Search results for "renewables"
Jul 16, 2018
Essential Research

Statements about energy

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 

  Total agree Total disagree   Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
The government should fund up to $5bn to build new coal plants or extend the life of existing ones 40% 38%   14% 26% 20% 18% 23%
Coal fired power is cheaper than power generated by renewables 47% 24%   14% 33% 15% 9% 29%
The government should hold an inquiry into power prices and anti-competitive conduct by power companies 80% 9%   42% 38% 7% 2% 11%
Privately owned power companies should be returned to public ownership 63% 17%   30% 33% 14% 3% 21%
Burning of coal increases CO2 emissions which leads to climate change 61% 21%   26% 35% 13% 8% 18%
Further expanding coal mining and exports would undermine global efforts to address climate change 55% 24%   23% 32% 15% 9% 21%

A substantial majority agree that there should be an inquiry into power prices and energy companies (80% agree), power companies should be returned to public ownership (63%) and burning coal leads to climate change (61%).

Nearly half (47%) believed that coal-fired power is cheaper than renewables and respondents were split over whether the Government should fund coal plants.

Jul 4, 2018
Essential Research

Power prices

Q. Who or what do you mostly blame most for rising power prices?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other   Sep 2017
Private power companies trying to maximise profits 44%   46% 47% 46% 44%   49%
The Turnbull Government for failing to have a long-term energy plan 21%   32% 12% 23% 25%   22%
Environmentalists for pushing for action on climate change 11%   4% 17% 10% 17%   9%
Renewable energy companies for producing higher-cost power 7%   4% 11% 4% 6%   5%
Don’t know 17%   14% 13% 16% 8%   15%

 

44% think private power companies trying to maximise profits are most to blame for rising power prices and 21% think the Turnbull Government is most to blame. 11% blame environmentalists pushing for action on climate change and only 7% blame renewable energy costs.

Since this question was asked in September there has been a decrease in those who blame power companies (down 5% to 44%) and an increase in those who blame environmentalists or renewables (up 4% to 18%).

Nov 27, 2017
Essential Research

Australia’s future energy supply

Q. Thinking about Australia’s future energy supply, which of the following statements best describes what you think the Federal Government should do?

  Total

 

  Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote other
Provide incentives and subsidies to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewables 49%   59% 44% 69% 46%
Let the market and consumers determine speed of transition from fossil fuels to renewables 16%   12% 24% 9% 18%
Take action to slow down the transition from fossil fuels to renewables 12%   8% 12% 6% 23%
Don’t know 22%   21% 20% 16% 13%

 

49% support proving incentives to speed transition to renewables, 16% think the market should determine speed of transition and 12% think transition to renewables should be slowed.

 

Those most supportive of incentives and subsidies were Labor voters (59%), Greens voters (69%) and university educated (60%).

Jun 14, 2017
Essential Research

Emissions Intensity Scheme or Low Emissions Target

Q. An “emissions intensity scheme” and a “low emissions target” are two policy options which aim to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.=

An emissions intensity scheme is designed to increase the cost of electricity production from high-emitting sources (like coal and gas) while decreasing the cost of less polluting sources (like renewables).

A low emissions target would expand the current Renewable Energy Target to include non-renewable electricity sources with emissions intensities below a certain limit. Depending on the emissions limit, this could include certain types of coal and gas technologies.

Which of the proposals would you prefer?

  Total   Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens Vote Other
Emissions intensity scheme (EIS) 20%   24% 14% 46% 12%
Low emissions target (LET) 45%   46% 51% 31% 48%
Don’t know 36%   29% 35% 23% 40%

 

45% preferred an LET, 20% preferred an EIS, and 36% did not know which proposal they preferred.

Those most likely to prefer an LET were those aged 65+ (51%), Liberal/National voters (51%) and those earning over $104k per year (50%).

Greens voters were the only demographic group which preferred an EIS to a LET, with 46% preferring an EIS.

Mar 7, 2017
Essential Research

Tony Abbott’s policy proposals

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following proposals for actions the Federal Government could take?

  Total agree Total disagree   Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Abolish subsidies for renewables and cut renewable energy targets to reduce household power bills 40% 38% 12% 28% 19% 19% 22%
Abolish the Human Rights Commission to allow more free speech 33% 44% 12% 21% 25% 19% 23%
Stop all new government spending to reduce future debt 43% 41% 15% 28% 29% 12% 17%
Cut immigration to make housing more affordable 57% 28% 27% 30% 18% 10% 15%
Reform the Senate to reduce the power of small parties. 41% 34% 14% 27% 22% 12% 25%

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following proposals for actions which Tony Abbott has said the Federal Government should take

  Total agree Total disagree   Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Abolish subsidies for renewables and cut renewable energy targets to reduce household power bills 47% 33% 16% 31% 13% 20% 20%
Abolish the Human Rights Commission to allow more free speech 39% 43% 14% 25% 25% 18% 18%
Stop all new government spending to reduce future debt 51% 35% 22% 29% 25% 10% 14%
Cut immigration to make housing more affordable 57% 31% 29% 28% 18% 13% 12%
Reform the Senate to reduce the power of small parties. 41% 37% 18% 23% 23% 14% 23%


Note: this question was split so that half the sample were told that Tony Abbott had made these proposals and half were asked about the proposals without any reference to Tony Abbott.

The question which referenced Tony Abbott showed higher support for cutting the RET, abolishing the Human Rights Commission and stopping all new Government spending but similar support for cutting immigration and reforming the Senate.

Overall, support for each proposal was higher than opposition except for abolishing the Human Rights Commission.

Among Liberal National voters, reference to Tony Abbott increased agreement with stopping new spending (from 51% to 62%) but made only small differences to other proposals.

Among Labor voters, reference to Tony Abbott increased agreement with abolishing the RET (from 36% to 44%) and abolishing the Human Rights Commission (from 24% to 32%).

A majority of Liberal National voters agreed with each proposal except for abolishing the Human Rights Commission.

No reference to Tony Abbott Total agree Total disagree   Labor voters agree Labor voters disagree LNP Voters agree LNP voters disagree
Abolish subsidies for renewables and cut renewable energy targets to reduce household power bills 40% 38% 36% 46% 56% 24%
Abolish the Human Rights Commission to allow more free speech 33% 44% 24% 56% 42% 39%
Stop all new government spending to reduce future debt 43% 41% 38% 47% 51% 38%
Cut immigration to make housing more affordable 57% 28% 53% 34% 69% 19%
Reform the Senate to reduce the power of small parties. 41% 34% 39% 38% 57% 24%

 

Reference to Tony Abbott Total agree Total disagree   Labor voters agree Labor voters disagree LNP Voters agree LNP voters disagree
Abolish subsidies for renewables and cut renewable energy targets to reduce household power bills 47% 33% 44% 36% 57% 28%
Abolish the Human Rights Commission to allow more free speech 39% 43% 32% 53% 46% 45%
Stop all new government spending to reduce future debt 51% 35% 42% 47% 62% 27%
Cut immigration to make housing more affordable 57% 31% 49% 41% 63% 30%
Reform the Senate to reduce the power of small parties. 41% 37% 34% 40% 59% 26%
Mar 27, 2012
Essential Research

Should we ban coal?


Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn says a move away from coal to renewables is essential and urgent. That’s why his organisation is shifting up a gear to make it happen.

With a tripling of coal exports over the next 10 years, Hepburn says it is more important than ever that Australian communities are prepared to examine mining proposals in their local area.

Responding to the recent controversy over plans for a $6 million fund to challenge the expansion of the coal industry, Hepburn tells 3Q that communities need to have legal assistance to do due diligence on the thousands of documents which accompany new mining proposals.
At the same time, Australia needs to invest in renewable energy technologies, especially as the prices of wind and solar come down while coal and oil prices go up.

Find out more

A recent international study ranked Australia 16th out of 19 countries in being ready to deal with a low-carbon world — ahead of just India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

The International Energy Agency – a conservative organisation not known for being ‘green’ – released a report earlier this year concluding that, if we are to have any chance of staying below the 2 degrees Celsius limit governments have set, the last coal fired power station in the world will have been built by 2017 and global coal use will plunge between then and 2035.

Greens senator Christine Milne says Greenpeace’s legal challenge is legitimate despite the condemnation it received from politicians and the coal industry.

Greenpeace has released this blueprint for changing from a dependence on coal to renewables with breakdowns for each year

Mar 5, 2012
Essential Research

Creating a Climate for Change on Carbon

All this fighting and cussing in Canberra has at least silenced the elephant in the Lodge, that $28 per tonne price on carbon.

It seems weeks since Tony Abbott strapped on a reflective vest and imposed himself on a Queanbeyan lunch room, but it’s only months until the price takes affect.

At this point one of two things happens – the sky falls in and Abbott blames the carbon tax or the sky doesn’t fall in and Abbott blames the carbon tax.

So as Julia Gillard prepares to strap on the safety helmet and assume (resume?) the position, here are a few clues from the polling to help her though the difficult times ahead.

1. Never again call the Carbon Price a Tax – It’s not and your concession that a price on carbon as part of the transition to an Emissions Trading Scheme was one of the most spectacular own goals in recent political history. Language does matter.

2. Take it Back to the Science – our polling shows that the biggest single determinant on supporting action on climate change is not party affiliation, age or gender but belief in the reality of climate change. The ability of the denial movement to cloud the science on climate change was decisive. Once the facts were clouded science never really had a chance, being a discipline based on scepticism as it is. Giving science a voice and then finding a forum to spread its word may be too important to trust to the media.

3. Tell the whole Story – support for a carbon price shifts from majority opposition to majority support if the question changes from support for a price on carbon, to include the compensation and investment in renewables that are part of the package. Getting the airtime to get the whole sentence out is vital to selling the measure.

4. Focus on the Car not the Carburettor – the great myth about the carbon price is that the public went from supporters to opponents in one fell swoop of Abbott vitriol. The reality is that the decline in support was first based on confusion as the Rudd-Wong dream team (and we’re talking sleep here) got obsessed with the detail of the CPRS. After 12 months of technical debate most had lost interest and drifted into indifference and confusion. From there they were easy pickings for a scare campaign.

5. Remember the best response to a scare campaign is a scare campaign – Running the high road of caring about future generations will never trump fear and loathing. Better point out as the most carbon-exposed economy in the developed world there are huge economic dangers if we sit back and wait for others to act. Get the markets scared, there is nothing rational about denial.

6. Remember this is the great moral challenge of our times – on this K Rudd was K Rect; it was the backflip that killed him. Dealing with the challenges of climate change is why we entrust our nations to governments – we expert them to make tough decisions in our long-term interests, even if we don’t always like the medicine.

7. And finally, stop pretending you didn’t do something that was brave and right – Like taxing our natural resources, building a national broadband network and giving the disabled a better deal. These are the anchor points of a Labor Government to be proud of. If only it would let us.

Pages:«123

Sign up for updates

Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.