You're missing that funding was still cut by around 25%, and is due to run out within the next year or so with no sign of an extension yet.The Coalition's bill to defund ARENA and CEFC was defeated in the Senate, funding continued.
There isn't more because it is still cheaper to use old coal-fired power stations to produce electricity, rather than switching to renewables. However, and it is the key point, for new-build projects renewables are cheaper. Thus, as time passes and coal-fired power stations are closed, the share of renewable energy should expand. This should be significant and quite quick, because the fleet of coal-fired power stations are aging, some significantly, and private companies are beginning to close them early. Yet, and this is a sign of the lack of political will and pandering to their base exhibited by the Libs, they are still trying to build more coal fired power stations rather than renewables even though new build prices of renewables are cheaper per Mwh produced.It is inevitable that renewable sources of energy will emerge, no wonder there is investment although if renewable is going to be so good, why isn't there more ? It isn't lack of political will, it’s the cost and unreliability, remember South Australia ?
Sources if you don't believe me: https://theconversation.com/factche...per-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263
Your comment regarding South Australia is a bit weird seeing (what I believe you are referring to) was caused by a situation initially prompted by coal-fired power stations being offline themselves. The issue has since been resolved by large scale battery projects, which basically everyone advocating for renewables state is essential? There are now numerous instances of the battery projects "saving" the grid when coal-fired power stations fail.
It's not so much a “why should we” argument as the utility of it. If Aus completely transforms, it would make no difference to world emissions. It might give some a feeling of virtue, but that’s all. Is there any point transitioning until it’s enconomically feasible ?
If we don't transition then how can be rightfully compel other countries to transition? Noting that we are undoubtedly a laggard in transitioning. This argument is the whole reason for the Kyoto and now the Paris agreement.
German emissions have been trending down for a long time.[/QUOTE]When Germany closed down, I think it was 17, nuclear power stations in 2011, they replaced the source of power with coal fired. Emissions are higher than they were with the Nuclear Stations. To top it off, the owners sued the Government and were awarded 19 bil euros.