If I can’t share a Curly Wurly then it’s not a revolution.

  • 7 Posts
  • 82 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 1st, 2023

help-circle



  • The difference between my experiences in the UK and Australia were… interesting. Being upfront, my time in the UK was extremely radicalisng.

    In the UK there was a general distain from the media and most people I met for the labour movement. While at the time there was some real bright spots like seeing crowds singing The Internationale, it was mostly an extremely depressing environment. I think the number of people who are a part of their union is similar to Australia but there seems to be a more aggressive negative sentiment from non-members. But my experience was that there was some really strong displays of solidarity despite the outside attacks. But the level of wealth inequality was sickening and probably not helped by a cultural obsession with the monarchy.

    Back in Australia you’d think there would be strong culture of working class solidarity, with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) being the first Labor party to have ever formed government in the world in 1904, but its [solidarity has] been in steep decline here since the 80s with union membership down from nearly half of all workers to close to 10%. Despite that decline, the unions here still hold a lot of influence, being a key driver behind the general strike in 2005 where 1/2 million people marched against exploitative employment laws. The unions also control the majority of ‘superannuation’ funds which all employers make compulsory payments into on behalf of their workers, and the unions own some successful energy cooperatives, insurers and credit unions. However the movement is going through a particularly rough patch this last month with corruption allegations, and parliamentary interventions, some sketchy leadership issues and some sharp divisions appearing along gender lines, all while the ALP adopts increasingly neo-liberal policies.

















  • Well it’s not really an either/or situation. The current Labor government’s plan is a combination of majority renewables with gas and hydrogen. They are also running coal at the moment but have no plans to renew those plants during the transition. They’ve signed on to emissions reductions of 75% by 2035.

    So you’ve got one plan which has some reduction targets (probably not steep enough) planned transition, costed and budgeted that doesn’t require more coal, and one plan which will pull funding from renewables, and requires more coal until some time as which they can get nuclear approved, built and commercialised.


  • Context is important here. The conversation here was about Australia’s nuclear capacity. A country where nuclear power is banned at both state and federal levels. Where the plan for it’s use is currently uncosted, the planned sites have been selected without environmental protection studies and several of which are supposed to be SMRs.

    Would you build a bleeding edge nuclear reactor without a legal framework to govern its construction or operation? Without a workforce trained in its functions? Without considering the environmental factors of its geography? Without considering the cost?

    Probably not. But that’s the current plan put forward by the reactionary right in Australia and this from a party who doesn’t believe in climate change, have no emissions targets, and whose whole plan is to continue to run and build coal power until whatever time they work out the details on nuclear.