But let’s remember, this wasn’t just any old plan.
It was a grand plan.
It was a plan to join 35 other nations and help save the world.
However, it was just too tough, and of course, we all know what happens when the going gets tough.
The tough American-style RAM 1500 pick-up people back off for another smoke around the corner, leaving the rest of us to soldier on with nothing but tired old science and boring statistics to lean on.
The net zero plan meant abandoning rich old mates who still smoked too much and who hung around mines and oil wells in hard hats looking tough.
But never mind, the Liberal/National Coalition now has a better plan.
This one is not about science or unachievable future targets; it’s about common sense and economics.
Basically, the plan is to rely less on wind and solar power and more on coal and gas and maybe even nuclear power.
Apparently, this process means energy for you and me will be more affordable while we make the transition to less-polluting sources of power.
This all sounds very sensible.
There’s just a slight glitch.
The Coalition plan means we will have less chance of achieving the balance of net zero by 2050, so the world will continue to get hotter as we slow down our response.
And how do we know that energy prices will go down under the new plan?
The Coalition energy plan is based on analysis by economic advisory company Frontier Economics, which says it has 30 years’ experience in this area.
But a Clean Energy Council review of Frontier’s modelling says it’s based on flaws and unrealistic assumptions.
Even traditionally conservative business leaders such as Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar have distanced themselves from the new Coalition plan.
So where does that leave you and me?
Who do we trust in this brave new world of promises and predictions?
I’m not an economic or an energy expert, so all I can do is use my common sense, my gut feeling and my own experience.
My common sense tells me that if the world is getting hotter because of human activity, and science certainly tells us this is so, then we need to do something about it.
My gut feeling tells me that the cost of doing little or nothing will be far greater than the cost of actually doing something.
My own experience tells me that when we put solar panels on our roof thanks to a state government grant five years ago, our power bills dropped from $120 to $50 or less a month, and that’s without a battery.
It’s a complicated world, particularly when science and economics are polluted by ideology and big money.
Trying to get at some nugget of truth in all these arguments is like digging for gold in the dark.
All we can do is cling on to the candle held by 98 per cent of the world’s scientists who say the world is changing because of our behaviour and we need to do something about it now — not tomorrow or next year or in 30 years’ time.
The clock is a dispassionate instrument, and it’s ticking.
John Lewis is a former journalist at The News.
