In the Wall Street Journal not on the front page. Had to go to World News where it’s the fourth story down.
In the New York Times ditto — World News, down the page
The Times has it as a minor story in page 2. ADDED: Sunday Times had the cute front page photo above.
Elections are always important to the countries having them. But unless you’re the US, or Russia, China or the UK (but not even Germany), the rest of the world doesn’t care much.
Which is pretty much the same story in Australia’s climate change targets. Terribly important in a domestic and political context (one of the reasons the conservative coalition lost)*, but not at all in the international context. Australia could reach Net Zero Carbon dioxide tomorrow and it would make no difference to the global goals since we emit only 1.2% of world totals. Which is dwarfed by China’s annual error margins.
Not to say we shouldn’t go for renewables and all that. Though I’d sure love to see the Australian political party that has the guts to go nuclear. We do, after all, mine and export the most amount of uranium of any country. It’s fine for our customers to use it. Not for us. Hypocrisy much?
ADDED: People go on about the UN IPCC Report and its apocalyptic projections of massive climate change, unless we [fill in the blank, mainly with “renewables”]. What they never mention is that the IPCC report calls for a five-fold increase in nuclear power.
*The Liberals lost seats to this new independent movement called the “Teals”, like between Blue and Green. They’re big in climate change mitigation. I always thought it was silly of Scott Morrison to refuse to commit to a Net Zero emissions goal. All he rest of the world has. And — prediction — the rest of the world will fail to meet that goal.
