-
The ultimate example of this: the 2016 blackout in SA. The gov't set the frame: renewables did this. That *became* the question: "Do you agree that renewable energy did this?" The gov't supplies misleading questions that kill healthy debate. Those are repeated by media.pic.twitter.com/5Eel7xpIXu
Show this thread -
If you are wondering why the benefits of strong climate action are being denied to you, this is partly why. And if there's no room for criticism, introspection or reflection, it will keep happening during the 'net zero' wars of 2020, all up to
#COP26. The end.Show this thread -
The RE industry begged, pleaded and reminded everybody - for a decade - that the net impact of the scheme would be a *reduction* in power bills. It made no difference. Finally, after ten years, the reality is reported as the norm - not the anti-RE messaging:pic.twitter.com/XrkzXaAfCI
Show this thread -
This double standard obviously had an impact on the election. 45% was "economy wrecking" (thanks
@BCAcomau). 26-28% was reasonable, sensible, calm and Very Serious, and so didn't get the "sir, I am asking, SIR, WHAT ARE- SIR - THE COSTINGS" treatmentShow this thread -
(If even raising this issue is enough to inspire journalists ditching climate policy as a topic entirely, all that does is reveal the paper-thin fragility of the situation - which we're better off knowing, than not-knowing)
Show this thread -
So if you look beyond the superficiality, what BCA are proposing that we make a very specific, conscious and intentional effort to delay. What everyone aged ~15-35 right should hear is "we want this to be your responsibility, not ours". And they should be asking "Why??"
#qandaShow this thread -
Talking about patterns and trends across Australian media tends not to be received well. I think it tends to inspire a hurt / offended reaction, because its speaks to something rarely spoken to: the shocking ease with which the gov'ts messages become the media's questions.pic.twitter.com/uye6Lb0OzH
Show this thread -
@beneltham wrote really well about this at the time - outlining some examples of how the government's message became the ABC's questions: https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/12/media-blackout-abc-bias-and-the-assault-on-renewables/ …pic.twitter.com/JLcMkq0J5z
Show this thread -
This is why I am so perturbed by this. This flow of intentionally deceptive framing - from opponents of action to those trusted to share information on climate policy - has an impact. And when I raise it, it's silence, or 'FINE I'll never talk about it again - look what you did'
Show this thread -
.
@jconnoroz@BCAcomau "Get rid of [option x] because [option y], (which you should also get rid of) is better" = happily deployed fallacy. -
Okay - so how could it be better? Why not ask about the loss Australians experience when the immediate benefits of climate action are denied? Worse air from more petrol cars, higher bills thanks to less renewable energy, less investment due to biz uncertainty....
Show this thread -
So here's something a bit awkward. Labor's 45% by 2030 target is pretty much on par with a net-zero by 2050 target (assuming it starts this year). That's the one
@BCAcomau and@LiberalAus described as 'economy wrecking'. Net zero by 2050 = 42% reduction by 2030.#Qandapic.twitter.com/FCDY0YmLYj
Show this thread -
-
Eg - the Melb uni study I cited found there's a net benefit to decarbonisation (at a state level) even when you IGNORE the impacts on the planet's climate. https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/02/20/good-news-you-get-to-say-the-word-costings-eight-thousand-times-for-an-entire-years/ …pic.twitter.com/zdAu9LSxgH
Show this thread -
-
And so Australia's government is free to pummel any party suggesting climate action into the ground, because their lines - 'SHOW US THE COSTINGS' - become the frame for every single story. Just like 'renewables' became the frame for every news story on blackouts.pic.twitter.com/cWIYwupxHa
Show this thread -
What they are both presumably actually proposing is that we go with the weak Paris targets until 2030, and then run as hard and fast as possible for the remainder. Essentially, an even greater 'slope' of emissions reductions than Labor's ('economy wrecking') target:
#qandapic.twitter.com/pBmOCT1tJT
Show this thread -
On a related note, Labor's 45% b 2030 target was a 'science based target' - but science recommended a range, and the Labor party chose the absolute minimum amount of climate action within that range: https://theconversation.com/labor-pledges-45-emissions-cuts-by-2030-but-the-science-says-more-is-needed-51386 … "64% on 2005 levels by 2030 is what would be needed"pic.twitter.com/pQebFCNMPz
Show this thread -
The tactics used to make climate action sound scary from 2010 - 2019 will be exactly the same as those that will be used from 2020 - 2029. There are no mysteries here, no inventiveness, no 3-dimensional chess. These are not clever, creative people. They are broken records.
Show this thread -
I really can't handle how brazen
@BCAcomau are. On the page entitled "We support strong action on climate change" are multiple hit pieces on the WA EPA's emissions controls, which they frame as "reckless". Seriously. No shame. pic.twitter.com/mAX1leYes0Show this thread
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.