ABC: “Ramp Down” Fossil Fuel Production Instead of Jailing Protestors

Essay by Eric Worrall

The Aussie federal government owned ABC thinks climate extremists are just trying to show us the disruption climate chaos will bring.

If NSW wants to stop climate change protests, there’s an alternative to jailing activists

ABC Science / By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
Posted Yesterday at 4:30am

If the New South Wales government and opposition want to stop disruptive climate protests, the answer may be hiding in plain sight, and it’s not jailing protesters.

…

Some of those arrested were charged with affray — a serious crime carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.

…

In response to critics, NSW PremierDominic Perrottet said the outcome was “pleasing to see” and if “protesters want to put our way of life at risk, then they should have the book thrown at them”.

“We want people to be able to protest, but you should do it in a way that doesn’t inconvenience people right across New South Wales,” the Premier said earlier this week.

He’s right. At least in his description of climate protests. They are inconvenient. That’s the point.

Climate protests are specifically intended to give a small, controlled taste of the major disruptions that climate change is already causing, and will cause on a much larger scale in future.

…

Were New South Wales — or for that matter, the federal government — already doing so, it’s unlikely Ms Coco’s protest would have happened.

But they’re not.

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-12-09/climate-change-protests-jail-what-could-be-more-effective/101737704

Not one use of the “N” word.

If climate protestors were serious about reducing CO2, instead of continuously indulging their Trotskyite fantasies of global revolution, they would hold their noses and join with conservatives in embracing nuclear power.

France proved in the 1970s that zero carbon nuclear power can replace fossil fuel. No need for fossil fuel backup when you have a zero carbon nuclear power plant producing reliable energy 24×7.

How long has the CO2 emissions stalemate lasted, between conservatives and liberals over net zero and renewable energy? How long do greens want it to last?

Nuclear power is acceptable to conservatives, the main opponents of spending trillions on useless, unreliable renewable energy. That stalemate between greens and conservatives, and the fact renewables don’t work that well, has prevented significant decarbonisation of the global economy for decades – except for places like France, which have very low emissions per capita because of their acceptance of nuclear power.

So why don’t greens try to compromise, and embrace a solution which works, and which is acceptable to their political opponents, for the sake of the planet?

In my opinion, the obvious reason is climate change is not their genuine top priority. It is government control of the economy they crave, back door communism. The fake climate crisis is just an excuse for the left wing political “reforms” greens want to inflict on society.

Greens are not even trying to be subtle, about the fact most of them think reducing CO2 emissions and destroying Capitalism is a package deal.

Prove me wrong greens – the moment groups like Fireproof Australia follow Greta Thunberg’s lead, and start protesting for more nuclear power, or support the Premier of South Australia’s recent call for civilian nuclear reactors. The moment green groups stop fighting on two fronts, by abandoning their ridiculous battle against the most successful economic system ever developed, they might suddenly discover they are are winning their battle to decarbonise the global economy.

Update (EW): Nick points out the South Australian premier later appeared to walk back his initial enthusiasm for nuclear.