While the Liberals are flirting with net zero, the Greens are demanding peak stupid and proving themselves to be even more dangerous than climate change will ever be.

Climate catastrophist Adam Bandt yesterday called for a 75% emissions reduction by 2030 and for net-zero emissions by 2035.

He might as well have gone the whole hog and demanded a 150% reduction by 2018. It probably crossed his mind. And it’s about as realistic.

If the Prime Minister imagines that going to Glasgow to bow at the altar of decarbonization will neutralise climate as an election issue, he has failed to understand his political opponents.

The Greens are like goldfish. No matter how much you feed them, they always want more.

Right now, the enemy is coal. Tomorrow it will be trucking. After that, it will be cattle farting.

And when we are all vegans, shivering through winter in caves, the Greens will find something else that threatens to make the sky fall in unless we impoverish ourselves further still.

Nothing short of the abolition of capitalism and a radical redistribution of wealth will ever convince the Marxist muppets at the bottom of the garden that the temperature is about right.

“Our message in inner-city and regional Labor and Liberal seats … is that we’re in a climate crisis,” Mr Bandt said.

Or, as Greta Thunberg would say, and far more eloquently, “blah, blah, blah.”

Mr Bandt continued ominously, “We’ve had the drought, we’ve had the bushfires.”

In other words, the inner city far-left activist has lived through an Australian summer. He’s not telling us anything Dorothea Mackellar didn’t already say way back in 1908. 

He went on to insist that unless his opponents adopted more radical climate policies, we “run the risk of fighting the last election and getting the same outcome”.

Speaking of getting the same outcome over and over, the Greens have been stuck on 10% of the vote since forever. But I digress.

Warming to his warming theme, Mr Bandt finally came to his scary climax: “But even 50% (emissions reduction by 2030) means the death of the Great Barrier Reef. So … if you agree with 50% you’re saying the Great Barrier Reef is gone.”

Do the Greens imagine that only Australian emissions affect the reef? What of Chinese and Indian emissions? 

If the Greens were not so stupid, they would be hilarious.

And what precise difference would Australia make to global temperatures if we met the emissions targets Dr Bandt insists are vital? 

Perhaps he would write it down for us. I hope he has space for plenty of zeros on the right side of the decimal point.