The Turnbull Government’s signature energy policy could be under renewed threat, after some government members reportedly questioned the party’s proposed National Energy Guarantee in the Coalition party room yesterday.

Prime Minister Turnbull reportedly had to assure his colleagues that Australia is obliged to play its part in slashing greenhouse gas emissions, with the government currently pledging an emission reduction target of 26% by 2030.

Senator Ian Macdonald isn’t convinced this is a wise move.

“ I simply cannot understand why Australia should be making it difficult for our economy by going hell for leather to reduce emissions when Australia emits less than 1.4% of the world’s carbon emissions,” says Macdonald.

“When China, America, Indian and Russia reduce their emissions, that is when Australian should be looking at (doing the same). But prior to that, anything we do seems to put real pressure on our economy, with absolutely no impact on the changing climate of the world.”

McDonald thinks nuclear might be the way forward, with the power form appeasing those set on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, whilst also ensuring grid reliability and baseload generating capacity.

“I think nuclear is the obvious way to go. For the greenies who say emissions are the problem, why wouldn’t they be fully on board? It shows the absolute hypocrisy of the argument you get from the Greens and I regret to say, the Labor Party.”

“If it does stack up economically, I can see no reason that Australia shouldn’t go nuclear energy, as the rest of the world does.”

The Turnbull Government&rsquo;s signature energy policy could be under renewed threat, after some government members reportedly questioned the party&rsquo;s proposed National Energy Guarantee in the Coalition party room yesterday.
Prime Minister Turnbull reportedly had to assure his colleagues that Australia is obliged to play its part in slashing greenhouse gas emissions, with the government currently pledging an emission reduction target of 26% by 2030.
Senator Ian Macdonald isn&rsquo;t convinced this is a wise move.
&ldquo; I simply cannot understand why Australia should be making it difficult for our economy by going hell for leather to reduce emissions when Australia emits less than 1.4% of the world&rsquo;s carbon emissions,&rdquo; says Macdonald.
&ldquo;When China, America, Indian and Russia reduce their emissions, that is when Australian should be looking at (doing the same). But prior to that, anything we do seems to put real pressure on our economy, with absolutely no impact on the changing climate of the world.&rdquo;
McDonald thinks nuclear might be the way forward, with the power form appeasing those set on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, whilst also ensuring grid reliability and baseload generating capacity.
&ldquo;I think nuclear is the obvious way to go. For the greenies who say emissions are the problem, why wouldn&rsquo;t they be fully on board? It shows the absolute hypocrisy of the argument you get from the Greens and I regret to say, the Labor Party.&rdquo;
&ldquo;If it does stack up economically, I can see no reason that Australia shouldn&rsquo;t go nuclear energy, as the rest of the world does.&rdquo;

A fast-paced show, focusing on current events, social issues, sport and entertainment.

A fast-paced show, focusing on current events, social issues, sport and entertainment.

Advertisement