Coal, energy, fossil fuels, power, power plants, renewable
Q. Which of the following statements regarding the future of coal is closest to your view?
| Total | Federal Voting Intention (Lower House) | ||||
| Labor | Coalition | Greens | NET: Other | ||
| The government should be working to shut down mines and coal-fired power plants as soon as possible | 32% | 36% | 21% | 62% | 27% |
| The government should let the coal mining industry and coal-fired power plants continue operating as long as they are profitable, but not subsidise them or support the expansion of the industry | 47% | 45% | 52% | 28% | 50% |
| The government should subsidise coal-fired power plants to keep them going and provide financial support for new mines and other projects in the coal industry | 21% | 19% | 27% | 10% | 22% |
| Base (n) | 1,090 | 336 | 390 | 104 | 146 |
Coal, energy, fossil fuels, power generation, renewable
Q. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about coal?
| NET: Agree | NET: Disagree | Strongly agree | Somewhat agree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly disagree | Unsure | |
| Improvements in renewable energy will mean that burning coal to generate electricity will become less necessary | 75% | 14% | 43% | 32% | 8% | 6% | 11% |
| Advances in technology and international action on climate change will mean coal becomes uneconomical to extract in the future | 65% | 18% | 28% | 36% | 12% | 6% | 17% |
| If we’re serious about dealing with climate change, Australia needs to get out of coal as soon as possible | 64% | 24% | 34% | 29% | 13% | 11% | 13% |
| Even if Australia stops exporting coal for electricity generation, it should still export coal for steel production | 61% | 19% | 26% | 36% | 12% | 7% | 20% |
| Rather than digging it all up now, Australia should leave its coal resources in the ground to use when it becomes more valuable in the future | 53% | 29% | 21% | 33% | 20% | 8% | 18% |
| NET: Agree | Age | Federal Voting Intention (Lower House) | ||||||
| Total | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Labor | Coalition | Greens | NET: Other | |
| Improvements in renewable energy will mean that burning coal to generate electricity will become less necessary | 75% | 80% | 76% | 70% | 82% | 70% | 83% | 68% |
| Advances in technology and international action on climate change will mean coal becomes uneconomical to extract in the future | 65% | 74% | 61% | 61% | 73% | 60% | 70% | 53% |
| If we’re serious about dealing with climate change, Australia needs to get out of coal as soon as possible | 64% | 75% | 65% | 52% | 72% | 54% | 87% | 49% |
| Even if Australia stops exporting coal for electricity generation, it should still export coal for steel production | 61% | 61% | 64% | 59% | 60% | 72% | 38% | 59% |
| Rather than digging it all up now, Australia should leave its coal resources in the ground to use when it becomes more valuable in the future | 53% | 64% | 53% | 44% | 57% | 50% | 56% | 45% |
| Base (n) | 1,090 | 341 | 374 | 375 | 336 | 390 | 104 | 146 |
angus taylor, city of sydney, clover moore, emissions, energy, local council
Q. Over the past few weeks the Opposition has been raising concern about Energy Minister Angus Taylor, in regards to false information which was critical of the Sydney Lord Mayor.
Which of the following best describes your perspective on the issue?
| Total | Federal Voting Intention | ||||
| Labor | Coalition | Greens | NET: Other | ||
| The Prime Minister should have stood the Minister down from Cabinet | 35% | 47% | 29% | 42% | 35% |
| The Prime Minster was right not to stand the Minister down from Cabinet | 17% | 11% | 27% | 13% | 15% |
| I have not been following the issue | 48% | 42% | 44% | 45% | 50% |
| Base (n) | 1,035 | 339 | 356 | 106 | 116 |
clean energy, energy, renewable energy, secure energy, south australia
Q. It was recently announced by the South Australian government that technology company Tesla will construct the “world’s largest battery” in South Australia. The battery will store wind energy to be used in high-demand periods, with the aim of increasing the reliability of the South Australian energy grid. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?
| Total | Vote Labor | Vote Lib/Nat | Vote Greens | Vote other | ||
| Total good idea | 73% | 79% | 70% | 82% | 69% | |
| Total bad idea | 5% | 1% | 8% | 1% | 11% | |
| Very good idea | 42% | 48% | 40% | 46% | 39% | |
| Good idea | 31% | 31% | 30% | 36% | 30% | |
| Neither god nor bad idea | 14% | 12% | 14% | 13% | 14% | |
| Bad idea | 2% | 1% | 3% | 1% | 5% | |
| Very bad idea | 3% | <1% | 5% | – | 6% | |
| Don’t know | 8% | 8% | 7% | 3% | 6% |
73% agree that the construction of the battery in South Australia is a good idea and 5% think it is a bad idea. Those most likely to think it is a good idea were Greens voters (82%), Labor voters (79%) and university educated (79%).
65% of South Australian respondents think it is a good idea, 8% think it is a bad idea and 22% think it is neither. (note – small sample)
13 June 2012, 130612, 2012 budget, CSIRO, energy, Health, Nadine Flood, public sector, Public service, tax evasion, wifi technology
Nadine Flood questions whether governments take our science and other publicly funded breakthroughs for granted.
The CSIRO is one of Australia’s most respected institutions. The Bureau of Meteorology is crucial in times of impending climate crisis. They are also part of the public service. And though their specialty is science, other areas of the public sector are also responsible for innovation — from agricultural land use to new ways of fighting tax evasion.
See a brief history of CSIRO achievements from wi-fi to dollar notes.
It’s a concept that is often lost at Budget time when governments keen to trim down costs often take a knife to the public sector. It’s easy pickings if the millions of dollars saved or made by innovations in technology, energy and health fail to be counted as assets.
The CPSU’s Nadine Flood tells 3Q how the CSIRO’s development of wi-fi technology transformed the world and brought $500 million into Australia through patent fees. Yet if the Opposition has its way, crucial funding of the sciences and other public sector innovation would be lost.
Further cuts on the grounds of “efficiency” will have long term effects on our ability to innovate.