____ wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 2:12pm:
Bam wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 2:03pm:
____ wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 1:50pm:
Bam wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 1:36pm:
____ wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 11:32am:
St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 12
th, 2014 at 11:29am:
A slight reduction. You know, give and take in negotiation. Greens should learn the art of negotiation!
You said Labor wouldn't reduce the RET.
If Labor were in office, they probably wouldn't.
Trouble is, it is the
COALition that are in government and who are making up rubbish about "real" 20% targets that are only designed to create uncertainty and destroy jobs.
Labor has been negotiating a reduction. The coalition have fat chance yet Labor are working with them to find a number to reduce renewable energy by.
Quote:A slight reduce according to leaks from the Labor Party is 30% cuts while the Libs want 40%.
You really expect others to believe that just on your say-so?
I stated on most of my posts 'alleged'. Making it clear it wasn't factual yet since Labor is working with the Libs behind close doors to find a number to reduce RET by.
Quote:Shame both old parties. The RET should be lifted, not attacked for personal party advantage via coal donations.
Save your shaming for the ones that deserve it. The Coalition. They are the only parties that are actively seeking to savage the RET. If Labor was also wanting to savage the RET, a deal would have been done months ago!
It is in Labor's political interest to pretend they are a friend of renewable energy and stretch negotiations since this undermines investment and jobs and hurts the coalition more politcally since the majority of voters support renewable energy.
Why are you so hung up about Labor when it's the Coalition that want to do the real damage by seeking to impose a 40% cut without negotiation or compromise?
Labor are not the friends of voters who require action on AGW via renewable energy. Labor are addicted to coal and coal donations to Labor.
For someone so switched on Bam, I am surprised by you ignorance.
There's only one person who seems ignorant in this discussion, and it's not me.
I refer you to
Mark Butler's letter to Ian Macfarlane dated 11/11/14, which has been released to the general public. I quote an excerpt from that letter:
Quote:Labor's position has always been guided by the need for Australia to have a sustainable renewable energy sector. Labor supports growing our renewable energy sector because it is important to Australia's energy future. A strong renewable energy sector will keep downward pressure on power prices, support new clean energy jobs through continued investment and contribute to reducing Australia's carbon emissions.
Quote:Labor will not stand by and watch billions of dollars of investment in the Australian renewable energy sector -- along with thousands of jobs -- go overseas because of deep cuts to the target.
Labor will continue to advocate for a strong and growing renewable energy sector for Australia -- we will not be party to a plan that kills jobs and investment, increases pollution and forces power prices to rise.
Your assertion that "
Labor are addicted to coal and coal donations to Labor" appears to be baseless. If you have solid evidence to the contrary, please show us.
You also make clear assertions that "
It is in Labor's political interest to pretend they are a friend of renewable energy". This is a strong remark to make. If you're going to make this kind of remark, it would be far better if it was backed up with firm evidence rather than the unfounded speculation it appears to be.
Far from Labor and Liberals colluding to smash the RET, it is abundantly clear that the Coalition are attempting to bully Labor into a reduction in the RET and Labor won't support any action that will undermine investment or jobs in the renewable energy sector.
You have been quite unreasonable in your unfounded criticism of Labor, when it was the Liberals who explicitly promised no change to the RET before the last election. Where is your criticism of the Liberals for breaking a clear election promise?