting Labor’s ambitious 82 per cent renewable energy target in serious doubt.
By Paul Garvey and Perry Williams

... and on the other Chambering a bullet offering exciting new times ...

EXCLUSIVE
Carbon-capture’s $66bn boost as net-zero support surges
Madeleine King will launch a report revealing an east coast carbon capture storage network could add $66bn to the economy, as polling shows surging post-election support for net zero.
By Geoff Chambers

The pond will spare punters the illustrations that accompanied the Chambering - they were a snap of King and a series of graphs which also enlivened the tedium of a "Ned" natter on the topic, and best saved to enliven his offering.

Instead, just marvel at the way that the reptiles were all in favour of CCS projects ...

Resources Minister Madeleine King will launch a major industry report revealing an integrated east-coast carbon capture and storage network could add $66bn to the economy and support more than 15,000 new jobs, as new polling shows surging post-election support for climate change targets and renewables.
Amid a push for stronger government backing of CCS projects to help remove emissions from hard-to-abate industries including cement production, fertiliser manufacturing, mining and metal refining, federal Labor remains split over the merits of the low-emissions tech.
An EY report, commissioned by Low Emission Technology Australia, says there is a “distinct opportunity, now and over the next decade, to develop and deploy CCS to deliver cost effective industrial decarbonisation and support Australia’s transition to net-zero emissions by 2050”.

LETA has a very flashy website, but the pond has its doubts. 

Per DeSmog ...

And so on, and to be honest, the pond was immediately put on alert and made to feel suspicious by the way that the reptiles jumped on board with the desire to waste money on CCS...

“However, the local industry currently lags leading countries like the US, UK and China, which are actively developing integrated CCS hubs as part of their broader industrial and climate action strategies,” the report says.
“A particular challenge for Australia is developing CCS on the east coast where progress has stalled but where much of the country’s industrial and manufacturing base is located.”
Global mining giant Glencore had its controversial CCS project in the Great Artesian Basin scuttled by the Queensland Labor government last year, prompting industry “death knell” concerns about the future of east coast CCS projects.
While some federal Labor MPs believe that “CCS perpetuates fossil fuels”, Ms King has fought to keep CCS in the government’s arsenal, despite opposition in the first-term Albanese government from some cabinet colleagues. Ms King, who will speak at the Parliament House report launch event on Wednesday night, this month declared that “we need to … use every tool we’ve got to try and decarbonise” – including CCS.
Australia’s three flagship CCS operations are: the Chevron-­operated Gorgon facility off Western Australia, the Santos-operated Moomba project in South Australia and the CO2CRC-operated Otway International Test Centre in Victoria.
Amid splits in the Coalition over whether to dump a commitment for net-zero emissions by 2050 and as the government finalises its new 2035 emissions-­reduction target, an SEC Newgate Mood of the Nation survey reveals support for the energy transition to renewables is growing, rising from 53 to 58 per cent since April.
The poll of 1855 Australians, conducted from July 8-16, found 64 per cent of voters (up from 56 per cent) backed the 2030 target to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent and 59 per cent (up from 53 per cent) endorsed the commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Support for rooftop solar has risen to 89 per cent, ahead of hydroelectric power (75 per cent), solar farms (74 per cent), onshore wind (63 per cent), offshore wind (60 per cent), gas-fired power (35 per cent), nuclear power (31 per cent) and coal-fired power (31 per cent).
The EY report said that under a high-growth scenario where the “right mix of regulatory, technology, and commercial settings were introduced”, CCS deployment along the east coast could rapidly accelerate to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2050.
“A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by around $66bn and support an additional 15,250 jobs over the coming decades,” the report said.
“Such a scenario would require a significant but achievable scale-up in common-use infrastructure, reductions in upfront capital and ongoing costs, particularly for emerging technologies such as ­direct air capture, and effective co-ordination across government and industry.
“CCS deployment is integral in sustaining the growth and global competitiveness of Australia’s hard-to-abate sectors, while still ensuring industry alignment with national climate goals under the Safeguard Mechanism.”
LETA acting chief executive Damian Dwyer said the report echoed advice from the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Australia’s Climate Change Authority and CSIRO on the importance of CCS. He said LETA was urging the federal government to “take steps to address regulatory barriers for CCS.

Carbon polluters of all kinds are no doubt dancing in the street.

All this was by of a warm up to the main act, "Ned" having a Wednesday natter over on the extreme far right, where he was briefly top of the world ma ...

What a dull and tedious day, but at least it allowed the pond to stay on topic, what with King Donald recently embarking on one of his mindless rants...

“And the other thing I say to Europe, we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States, they’re killing us. They’re killing the beauty of our scenery, our valleys, our beautiful plains. And I’m not talking about airplanes, I’m talking about beautiful plains, beautiful areas of the United States, and you look up and you see windmills all over the place, it’s a horrible thing. It's the most expensive form of energy; it’s no good. They’re made in China, almost all of them. When they start to rust and rot in eight years, you can’t really turn them off, you can’t bury them, they won't let you. But the propellers, the props, because they’re a certain type of fiber that doesn’t go well with the land, that’s what they say. The environmentalists say you can’t bury them because the fiber doesn’t go well with the land; in other words, if you bury it, it will harm our soil. The whole thing is a con job.” (Rex Huppke)

The manchild king, spawn of Faux Noise, really is out there ...

... but his addled, deeply warped brain has real world consequences ...

Never mind, on to "Ned's" natter, a most peculiar sounding of alarums for five long tedious minutes, or so the reptiles clocked him, when in reality Barners, Tamworth's undying shame, is just enacting what so many reptiles have yearned for so many times over these past few decades...

The header: Rejecting net zero will condemn Liberals to electoral oblivion, The key to the party’s future is intellectual renewal. That won’t be found in pretending that climate change borders on a global hoax.

The caption: Liberal leader Sussan Ley says she wants the upshot to be a united Coalition stance, but that’s a monumental task. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The magickal advice: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Borders on a global hoax?

The pond can't begin to count the number of times it has recounted some reptile ratbag or other banging on endlessly about the way that climate science doesn't just border on a global hoax, it is a cosmic hoax of the first water, a religious cult, a home to mad climate chance zealots, a delusional obsession preached by sometime uppity Swedish teenagers.

And now "Ned"is offering a moment of discordant "truth"?

The Liberal Party faces a moment of truth. Does it still aspire to be a governing party for Australia or is its future as a right-wing echo chamber for conservatives raging against progressive dominance on climate change?
The row about net zero at 2050 is about far more than a policy position. It goes to the meaning of the Liberal Party and its identity. This penetrates to whether the Liberals have a credible future with the voters of urban Australia, whether they can find a viable 21st-century stance on climate change, and whether the Coalition can survive given the fracture between Liberals and Nationals over net zero.

The pond will admit that the all-day sucker fell from the pond's mouth and landed with a thud on the floor as it read "Ned" raging at the right-wing echo chamber for conservatives raging against progressive dominance on climate change

Had "Ned" gone mad, or is it just another cunning plot to send the pond mad?

There came a reassuring caption that the notion of nuking the country to save the planet had nothing to do with it, The Liberal wipeout in urban Australia had nothing to do with the Scott Morrison/Peter Dutton stance of net zero at 2025.

The pond decided to break its rule about not enlarging reptile snaps because the vacant stare on the clap happy liar from the shire was simply too rich to celebrate.

Did he just see the rapture and his impending redemption or was it just another air flow problem in the style of King Donald?

The pond isn't certain as to the identity of that gaunt, haggard figure lurking over the clap happy's left shoulder, but a close reading of "Ned's" missive might help ...

Much of the post-election story has been the unleashing of the populist conservatives, demanding the abandonment of net zero, consumed with self-righteous conviction, and posing as crusading heroes leading their minions into the valley of death where fleeting glory, grief and political extinguishment await.
The key to the Liberal Party’s future is political and intellectual renewal. That won’t be found in pretending that climate change borders on a global hoax or running a strategy that alienates even more people than were alienated at the dismal 2025 election.
Let’s start with that election. The Liberal wipeout in urban Australia had nothing to do with the Scott Morrison/Peter Dutton stance of net zero at 2025. Where, pray, is the evidence for this? It doesn’t exist. The fallacy is to say that because the Liberals had a net zero policy in 2022 and 2025 and did badly, the policy should be dropped. This conflates correlation with causation. There were many reasons for the defeats of Morrison and Dutton but, to the extent climate was a factor, it was because the Liberals weren’t seen as sufficiently serious in tackling the problem.
Claiming the response to the 2025 defeat is to run harder against climate action is unforgivable folly and tactical madness.
Opposing net zero is a statement of non-belief. It is either a declaration of opposition to serious emissions reduction targets with 2050 as a benchmark or even of abandoning support for the Paris-based model of individual country commitments, which would suggest no real point staying in the Paris Agreement.
Either way, Labor would cast the Coalition as a climate denier. It would be branded – ditching Morrison and Dutton pragmatism while preferring Trump-type climate extremism. How would that play? Labor would add climate denial to Medicare as its fail-safe mechanisms to ensure the Coalition stayed in opposition in perpetuity.

And pray tell, what's wrong with being cast as climate deniers? 

The reptiles at the lizard Oz have routinely and proudly been climate deniers for decades, have whole heartedly embracing King Donald-type climate extremism, have built a business model and a hive mind community out of it.

How has it played in terms of circulation? Best not to ask, but it hasn't stopped all the key reptiles at various points raging about the complete wrongness of renewables, and so on, and such like...

At this point the reptiles decided what was needed was a few graphs and did a repeat of the graphs the pond had already seen Chambered in that CCS yarn ...

The pond should note that the last graph was cut off and there was no way for the pond to include all the wording:

Not that it mattered, because the reptiles seemed to see something significant in the polling wind, or perhaps in the windmills.

"Ned" continued with his revisionist approach, but not so much because of any apparent or inherent interest in the science, so much as what might happen at the polls...

Labor would have the full progressive orchestra behind it, singing in unison – teals, Greens, the women’s vote, the youth vote, the unions, the corporates, the finance sector, the NGOs, the education lobby and the full progressive media in its moralistic, outrage mode. What chance of getting a decent flow of preferences at the 2028 election? Forget it. A low primary vote would be tied to a low preference flow, entrenching the Coalition’s decline.
Why fall for such electoral stupidity when the Liberals have every chance of turning climate policy to their advantage in 2028? Every sign is that Labor, driven by the left of politics, will overreach. The Climate Change Authority has previously floated targets in the 65-75 per cent zone for 2035, a hefty leap from the 43 per cent 2030 target that Labor is struggling to achieve.
With a number of teals and environmental groups backing the 75 per cent target, Labor is trapped between the political pressure to be ambitious and the practical problems facing wind, solar and batteries.
There is a universal view within the Coalition that Labor’s energy transition is economically and structurally flawed, that reliance on renewables means system unreliability, ongoing price escalation for consumers and business, growing risks to industrial processes and jobs, more government spending on clean-energy subsidies and consumer price compensation, and a social licence crisis over wind farms.
“Let Labor bring itself undone” is the obvious tactic for the Coalition. Why spoil what the Coalition sees as an unfolding Albanese government blunder? Why give Labor a political life-raft? Anthony Albanese’s dream is for the Coalition to make itself the issue, to gift Labor a negative campaign, and distract from Labor’s energy failings. It is the type of politics at which Labor excels.
Barnaby Joyce has catapulted himself into the media spotlight with his bill to eliminate net zero as a commitment, a bill with no prospect of passage, but a mischief-making ploy that has drawn backing from his former rival, Michael McCormack, and channels National Party resistance to net zero. It undermines Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s reviews, notably the net zero review across the Coalition conducted by frontbencher Dan Tehan. Ley says she wants the upshot to be a united Coalition stance, but that’s a monumental task.

The reptiles seized on Tamworth's never-ending shame to provide an interrupting snap, Michael McCormack will vote for Barnaby Joyce’s private member’s bill to repeal net zero. Picture: Martin Ollman

Naturally the pond couldn't resist a hot air ballon moment for Tamworth's compleat humiliation...

The pond isn't sure about the Banksie reference, with the way the image shatters a child's dreams and hopes ...

The pond continues to have a soft spot for the infallible Pope's portrait, and having promised to use it again at some point, here it is again ...

"Ned" continued on his tortured way...

Joyce has nothing to lose and everything to gain from his assault on net zero. It is a nostalgia trip for him. The Liberals, by contrast, have everything to lose and nothing to gain. The election is three years away, but Joyce is already damaging Liberal MPs in their few remaining urban seats.
The Nationals, to be fair, have a different interest because community opinion in rural and regional seats is more hostile to net zero – the direct result of Labor and progressive patronisation of the regions and their contempt for legitimate rural and farmer concerns. With Matt Canavan – the most lethal critic of net zero in the parliament – involved in the Nationals’ review of their policy, the short odds are on a change of party stance.
But how far will the Nationals go? Will they make a binary decision and throw out the complete concept? If so, they invite the fracturing of the Coalition, against Ley’s wishes. The Liberals cannot have Coalition policy hijacked by the Nats and they cannot tolerate the optics of being dictated to by the junior partner.

At this point the reptiles interrupted with a Sky Noise down under moment, featuring Danica ... Sky News host Danica De Giorgio discusses the Coalition’s relevance to the net zero debate after Labor’s recent election win. “Let’s talk about net zero, Opposition leader Sussan Ley seems to be really struggling to unite the party on this,” Ms De Giorgio said. “Matt Canavan said earlier it does not matter if the Coalition debate over net zero gets messy because the Coalition is irrelevant right now, does he have a point?”

Of course he has a point. How the reptiles have loved the "coal that batters" Canavan caravan over the years.

You don't have to look too far to see Danica, doing her best to embrace the Mar-a-Lago look for TV presenters, blathering on about climate zealots...

Sky News host Danica De Giorgio criticised the renewable energy “zealots”, including Minister Chris Bowen, for their "obsession" with keeping the "dying fantasy" of renewables alive.

Sorry, the pond doesn't usually link to reptile outfits, but rest assured Danica has been very blonde on the matter of climate science for many a year ...

Now back to "Ned" for final thoughts...

In conclusion, there is no way the Liberal Party can finish this process with a binary rejection of net zero at 2050. That is neither a policy nor a political option. It would signal the Liberal Party rejection of its historic mission as a governing party. It would repudiate the majority sentiment of Middle Australia – that climate change is a problem, that the national government must recognise this truth and formulate a meaningful response (even when many of those same people have limits on the price hikes they might tolerate.)
In practice, rejecting net zero is not a policy any more than opposing emissions reduction targets is a policy. Yet the anti-net zero populists rarely talk policy. What do they want? Government-financed new coal-fired power stations, the sure road to electoral oblivion? Or perhaps they prefer giving the designated nuclear power plants another doomed run?
The Liberals need to beware the propaganda line that China isn’t on the clean-energy train. Sure, China is investing in coal, but it’s also investing massively in renewables.
Yet there will be scope for Liberal creativity within the net zero framing. There is nothing to stop the Liberals from a new branding: “An Australian Way to Achieve Net Zero” – a direct repudiation of the conga line of international moralists lecturing this country. It’s what comes under this assertion of sovereignty that matters – even perhaps the radical step of excluding the agricultural sector from the deadline; a huge political move and concession for the Nats.
There is a bigger issue. The future of the Liberal Party lies in looking outwards, not inwards, not in becoming cultural hostage to the populist right. The party’s intellectual foundations are in desperate need of renewal, yet the sources of conservative intellectual input in this country are almost extinct, a situation where, on climate policy, Sky After Dark and the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs loom as the tempting and damaging distractors.

Say what?

"Ned" having a go at the populist right? 

"Ned" having a go at Sky After Dark and the IPA as "damaging distractors"?

Has "Ned" been so distracted, so up his navel, so involved in fluff-gathering from his belly button that he entirely missed what the reptiles at the lizard Oz have been up to these past few decades?

The delusions are strong in this one ...

Usually at this point the pond would offer a bonus, but the pond will be running this afternoon at 4.30 pm the third reptile featured in the pond's Sunday meditation, unceremoniously shoved by a bot behind an age verification wall, and that's more than enough.

Besides, the only other strong contender was Dame Slap, and the pond simply couldn't muster the enthusiasm ...

Labor, ACTU have long fed from CFMEU trough 
It took some gall for Sally McManus to blame bosses for slow productivity growth considering the conduct of the CFMEU.
By Janet Albrechtsen
Columnist

Perhaps as a substitute a pond correspondent could ask AI to compose a column in the style of Dame Slap indulging in a dose of union and Labor bashing, it being a reversion to old school style reptile snake bashings ...

Here's what ChatGPT came up with when the pond asked the bot a question ...

Certainly. Here's a column written in the style of Janet Albrechtsen, known for her incisive, libertarian-conservative commentary, often found in publications like The Australian. The tone is sharp, unapologetic, and challenges institutional orthodoxy—in this case, trade unions:

Title: Time to Unmask the Union Mirage

By Janet Albrechtsen (style imitation)

If the modern union movement had a slogan, it would be this: "Entitlement first, accountability never." Once noble entities defending miners and factory workers from Dickensian exploitation, unions today have mutated into bloated bureaucracies propping up privilege, clinging to irrelevance by strangling productivity and punishing innovation.

Let’s drop the pretence. Unions no longer represent the downtrodden. They represent the entrenched. Their core business is less about defending the vulnerable and more about flexing muscle in public sector boardrooms, feathering nests, and ensuring their own political survival. The Australian Labor Party may have separated church from state long ago, but the union cathedral still dominates its altar.

Just ask the average parent trying to navigate school closures dictated not by health but by union dictates. Or the small business owner whose enterprise is hamstrung by archaic award rules and “go slow” tactics dreamed up by industrial dinosaurs. The cost? Lost opportunities, stagnant wages, and a younger generation that sees little future in a workforce choked by rigid conditions and militant gatekeepers.

When unions aren't busy bullying elected governments, they're shovelling millions into campaigns to protect their turf. They rail against casualisation—as if giving workers flexibility is an act of violence. They demonise enterprise bargaining—as if negotiation between grown adults is something to be feared, not embraced. And they oppose performance pay—as if rewarding excellence somehow undermines equality.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. These are the same unions that claim to fight for fairness while running their own fiefdoms like closed shops. The same unions who demand transparency from corporations but cry foul when scrutiny turns inward. And let’s not forget: they remain Australia’s most powerful unelected lobby.

But the public is waking up. Membership is plummeting outside the public sector. The more unions tie themselves to political power plays rather than serving their members, the more irrelevant they become. What we are witnessing is not a workers’ revolution, but the last stand of a privileged class unwilling to face a changing world.

It’s time we stopped treating unions as sacred cows. They’re more like sacred anachronisms—desperately mooing into a megaphone that fewer and fewer Australians are listening to.

The helpful bot even offered to do more ...

Let me know if you'd like this tailored to a particular issue—like teachers' unions, construction unions, or recent legislation.

Nah, bot, that'll do, that's more than enough, all that did was reminded the pond why it never could trust the artificial intelligence of Dame Slap, or its artificial imitators.

The pond has already suffered in the bot wars, and likely will do more suffering in the future.

And so to wrap up the morning issue with a celebratory infallible Pope...

It's always in the detail, and look at poor Bo Peep, who has lost her nyet zero sheep, just as "Ned" seems to have lost his Sky/IPA way ...

Little Bo-Peep has lost her Nat nuts,

And can't tell where to find them;

Leave them alone, and they'll come home,

Bringing their tails behind them.

Little Bo-Peep fell fast asleep,

And dreamt she heard them bleating;

But when she awoke, she found it a joke,

For they were still all fleeting.

Then up she took her little crook,

Determined for to find them;

She found them indeed, but it made her heart bleed,

For they'd left their tails behind them.

It happened one day, as Bo-Peep did stray

Into a meadow hard by,

There she espied their tails, side by side,

All hung on a tree to dry.

She heaved a sigh and wiped her eye,

And over the hillocks she raced;

And tried what she could, as a shepherdess should,

That each tail be properly placed.

Does "Ned's" Everest climb natter unnerve the bot?

 

The pond decided to recycle the pond's Sunday meditation, put behind an age verification wall by a bot - yes, it was most likely a bot, only a dedicated band of pond correspondents ever read the pond, and certainly no living flesh at Blogger or Google - mainly because the pond has a horror at the notion of anyone going on an online database, a horror compounded by impending Labor government legislation.

The pond also suspects that it was the pond's verbal exuberance that created the problem, not the tedious beyond measure reptile offerings.

Nattering "Ned's" offering was deadly dull, so stupefying that it almost defies description.

So why not at least offer an alternative opening, reflecting the pond's reading for the day?

Truth to tell, reptile offerings don't last much longer than a day, before they become digital fush and chups wrapping paper ... and "Ned" is already three days old and with a musty pong about him.

Further to this morning's climate crisis outing came this story: Heat wave to scorch the U.S. this week — and some cities will experience 'feels like' heat index of 115°F, More than 130 million people from South Dakota to Florida are under extreme warnings and advisories.

The pond no longer speaks Fahrenheit (strangely the pond still speaks feet and inches, pounds and pence, gallons and pints fluently), but even by Tamworth standards, there was a vague memory that 115 would be passing warm, and the accompanying map was impressive:

Impressige, though the pond might just as easily have referenced the massive floods which recently saturated parts of China (Moscow also copped a pounding, SkyNews UK link):

 Strange weather days in end climate times.

For a little light relief, the pond always relies on a cracking Crace to start the day, and he was at it again in Sidekick Starmer can’t get a word in as The Donald dominates world’s most one-sided double act.

When not wasting time with the reptiles of the lizard Oz, the pond always likes to drop in on The New Yorker, say David Remnick doing Israel’s Zones of Denial, Amid national euphoria over the bombing of Iran—and the largely ignored devastation in Gaza—a question lurks: What is the country becoming? (*archive link)

In a lengthy piece, Remnick eventually got to the point:

...For all the triumphalism, for all the talk about an imminent golden age, Israel’s future is still shadowed by the ugly persistence of occupation, the long and bitter memory of its enemies, and the deepening moral cost of Gaza. The battered, nearly levelled cities of the Strip look like a reckoning deferred. Iran’s regime may be chastened, but it is not gone, and the nuclear question may resurface before long.
Meanwhile, the cafés and bars of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are packed and noisy, as if the country could celebrate its way to safety. I recalled Etgar Keret’s remark that “the sense of continuity, of any agreed-upon set of facts or story, is gone.” Or maybe it’s that the story never quite resembles the narratives issued from the offices of Presidents and Prime Ministers. Israel has shown, time and again, that it is better at winning wars than at winning what comes after. The celebrations are real, but so is the dread—about the next missile, the next front, the next generation raised amid the rubble and the rage.

Well yes, you can't attempt a genocide without generating a little more hate, way disproportionate to the hateful Hamas killings that set it off ...

In its travels, the pond also likes to drop in on The Atlantic, wherein you might find Hussein Ibish writing Food Aid in Gaza Has Become a Horror, In the scramble for sustenance, Palestinians are gunned down for no reason, with no excuse.

(Cf. Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups, Reports detailing intentional targeting of Palestinians as a group, and systemic destruction of Palestinian society, add to pressure for action, Graudian)

Or Jonathan Chait offering some relaxing comedy, Trump's Desperate Move to Quiet the Epstein Scandal, The president tries to distract his followers with revisionist history about the Russia investigation (that's an archive link) ...

Last week, the Trump administration made its latest and most comically desperate attempt to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed that she had unearthed bombshell proof of a Barack Obama–era plot to invent the conclusion that Russia had intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. Soon after, Trump’s Truth Social account circulated an AI video depicting Obama being led off to prison. The message to his followers was that this scandal, not the other scandal involving a certain wealthy sex offender, was the one to focus on.
This message contains multiple levels of dishonesty. On the surface, the effort to draw attention away from Epstein is glaring. Below that lies the wild claim that Obama or his top officials might somehow be charged with crimes. And the fantasy of prosecutions rests on yet another ludicrous claim: that Russia did not attempt to help Trump win in 2016. The president has managed to open a debate over whether the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia helped Trump was a crime, when in reality it was not even a mistake.

And so on, and on to Parker Molloy, Trump Has Left Reality Behind. He Took the Justice Department With Him. Fake payments, fabricated treason, AI arrest videos — the president is creating an alternate universe where his enemies are criminals

...here's the thing: That $11 million payment to Beyoncé? It doesn't exist. Never happened. Total fantasy.
What actually happened, according to federal campaign spending records, is that the Harris campaign paid $165,000 to Beyoncé's production company. Not for an endorsement — for “campaign event production” costs. You know, the actual expenses of putting on an event. The kind of thing campaigns are literally required by law to pay for.
Trump went further, declaring in all caps: “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO.”
Except... that's completely wrong. There's no federal law that prohibits paying for political endorsements. None. You just have to disclose the payments. But in any case, again, she wasn’t paid for her endorsement anyway.
The President of the United States is demanding that people be prosecuted — imprisoned! — for violating a law that doesn't exist, based on payments that never happened. He's not confused about the amount. He's not misremembering some detail. He's calling for prosecutions based on pure fiction, and he's doing it loudly and repeatedly.
When CNN asked the White House for any evidence of Trump's $11 million figure, they got nothing. When Trump himself was asked about his source in February, he said, “Somebody just showed me something. They gave her $11 million.” That's it. That's the whole source.

And let's not forget the clash of the Titans, essential to any student of Murdochiana ... Trump Says Rupert Murdoch Should be Deposed Within 15 Days in Suit Over Epstein Article, The president’s legal team argued in a legal filing that discovery process for the media mogul should be expedited because of his age and health. (*NY Times, archive link)

Lawyers for President Trump on Monday said that Rupert Murdoch, because of his advanced age, should be deposed within 15 days in the president’s $10 billion libel lawsuit against him and The Wall Street Journal over an article about the president’s connections with Jeffrey Epstein.
In a filing in the U.S. District of the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said Mr. Murdoch, the media mogul founder of News Corp, which owns The Journal, should be deposed as soon as possible because he is 94 years old and “has suffered, but thankfully overcome, multiple health issues throughout his life” and would be unlikely to be able to appear in-person at a trial.
“President Trump is requesting only to conduct Murdoch’s deposition and have him produce documents associated only with his involvement in, and any discussions related to, the decision to publish the article,” the filing said.
Mr. Trump filed the lawsuit against The Journal on July 18, a day after the newspaper published an article about a lewd birthday note that the publication said Mr. Trump wrote to Mr. Epstein in 2003, five years before the financier pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The note was accompanied by a sexually suggestive drawing. Mr. Trump has denied he was responsible for the letter or the drawing, calling it a “fake thing.”
The request from Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Monday cited an episode in 2023 when Mr. Murdoch fainted during a breakfast in London with one of his executives, Rebekah Brooks. It also noted an article from Vanity Fair that said Mr. Murdoch had been hospitalized in recent years for Covid-19 and “a broken back, seizures, two bouts of pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, and a torn Achilles tendon.”

And so on, and as Frank Zappa might sing, nasty nasty ...

But finally there's no getting around what the pond promised to do, so here is the "Ned" portion of the pond's Sunday meditation.

There have been a few minor changes - no need for "Ned" to get hung by way of the pond's own fruity expressions, which suggest that any attempt to impersonate Al Swearengen (Ian McShane) in Deadwood will earn swift and savage bot payback ...

Readers will recall that first came Polonius, and then - yes, and then ...

*********

...And then the pond blanched. There was "Ned" lying in ambush ...

The header: Home truths of universal childcare, Labor’s push isn’t the social good it is promising, and parents shouldn’t be penalised for wanting other options.

With no caption, all that was left was the mindless mantra: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond didn't know if it could take it. 

A silly old loon rabbiting on about childcare for a whole bloody ten minutes? In what outer ring of reptile hell is this?

Anthony Albanese’s quest to make universal childcare essential to his legacy as prime minister has run into shocking revelations about institutional abuses – yet Albanese’s goal still seems immune from the policy, financial and social problems inherent in this vision.
There are few deeper progressive faiths in Australia than espousal of universal childcare in institutional settings, approved by regulators, subsidised by taxpayers and proof of a caring and egalitarian society, with a coalition of support encompassing Labor, the Greens, much of the female vote, the unions, academic community and that touchstone of morality, the professional and corporate class.
The debate since the revelations of abuse of children has driven Albanese and Education Minister Jason Clare into a justified response. “I think it’s pretty bloody obvious that the system has failed parents here and that we’ve all got a responsibility to step up,” Clare told the ABC’s 7.30 this week.
His legislation is a mix of incentives and disincentives to improve quality, target the 4 per cent of centres below minimum standards and negotiate improvements with the threat to cut off subsidies.

Cue the first visual distraction: Education Minister Jason Clare tabled legislation to parliament to lift child safety in early education and care services. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The pond had already begun to find this particular "Ned" Everest climb deeply wearying and exhausting ...

Clare conceded that some operations “have put profit ahead of the safety of children” – alluding to a coming debate sure to target profit-based childcare. Significantly, he said he didn’t have a “silver bullet” to “guarantee every child’s safety”.
Each day about 1.4 million children aged zero to 12 years attend early childhood education and care at about 19,000 services across the country. The proportion of mothers with children aged zero to four years who participate in the labour force is 72 per cent, pointing to a social revolution across the past 40 years. The number of ECEC places for children has increased by 50 per cent in the decade to 2023 and nearly one-half of one-year olds attend some form of ECEC.
In its September 2024 ECEC report the Productivity Commission, responding to the government’s brief, said the goal should be a “high-quality universal ECEC system that is accessible, within the means of all families, equitable and inclusive for all children” – an ambitious vision that would require years to achieve. Its immediate recommendations were estimated to increase childcare subsidy costs by 37 per cent to reach about $17.4bn a year. This is another version of the grand Labor governance model – a centralised program of taxpayer support distributed across the country guaranteed to win social approval, justified as an economic reform to promote workforce participation and anchored to a liberated view of women seeking fulfilment in careers.
In a recent jarring warning, UNSW Business School professor of economics Richard Holden wrote in the Financial Review that Labor’s vision “has been in the works for years” and is the product of “lobbyists with good hearts but not so good ideas”. He forecast the unfolding direction “will add billions in costs without improving care, while leaving big productivity gains on the table”. Holden warned the nation was heading into a “costly mess” and a vision that “if implemented, will end in tears”.
He is not alone. In his path-breaking 2024 book, The Care Dilemma, British journalist and social analyst David Goodhart describes the prime feature of modern life, an “undervaluing of the domestic realm” – a paradox when more people and employers are accepting the shift to work from home.

In particular, the quality of the distracting illustrations went into sharp decline, a result of a virtually non-existent lizard Oz graphics department always reaching for quick and easy solutions, In Australia, some childcare subsidies are close to $40,000 a year.

The pond became more and more restless as "Ned" became more and more fixated on the notion that womyn should be paid to stay in the home, preferably in the kitchen...

With the idea of a successful life now revolving around professional and career achievement, there is under way a massive transfer of taxpayer funds, personal energy and social status into the public sphere and away from the domestic sphere. It touches nearly every family. This trend is tied to a false consciousness – the great delusion of modernity – the belief that we care even more about our children.
Indeed, we care so much we insist that in the first three years of life our children must be subjected to a benevolent state bequeathing financial subsidies to ensure young children are placed in childcare because this is the superior model for their growth and development, a contentious claim where the evidence is disputed.
Recall that much of this thinking springs from the same intellectual reservoir that in the dying days of the Gillard government produced the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Gonski school agenda, schemes of soaring cost that delivered major advances yet were plagued by unsustainable flaws.
Goodhart calls for a policy rethink – effectively a revolt – based on the principle that “policy should support both work-focused and family-focused mothers”. This principle is anathema to progressive orthodoxy in Britain and Australia where, as shown by the financial flows, institutional-based childcare is the enshrined model.

Then came the illustration and the caption that broke the camel's or at least the pond's back, Parents need real choices for childcare, including the option to be subsidised to stay home, says Judith Sloan.

Dammit, that did it, the pond has seen that collage umpteen times already, hassuffered through endless reptile repetitions of that snap and endless groanings and the last thing the pond needed was to sit through "Ned" regurgitating Dame Groan.

(At this point, the pond decided to pull the plug and move on to something else ...Snappy Tom, to be featured tomorrow.

The pond promised, when finished with Snappy Tom, to return to the rest of the "Ned" Everest climb, so that mug punters wouldn't feel short changed).

It being a Sunday meditation, the pond had wanted to be amused and to play. After all, if it were good enough for the Emeritus Chairman's hound ...

... then it was good enough for the pond.

(* did the pond's loose way with words cause the commotion? Did the pond's desire to put into words the action visualised send bot into a rage?If so it were a grievous crime and the pond paid a grievous price, and "Ned" shouldn't be hung for the pond's thought crime.
At the very end of the Sunday meditation post came the rest of "Ned", as good a reason as any to ban the reptiles for life, or send a bot into a frenzy ...
After a clip showing the form of the dreaded Jennings on CNN, the pond resumed play):

And at that point the pond would usually declare business closed for the day, what with it being a Sunday.

But the pond made promises, and so it's best to keep promises for those who want to walk miles into the deep.

The pond promised it would finish off "Ned" for those mug punters keen to complete the Everest climb for the day.

The pond stopped just as "Ned" was about to recycle Dame Groan's groaning. 

Carry on stubborn punters, enjoy the reminder of the groans ...

In her many articles on this subject in The Australian, economist Judith Sloan has called for a “move away from our obsession with centre-based care”, raising several options – from child tax credits to tax deductions for home-based care, the purpose being the radical leap to giving women more options.

The many, many, many articles by Dame Groan urging that womyn get back into the kitchen? 

That's why the pond gave up on this climb ...

Holden provocatively asked why, instead of getting a childcare subsidy, every family should not get instead a tax-free child voucher for use at a centre, or for a nanny at home, or to pocket while caring for their children.
In 2019, in conjunction with Rosalind Dixon and Melissa Vogt, Holden outlined a reform model allowing parents to choose between getting the childcare subsidy or a tax deduction for childcare.
No household would be worse off. People could stick with the existing subsidy if they wanted or opt for the tax-deductibility option. The idea was to promote accessibility, affordability and competi­tion in childcare. Holden warns that while current abuses must be addressed, “a government takeover of childcare isn’t the answer”.
There are three policy issues here – an alternative model promotes competition by expanding supply; it promotes individual choice leading to more family satisfaction; and it promotes better social cohesion since all surveys show many women, if given a financial option, would work fewer hours or choose the home-care option. Indeed, the current Labor model works against competition and choice and is justified on a disputed foundation – that centre-based care is best for kids when it is best for some kids, often disadvantaged, but not for other kids.
In the recent US economic policy book Abundance, much loved by Jim Chalmers, the warning is stark about subsidising demand with limits on supply, the guaranteed consequence being higher prices – and higher subsidies. This is Australia’s recent past and its coming future. Childcare for an infant costs on average $36,000 in Massachusetts and $28,420 in California. In Australia some subsidies are close to $40,000 a year.

Cue a coy snap, A recently launched grassroots campaign calls on the Albanese government to broaden the use of its childcare subsidy to include care at home by grandparents, nannies, au pairs and co-working spouses. Picture: Bianca De Marchi/AAP

(Here the pond flung in a distraction with a naughty word. The pond doesn't want "Ned" to be hung for the pond's crime, so here it is with a distinct chilling effect).

Was it just coincidence that Paul Krugman wrote about The General Theory of Ens****ification, and if so does the theory explain the Ens****ification of lizard Oz illustrations? 

(It's still risky because the word is embedded in the link, but the risk must be taken)

To be fair, "Ned" was incredibly fair about being fair:

The Australian data shows the Albanese government’s previous increase in childcare subsidies have been massively eroded by fee increases, a reality that must cast grave doubt on the workability of a model based on increasing subsidies – the heart of the Productivity Commission recommendation.
But to be fair to the PC, it was worried about costs. Indeed, its report raises serious questions about the value for money of the proposed expansion of childcare. Its cost estimate of $17.4bn a year underestimates the actual cost. It says more investment would be needed to rectify availability and inclusion gaps. Does anyone recall the massive initial underestimation of the NDIS cost?
In its report the PC assessed different ECEC models. Consider for a moment their economic value. Its preferred model – raising the maximum rate of subsidy to 100 per cent of the hourly cap rate on incomes up to $80,000 with half of all families eligible for a subsidy rate of 90 per cent or more – would mean an increase in costs of $4.7bn. What would be the benefit in more female participation in the workforce? The answer: “negligible”. Female participation is already high, no more meaningful gains there.
But the model initially preferred by the Albanese government – replacing the subsidy with a flat fee of $10 per child a day – was far more expensive and estimated to cost an increased $8.3bn. How many jobs would that create? An extra 7300. Think about that – an extra $8bn to deliver a touch more than 7000 jobs. How irrational is that?
What is the justification for such extra fiscal burdens to fund childcare expansion when the federal government is in deficit for the next decade, with Treasury saying tax rises and spending cuts will be required?

Then came another dismal visual interruption, The PC report raises serious questions about the value for money of the proposed expansion of childcare.

No credit, none wanted and none revealed. It's the basest of base smiley stock footage, akin to AI slop.

Naturally "Ned" dragged in Petey boy to put the knife into the aged and the other enabled:

Former treasurer Peter Costello has warned the burdens that social agendas are putting on government budgets are unsustainable – witness childcare, the NDIS and aged care – a story tied to the decisive shift in responsibility from the family to the state, a story loaded with adverse unintended consequences.
In relation to expanded childcare, there is no economic justification arising from more female participation in the workforce. The PC said all options meant higher demand for ECEC but “minimal changes” to labour force participation. Here’s the set-up: more fiscal cost, less economic gain.
Perhaps the justification lies in equity. Unfortunately not – there’s an ever bigger problem here. Consider the PC analysis of the Labor-attracted $10 flat-fee model – it says a “disproportionate share of the increased government support would go to families whose incomes are in the top 25 per cent of the income distribution (those with a disposable income over $160,000)”. Of course, Labor may not mind, given well-off professional women with political clout now constitute a growing pro-Labor constituency or, at least, an anti-Coalition lobby.
In fact, there’s a double problem. As the PC says, the kids who most benefit from childcare come from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds while those who gain the least come from high-income families. What is the justification for a model that expands ECEC usage with a strong bias in favour of children belonging to the seriously better-off?
What, then, is the justification for such an expanded spending agenda? The obvious point resides in its political popularity. Indeed, it is fair to say expanded childcare now assumes the status of a social contract bordering on morality. The expectation is irresistible. Yet it is exaggerated.

Oh indeed, it is most fair, is it not? So much fairness, the pond is fair sinking under it.

And then came a  snap of a smirking Pom, the last thing the pond needed, British journalist and social analyst David Goodhart describes the prime feature of modern life, an ‘undervaluing of the domestic realm’ – a paradox when more people and employers are accepting the shift to work from home. Picture: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images)

Pardon the pond if it thinks that what this smirking Pom means by the "domestic realm" is this ...

The pond will take "Ned" seriously when he scribbles a long and urgent treatise on the need to fund men so that they can stay at home, embark on child care full time, and sent their womyn out to work ... but it does help explain the ongoing Liberal party problem with womyn ...

Goodhart quotes a British analyst, Maria Lyons, saying: “The push to culturally normalise non-maternal childcare rests on the beliefs that childcare can be shifted from the home to the market with no adverse consequences for children, mothers or society; and that paid employment is both empowering and personally rewarding for women whereas homemaking and childrearing are not. While these beliefs are influential in academic and political circles, evidence suggests that they are not representative of the values and beliefs of the general population.”
He also quotes London-based researcher and writer Ellen Pasternack saying: “Because domestic labour is undervalued, there is a failure to recognise childcare as proper work unless it takes place in a designated workplace, by unrelated individuals who are employed to be there.”
A grassroots campaign launched two weeks ago by four Queensland mothers, under the title For Parents, calls on the Albanese government to broaden the use of its childcare subsidy beyond the existing centres to include care at home by grandparents, nannies, au pairs and co-working spouses, thereby allowing parents to keep their children close.
Co-founder Cecilia Cobb said: “For too long, government funding has favoured one model: traditional, centre-based care. But that model doesn’t work for everyone and it certainly doesn’t reflect the diversity of Australian families. Families shouldn’t be penalised for choosing care which works best for them.”
The petition, which now has more than 10,000 signatures, seeks a change in subsidy eligibility and a basic shift in policy direction given that childcare expansion over the past decade has been overwhelmingly through growth of private, for-profit, centres. The more the public is aware of this entrenched policy, the more public reservations will skyrocket.
The advocacy group is dismissive of the current In Home Care program, saying it is irrelevant to their demands with fewer than 1 per cent of families using the highly restrictive model under the program.

And so to the idle dreaming of the filthy rich, a nanny for everyone, a cook in the kitchen, and a butler to answer the door, Cecilia Cobb, with baby George, watches as nanny Mary Pole reads to 3yo daughter Summer at their rural district home outside Brisbane. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

Why does she have to watch the nanny reading? Why can't she do the reading herself? Because she's spawned a couple of kids? Tell that to the pond's grandmother, who managed eight without the government springing for a nanny.

Never mind, the pond knew there was a reason the pond abandoned "Ned" ...

The defects in the current Australian progressive system may lie far deeper. New York-based American social worker, psychoanalyst and parent guide expert Erica Komisar argued in a February 2025 paper: “The inconvenient truth is that although the mental health crisis is multivariable and outside forces – which do play a part – are stressful, we as parents are primarily responsible. We are raising children who are self-centred, self-focused and without the inclination or ability to take on responsibility and commitment.
“A Pew Research Centre poll found that 18 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds do not want to have children and only 45 per cent of young women in the poll want to have kids. They feel that having children is a burden which would require them to sacrifice the time, money and personal freedom. When they do have children, many do not want to raise them themselves. Women never before questioned the importance of mothering until these social changes shattered all prior evolutionary preconceptions and standards.
“Men and women were taught that children were an afterthought to their education, career and personal goals: the myth was born that they were self-sufficient beings who could raise themselves and be just fine. Women who wanted to stay at home with their children faced self-doubt and societal judgment. The rise of two-working parent families meant no one was home raising and nurturing children when they needed it most.
“There is nothing wrong with ambition. However, if we place our ambition above those we love, there is a price to pay.”

Cue another smirking snap, US academic Erica Komisar.

Then came a line that stopped the pond in its tracks:

Her analysis led Komisar to offer unqualified advice to the Australian government: 

Unqualified advice? The pond will take that to mean lacking the necessary skills and experience for a specific task or role, and not the other sense of the word.

(In either sense, the pond prefers qualified advice, because advice without qualifications always ends in a bad concrete pour).

Do go on with your unqualified advice ...

“Families should not be forced to place their children in institutional care due to financial pressure. The federal government should offer tax credits and family stipends that allow parents to choose home-based care or care by trusted relatives for children under three.”
The essence of progressive ideology, by contrast, is that childcare is either the desirable or, in the contemporary world, the best model for the infant’s growth and development. As other justifications for the state’s commitment to childcare erode, this has been elevated as the primary purpose for the project and the vast financial commitment being imposed on taxpayers.
Effective childcare and preschool can be an advantage for a child proceeding to primary school. This was reflected in the comment by Clare when interviewed by David Lipson on the ABC on July 2: “This is a service that helps our children get ready for school. Ask any principal at the local primary school and they will tell you they can tell the children that have been in childcare and preschool and the ones that haven’t.”
Much of this, obviously, is true. The larger truth is that each child is unique. Each child will respond in different ways, depending on background, family and age. Some children do better in formal care; other children do better in home care. Is this truth too hard to accept? Is it too hard to act on and offer genuine choice to Australian families without disadvantaging those who prefer the current system? Why does the Labor Party preach diversity yet deny diversity in its childcare policy? Can we not assess the current childcare experiment – because it is an experiment – with an open mind?

An open mind? A reptile wanting an open mind?

Been there and done that with open reptile minds...

Did "Ned" survive the bot? 

Did the bot care?

If "Ned" survived the bot, did anyone survive "Ned"?

If so, the pond will move on to Snappy Tom tomorrow, same time, same bat station ...

The pond's main regret, since "Ned" was clearly no less than terminal tedium equivalent to waiting for an EV charge in Tarcutta? 

Ending with a reference to a TV show, rather than with a cartoon ...

In which there's yet another climate crisis at the lizard Oz, the bromancer solves Gaza, and Dame Groan makes her regular appearance...

 

As a single correspondent noted, As you'd expect, Gerard didn't stir the Bot, who had likely drifted off after the first paragraph, and the same likely applies to nattering "Ned" when he makes his return 4.30 pm appearance. 

He won't trigger the bot so much as trigger a deep ennui and profound sense of futility.

Meanwhile, the reptiles went full climate change hysterics in this morning's digital edition ...

Mercifully the reptiles managed to ignore Barners, Tamworth's shame, though he was given a ribbing by John Handscombe in The Echnida (no link, newsletter):

He's Labor's not-so-secret weapon, almost guaranteed to inflict damage on the Coalition whenever he opens his mouth. He's a gift to the government, even though he sits opposite.
He is, of course, Barnaby Joyce, member for New England, one time deputy PM and former leader of the Nationals.
As if the Coalition wasn't at a low enough ebb already, its numbers so depleted it barely registers as a political force. Along comes Barnaby with his latest doomed bid for attention - his private member's bill to scrap net zero.

In the lizard Oz, Perry did his best to discount renewables...

ELECTRICITY
Coal, renewables jostling for crown as cheapest energy
Black coal remains competitive on price as an energy source but firmed renewables will reign supreme by the end of this decade, a joint CSIRO and AEMO report finds.
By Perry Williams

In a singular, heroic, reptile feat, Perry construed his report without a single link to the actual report, though it's easy enough to find as CSIRO releases final 2024-25 GenCost report following consultation, The latest report updates cost estimates for new electricity generation technologies, recognising that cost is just one of several key factors driving decisions and a mix of technologies is required to meet Australia's electricity needs.

The release handily identified 3 key points:

• The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly.
• Electricity systems rely on a mix of technologies, because no single option can deliver all the capabilities required for a reliable, secure and flexible supply.
• Rising construction costs in Australia and supply chain constraints for some technologies remain a challenge for reducing costs.

Inter alia, Perry managed to mangle his way through the findings, and the pond decided to abandon the accompanying terrifying snaps of windmills against a setting sun and the splendours of a coal-fired power station in the setting sun to make room for the sight of all the spinning wheels:

Black coal has staged a comeback to rival firmed renewables as the cheapest form of electricity in 2024-25, amid a spike in costs to build onshore wind, while small modular nuclear plants remain the most expensive technology if built into Australia’s energy grid.
The CSIRO said black coal was $111 per megawatt hour at the lowest end of its annual forecasts, compared with backed-up wind and solar which was $116 MWh under the cheapest level of modelling. Those figures represent a turnaround from a year ago when black coal at $107 MWh was outpaced by firmed renewables, which was forecast at $97MWh.
Black coal is not expected to retain its position, however, with the costs of firmed solar and wind falling substantially to $76MWh by 2030, compared with black coal at $103MWh by the end of the decade.
The joint report by Australia’s national science agency and the Australian Energy Market Operator measures electricity technologies by comparing a levelised cost of energy that includes operating and capital costs over the power generator’s economic life.
While black coal just pipped green energy at the lowest end of the price projections, the median figure of $144MWh for the fossil fuel was above the $140MWh median for firmed renewables under an assumption of 70 per cent clean energy in the grid.
Variable standalone solar generation – with no back-up – was by far the cheapest electricity generation source with solar costs from as low as $48MWh, with onshore wind at $80MWh.
Firming or “integration costs” to support renewables are estimated at $48MWh to $64MWh in 2024-25 and $23MWh to $40MWh in 2030 depending on the renewable share.
Still, calculations point to the cost of firmed renewables increasing by up to 20 per cent from a year ago, according to the GenCost report, whereas black coal has fallen by 9 per cent at the mid point of the forecast range.
CSIRO points out the reduction in fossil fuel generation costs between 2024 and 2030 is not a result of technological improvement but rather cheaper fuel prices and capital costs, which were impacted by global inflationary pressures that peaked in 2022. “Also, using fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage makes them high emission technologies which makes them incompatible with national and state emission targets,” CSIRO added.
It comes as AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman will tell a clean energy conference on Tuesday that 90 per cent of Australia’s remaining coal fleet is set to close in the next decade, posing a challenge for system security.
CSIRO said the capital costs of onshore wind technology rose by a further 6 per cent in 2024-25, following an 8 per cent increase the year before.

This year’s spike included a one-off 4 per cent increase to take account of work camp costs not previously included in wind capital cost estimates. CSIRO also pointed more broadly to sustained long-term increases in Australian construction costs.
Combined cycle gas turbines costs jumped by 11 per cent, reflecting tight global supplies, while large scale batteries and solar fell 20 per cent and 8 per cent respectively.
“Stakeholders remain concerned about the cost of wind projects,” CSIRO said. “In discussions with stakeholders it was identified that the increasing remoteness of wind projects and their workforce needed means that they typically need to construct a work camp as part of the project costs.”
While global inflationary pressures earlier this decade hit a raft of energy technologies, CSIRO singled out the “difficult circumstances” for Australia’s onshore wind projects for its assumption that capital costs will not return to a normal cost path until 2035, some five years later than other technologies. After 2035, wind costs are projected to decline only a modest amount.
Australia’s nascent offshore wind sector has struggled to overcome investment hurdles despite being central to Victoria’s plan to phase out coal and replace it with renewable energy.
CSIRO pointed to a lower rate of cost reduction for offshore wind over time compared to last year given less resource availability for floating offshore wind and the impact of continued reductions in solar technology costs.
The draft report issued in December claimed the cost of large-scale nuclear power plants far exceeded firmed renewables over the long term, even if solar and wind farms are completely rebuilt every 25 or 30 years. The opposition, which took its pro-nuclear policy to the federal election, and other nuclear advocates had previously slammed historical GenCost figures, which were modelled over a 30-year time frame, claiming that was a flawed assumption, and that nuclear facilities were designed to operate for a period of more than 60 years.
Large-scale nuclear has been costed at between $180MWh and $293MWh with small modular reactors between $456MWh and $757MWh.
The science agency also pushed back on any possibility of Australia delivering nuclear on a fast-track basis such as the UAE at 12 years.
“Australia is not likely to be able to repeat the UAE experience because our level of consultation will be consistent with our higher level of democracy and the experience of other Western democracies. As such, at least 15 years remains the most plausible lead time,” CSIRO said.

The pond suggests correspondents go to the actual report, though that shouldn't stop them admiring the way Perry made his Case for Coal and treated the nuking of the country to save the planet.

Meanwhile, the lead was full of shock and horror ...

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
UN climate chief turns Labor target dial to the max
Simon Stiell will meet with Chris Bowen in Canberra, after declaring fruit and veg will be a ‘once-a-year treat’ if Labor does not lift its clean-energy ambitions.
By Sarah Ison, Geoff Chambers and Matthew Cranston

That lead Geoff to chamber yet another round ...

COMMENTARY by Geoff Chambers
Take your lecture to big emitters, The UN climate change official issuing doomsday appraisals of Australia’s future should spend more time lecturing the world’s biggest emitters in China, India and the US.

While in a state of high indignation, the Chambered one was on a remarkably short groove:

The UN climate change official issuing doomsday appraisals of Australia’s future economy, ­security and prosperity should spend more time lecturing the world’s biggest emitters in China, India and the US.
Workers, business owners and families who have enough on their plate don’t need hectoring from Simon Stiell, a former Grenada government minister who scored a plum job as executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
While many Australians believe climate change is real, investment in the issue ranges from low-level concern to extreme or radical zealotry. Polling on climate change often shows high levels of concern but little support when asked to pay more. As the Coalition warns Australia’s commitment of net-zero emissions by 2050 will be a “wrecking ball” to the economy, Stiell, Chris Bowen and other climate advocates say inaction will wreak havoc. The loudest voices have dominated debate for too long. All punters observe is two sides who can’t agree on the path ahead.
While the US, Britain, Canada and dozens of western countries pursue zero-emissions nuclear power to hit net-zero targets and power homes and heavy industry, Australia has a ­renewables-only approach. China, India and the US are the world’s biggest polluters but Australia, population 27.4 million, wears the blame for climate change catastrophe.
Bowen, who has described Stiell as a friend, is on a global charm offensive as Labor seeks to co-host the COP31 summit with Pacific nations next year. He will meet Stiell on Tuesday as the Climate Change Authority finalises advice on a 2035 emissions target.
After a landslide victory, Anthony Albanese and Bowen might go harder than some Labor MPs thought before the election. They must submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions, including a new 2035 target, by September ahead of the November COP30 summit in Brazil. If Australia wins its bid, Albanese – who gave Scott Morrison plenty of grief before the Glasgow COP26 summit – will finally make his first appearance at the UN’s marquee climate change conference.

And what of all the coal and gas Australia exports, Geoff, what of that?

Never mind, at the very bottom of its screen cap of the page, the pond saw the reptiles falling into line with this story ...

‘HAMAS PROPAGANDA’
Images of starving children ‘false’, Israeli envoy claims
By Ben Packham and Geoff Chambers

The pond had already noted the yarn when it turned up yesterday in the Nine rags ...

The irony is profound, because it's a variant on an age-old ruse, the große Lüge.

The wiki explanation of the big lie notes The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Hitler claimed that the technique had been used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist political leader in the Weimar Republic.

There's a variant on this in another study, here:

As a general rule, the most effective big lies are outrageous enough to be unbelievable yet appeal strongly to the prejudices of the listeners and are stated in as bland and matter-of-fact terms as possible. It is sometimes even more effective to string several big lies together in a series of talking points.
Various sources, both popular and scholarly, attribute the following passage to Joseph Goebbels on the big lie: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Back to the reptile report on this große Lüge:

Israel’s No. 2 diplomat in Australia says there is no starvation in Gaza and that images of emaciated children in the Palestinian enclave are part of a “false campaign” by Hamas.
Rejecting mounting reports that famine is sweeping the territory, Israel’s deputy ambassador, Amir Meron, said Hamas was “deceiving the media, deceiving international organisations, the inter­national community, and it is deceiving its own people”.
“The picture that you see, we think these are false pictures,” he said.
“There is no starvation in the Gaza Strip. This is a false campaign as we see it. A false campaign from the Hamas side to have those photos being published … to bring a false negative story to the world.”
Images from Gaza in recent days have sparked international condemnation, including from Anthony Albanese, who accused Israel of killing civilians by illegally withholding humanitarian aid.
Mr Meron denied Israel was failing to meet its international obligations, accusing international aid organisations of refusing to deliver aid and of stealing supplies.
“The aid is ready. It’s ready to be given to the population. They just need to come and get it,” he said.

His comments followed those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who declared earlier: “There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation Gaza.”
The Prime Minister was unmoved by the claims, savaging the Jewish state in parliament for the “humanitarian catastrophe” unfolding in Gaza. “Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children seeking access to water and food, cannot be defended nor can it be ignored,” Mr Albanese said.
He said he shared the distress of those across the world at the image of a starving one-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, published globally in recent days. “He is not a threat to the state of Israel, nor is he someone who can be seen to be a fighter for Hamas,” he said.
“He’s a young child who deserves to be treated appropriately. And the position of the Australian government is very clear, that every innocent life matters. Every Israeli and every Palestinian.
“This conflict has stolen far too many innocent lives, tens of thousands of civilians are dead, children are starving.”
Amid the claims from Israel that photos from Gaza have been doctored, CNN has reported that the boy’s mother has said he had a pre-existing muscular disorder. There has since been claims from pro-Israeli journalist David Collier that he has cerebral palsy and other diseases that affect his appearance.
Mr Albanese demanded Israel comply with its obligations under international law but reiterated he would not rush to recognise a Palestinian state, as France had declared it would do in September.
“It must be more than a gesture,” he said. “It must be something that’s a part of moving forward. Australia will make that decision as a sovereign state.
“We obviously are in discussions with other countries as well, going forward.”
His comments came as Victorian ALP members prepared motions demanding the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state and sanctions on Israel, to be moved at the party’s state conference this weekend.
Labor is considering recognition of Palestine, after Foreign Minister Penny Wong flagged last year that Australia could do so ahead of a formal peace process.
Former NSW premier and Labor foreign minister Bob Carr on Monday said the government should show a “flash of independence, strength and maturity” by joining with Paris to recognise a Palestinian state. He issued the call as he compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.
“The use of famine as a weapon of state policies is precisely and absolutely what Israel has been doing,” Mr Carr said. “There can be no argument about that. They control the food that goes in, its ­nature and its quantity.

“It would be hard to distinguish between the pinched despairing faces of childhood victims in the Warsaw ghetto and those we are seeing out of Gaza.”
Labor Friends of Israel co-convener Nick Dyrenfurth said he was “gravely concerned with the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza” but condemned Mr Carr’s provocative comments. “Mr Carr is wilfully lying and deliberately stoking community tensions with extremist language and deliberately provoking his former friends in Australia’s Jewish community with Nazi slurs,” he said.
“War is an awful thing, but there is no genocide taking place.”

Sorry Nick, the große Lüge is the große Lüge, and unfortunately all the snaps that accompanied the story reminded the pond of the BBC reporter who flew over Gaza and saw only rampant devastation in areas he once knew when on the ground. 

If even King Donald believes that what he saw is what he's seen, there's a sense of returning to earth reality 1.0.

Of course to sustain the große Lüge no foreign journalists are allowed on the ground, though the snaps accompanying the lizard Oz story couldn't help but note some terrible sights ...

No doubt Nick, you'd be pleased by NZ cartoonist Gavin Schist ...

After all that the pond looked over to the extreme far right, and there was the bromancer top of the world, ma ...

Naturally the bromancer wanted the boot kept to the neck. 

If you've got an iron fist, keep using it ...

The header: Recognising Palestine state would be a mistake, While the savagery of Hamas required a strong Israeli reaction, that doesn’t absolve Israel morally or politically for the responsibility it now has for the two million people in Gaza, and their basic human needs.

The caption: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The reptiles seem to be dropping the nonsense of asking the hive mind to take them there, and regrettably the pond was already there:

The Albanese government is likely to extend formal diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state some time in this term of parliament, though not as soon as at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
In my view, the considerations driving the government are almost entirely about managing domestic politics and avoiding a fresh bit of trouble with the Trump administration in Washington.
My guess would be that if the British Labour government of Sir Keir Starmer extends formal diplomatic recognition to Palestine, the Albanese government will follow. Whether done with Britain, or alone, such a move would be a mistake.
The PM was nonetheless at something approaching his best in his discussion of this issue with David Speers on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday. Albanese said, inter alia: “How do you exclude Hamas from an involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel? So we (won’t) make any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met.”

The reptiles dropped in a snap of Keir Starmer

The bromancer was full of doubts, but no doubt comrade Albo took comfort from his advice ...

That’s perfectly sensible. If the government sticks to these requirements it will logically go back to the position of seeing the full, formal, diplomatic recognition of Palestine as something that can only satisfy the PM’s own criteria if it comes at the end of a negotiated agreement with Israel.
The big conceptual change the Albanese government made from the position of previous Australian governments has been outlined numerous times by Foreign Minister Penny Wong. It is that early recognition of a Palestinian state, though no such state exists, could be part of the peace process, could accelerate the peace process.
This defies all logic and sense. The only idea behind it is that there’s a perfect two-state solution all ready to go, and only the intransigence of Israel stops it coming about.
In fact, if you include the initial UN partition into an Arab and a Jewish state in 1947 – rejected by the Arab world, which immediately launched a war of attempted annihilation on Israel – Palestinians have been offered a full state on four occasions. They’ve rejected it each time.
For, as Albanese himself says, it’s necessary that such a state not pose a threat to Israel. That means no anti-Israel terrorism from that state, a complete acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, complete respect for its negotiated borders and an end of all other claims against Israel. One practical problem is that any Palestinian leader who agreed to a state on anything like those terms would certainly be assassinated by Islamist extremists.

Therefore, for the moment, no two-state solution is available, although it’s the only solution in the long run. But you probably need 20 years of normalisation before you get to peace treaty territory.

The only solution? Apparently the bromancer hasn't been listening to the final solutions proposed by assorted members of the current government of Israel.

Cue a snap of Penny Wong

...though it might have been more helpful to involve Fiona Katauskas in the discussion ...

Back to the bromancer, and eventually a kinda, sorta billy goat butt...

Albanese is entitled to put public pressure on the Israeli government over the appalling humanitarian circumstances now prevailing in Gaza. Albanese’s government has, counterproductively, walked away from Australia’s historic friendship with Israel and undoubtedly Canberra now has less influence in Jerusalem than at any time since the disastrous Whitlam government.
Nonetheless, Israel is committing a grave moral and political error in its policies in Gaza today. The overwhelming moral responsibility for the truly appalling suffering and tragedy of the people of Gaza rests with Hamas.
Remember, Hamas is a proscribed, deeply anti-Semitic, terrorist organisation, of grotesque blood-lust, funded since its inception by Iran. It shares with Tehran the desire to wipe Israel off the map.
The Hamas terrorist atrocities of October 7, 2023, were among the most depraved and savage the world has seen. Every civilised human being stood with Israel at that point. But Hamas conducted that barbarous savagery as an act of considered policy. It foretold that Israel would make a massive response and it also foretold that Israel would suffer gravely in its international standing as a result.
Even now, Hamas could end the terrible suffering of the people it claims to represent simply by releasing the 19 or 20 Israeli hostages believed to be alive that it’s still holding.
However, while the savagery of Hamas required a strong Israeli reaction, that doesn’t absolve Israel morally or politically for the responsibility it now has for the two million people in Gaza, and their basic human needs for food, etc.
Israel has no good options in Gaza but it must choose a policy and implement it. The Netanyahu government, to the chagrin of the Israel Defence Forces, has never outlined what it plans for Gaza after the fighting is over.

Actually the government does have a plan, outlined in Haaretz, Netanyahu Proposes to Annex Parts of Gaza in Attempt to Appease Far-right Minister if Hamas Does Not Agree to a Deal, Under the proposed plan, Israel will gradually begin annexing parts of Gaza if Hamas does not agree to a cease-fire. Netanyahu told ministers the plan is supported by the Trump administration (*archive link)

They're already annexing parts of the West Bank, so why not go the full hog?

The reptiles slipped in a snap of the annexer-in-chief, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the audience at a conference in Jerusalem.

The bromancer wrapped up this part of his outing thusly ...

If Israel withdraws right now, Hamas reasserts control, which is plainly unacceptable. On the other hand, the international community would go berserk if Israel reoccupied Gaza altogether, but at least then Israel would be responsible for Gaza’s administration, providing food, education, vaccinations, etc.
There’s talk of an international Arab peacekeeping force but surely it’s acutely unlikely any Arab government would ever shoot a Gaza terrorist to prevent them attacking Israel. Some Israelis talk of empowering local clans to fight Hamas, but that would be chaotic. Benjamin Netanyahu hates the option, but eventually it will probably be necessary for the Palestinian Authority, hopefully reformed, to resume administration of Gaza.
Israel cannot allow the present situation to continue.

Indeed, indeed, it's time for complete annexation and annihilation ...

The bromancer then added this apologia:

• In Monday’s Australian Financial Review, columnist James Curran wrote, rather confusingly, that, regarding China, I had demanded of the Albanese government “a return to the ‘drums of war’ rhetoric characteristic of the Morrison years” and similar vulgar abuse.

I’ve always enjoyed Curran’s columns. His extravagant reshaping of facts to fit his fanciful notions of the way the world works are always entertaining. But this is such a blatant, basic error of fact as to require correction.
He attributes to me views that are the opposite of those I hold. Time without number I’ve criticised Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton for wildly overdoing war rhetoric regarding China. As recently as May 17 in The Weekend Australian, I wrote: “Scott Morrison and then defence minister Dutton frequently talked of war with China … it’s extremely irresponsible to talk about going to war unless such talk is necessary to justify great national expenditure or mobilisation.”
In the same piece I criticised the Morrison government’s “cynical rhetoric”. I’ve made these points many times. It’s true I’m more of a realist on Beijing than Curran is, but I’ve never supported drums of war talk. Curran has every right to disagree with me. But at least disagree with views I actually hold. He has an obligation to his readers to get the most elementary facts right.

In truth, the pond has always enjoyed the bromancer’s columns, if in a deeply perverted way reflecting an addiction to melodrama and hysteria. 

His extravagant reshaping of facts to fit his fanciful notions of the way the world works are always entertaining, as is his routine loss of memory. But this is such a blatant, basic error of fact as to require correction, and what better way to correct than by celebrating with one of many bromancer columns beating the drums of war ...

And so on and on, because the bromancer that time spent a good nine minutes preparing for war with China.

There are any number of examples, which is why the pond is always joking about the bromancer wanting a war with China by Xmas, but the pond must press on because this is already way over length and yet there are devotees of Dame Groan, who hang on every word in her groanings ...

The header: Chalmers is already gaming ‘reform’ roundtable, Chalmers is perfectly entitled to make political comments. But it’s another thing to claim to have delivered ‘a better living standard’ when per capita GDP has declined in seven of the past nine quarters.

The caption: Treasurer Jim Chalmers during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman

The pond will speed through this groaning, it's merely here - not there - for correspondents to have their say if they so desire ...

The planning for the Treasurer’s productivity roundtable is in full swing. After the Prime Minister announced the proposed high-level meeting to discuss productivity, Jim Chalmers has enthusiastically grabbed the reins. Treasury officials are busily drafting communiques.
Chalmers thought about dropping productivity from the title, preferring the term “reform”. The beauty of this switch was that his idea of reform is my idea of counter-productive and costly action. There is much more accountability in productivity because it is measured. Sensibly, he opted to switch back.
Even so, Chalmers has made some extraordinary preliminary comments. According to him, “we’ve made a lot of progress together in our first term making our economy more productive, dynamic and resilient”.
Chalmers is perfectly entitled to make political comments. But it’s another thing to claim to have delivered “a better living standard” when per capita GDP has declined in seven of the past nine quarters, and labour productivity is where it was in 2016. Business investment is the same share of the economy as it was in the recession of the early 1990s.
The idea that the economy is “more productive, dynamic and resilient” is not supported by the facts. Twenty per cent of our exports are dominated by one commodity – iron ore – with most of it heading to China, underscoring the fragility of the economy.

At this point the reptiles introduced another Jimbo, who managed to ignore Tamworth's shame and his bonkerdom, LNP Senator James McGrath discusses how Australians should be worried about Labor’s economic reform roundtable, saying it is “bonkers” and will only produce “hair-brained ideas”. “Australians should be worried,” Mr McGrath told Sky News host Steve Price. “Those who own their own homes, are of pensionable age, should be worried about organisations, so-called think-tanks, like the Grattan Institute coming up with quite frankly hair-brained ideas like this. “This is bonkers.”

Dame Groan knows all about bonkers ...

The dramatic expansion of the government-funded, low-productivity care economy at triple the rate of economic growth is another factor contributing to our delicate economic situation. The predicted years of budget deficits is a further consideration.
But back to the roundtable. Chalmers has cunningly opted for a relatively small number of participants, which has the effect of heightening the competition for places as well as enhancing the presumed prestige of attending.
Whether Liberal Party deputy leader and shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien was wise to accept is debatable. The mere attendance at these types of events implies a degree of co-ownership of any outcomes. At the same time as this event is being planned, the Productivity Commission is receiving submissions on the five inquiries Chalmers commissioned late last year. Anticipating the possible criticism that the Labor government lacks a reform agenda, Chalmers nominated the following areas for the PC to consider: delivering quality care; data and digital technology; economic dynamism and resilience; a skilled and adaptable workforce, and; the net-zero transformation.
The fact the PC has covered most of these topics quite recently didn’t concern Chalmers too much. The timing would suit him and some of the ideas contained in the submissions could be highlighted, rejected or lampooned. Chalmers may be a second-rate economic manager, but he is a skilled political operator.
Into this environment, several prominent players have added their penny’s worth, often in the context of seeking to win favour with the government. I’m not sure we are really expected to take seriously the Commonwealth Bank’s suggestion that Australia should introduce a wealth tax. After all, wherever a wealth tax has been attempted, the perverse outcomes have been sufficient for governments to reverse course.

The reptiles then threw in a snap, Bernie Sanders delivers remarks on stage at NHTI Concord Community College.

That set Dame Groan off, perhaps on the basis that she just loves her billionaires ...

A wealth tax must involve a tax on unrealised capital gains, something that appeals to far-left American politicians Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Not only are the compliance costs huge – wealth must be estimated every year – but there is also the real possibility affected individuals simply flee the jurisdiction to avoid the tax.
The return of a carbon tax is another perennial favourite. It’s certainly true that a national carbon tax, calibrated for what is happening in other countries, has certain positive features. But the case for a carbon tax exists only if all the other climate-related government measures are abolished.
This includes all the subsidies to renewable energy; the Safeguard Mechanism; the New Vehicle Emissions Standard; all household subsidies related to energy use and green devices, and the list goes on. Both federal and state government interventions would need to be scrapped. The point is this isn’t going to happen and so there’s no reason to talk about a carbon tax.
Spotting an opportunity, the superannuation industry has decided to get in on the game of making “helpful” suggestions. According to lobby group the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, “institutional super funds have funded approximately 14 per cent of Australia’s capital stock, which generates domestic economic activity”.
This is illogical in economic terms because it assumes the funding would not have occurred had it not been for superannuation. The evidence is clear, however: the impact of compulsory superannuation on domestic saving is very small.
Based on dubious modelling, the further claim is made that the 30 years of compulsory superannuation has lifted GDP by 2 per cent – a trivial number given that there is now $4 trillion of superannuation funds under management. Leaving these mistruths aside, the concrete suggestions made by the ASFA are truly frightening. They claim a lower target rate of return for investing in nation-building activities should be accommodated within modified rules. A similar point is made in respect of housing – “loosening reporting requirements on super funds” is called for.

To compound the thought crime thinkers on parade, the reptiles flung in the snap of another, Elizabeth Warren

There came a final gobbet, and inevitably the Groaning joined in this day's reptile chorus on energy ...

The fact remains that superannuation funds are governed by the sole purpose test to maximise the retirement incomes of the members. Chalmers would be ill-advised even to consider these suggestions lest workers lose out in the name of some people’s ideas of lifting productivity.
An electricity grid based mainly on renewable energy, for instance, is far less productive than a centralised one based on a small number of large plants. Not only is there a need for a massive overbuild of renewable kit, but there is also an inherent redundancy in the system because of the need to back up intermittent power. The case for transforming the electricity grid has nothing to do with productivity, quite the reverse.
As we go through this “hundred flowers blooming” stage, it’s best to be realistic about what will come from the productivity get-together. The outcomes will be modest. It will give off the appearance that the government is active in this space while failing to achieve any meaningful boost to productivity. But it’s a shiny ball for the media to follow in the meantime.

Those snaps of US politicians reminded the pond of what it had been missing this day, but fortunately 
TT was on hand to provide a reminder: