By now everyone is well aware of the Coalition and One Nation’s anti-renewable crusade, claiming the lights won’t go on and industry will be shuttered. ‘No net zero’ is a great marketing term – fitting in with the Coalition’s penchant for three word slogans – but like most slogans there is little evidence of a policy or recognition of the current reality.
Australia’s coal fired power stations are old and tired. So just like the old car or appliance, they break down far more frequently than they used to. This is despite extra maintenance and cost in keeping them operational. Because they break down more often, the people that regulate the energy grids around the country have to rely on gas plants to fill the gaps. Gas and coal cost money. Because the gas plants haven’t been fully depreciated, they cost more to run than coal plants. The Morrison Coalition Government did put out a tender to assist in the construction of a new coal fired power plant in the Hunter Valley. Apparently there were no applications and the hype and media around the ‘initiative’ was quietly collected, taken out the back and buried. Maybe those companies with the ability to build and operate the proposed plant were worried about the perception of stranded assets being raised at the next shareholders meeting.
Yet, according to the naysayers, Australia can’t operate on renewable energy. This webpage on the Energy Matters website links to the current power output across the two major grids in the country. At the time of writing (coming up to lunchtime on a Saturday) there was 65% renewables in the ‘National Energy Market’ (effectively South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, ACT, Tasmania and Queensland) and 69% in the Western Energy Market (Western Australia).
Again according to the naysayers, Australia won’t reach its emissions reduction targets into the future. It seems that they are wrong again. The ABC reported recently that in the financial year ending 30 June 2025, Australia’s emissions dropped 2.2%, predominately in the power sector where more renewable energy sources (including domestic solar panels and batteries) are being deployed. Most sectors of the economy are trending lower except transport. According to the article, Australia is likely to fall 1% short of the 2030 target and will have to look particularly hard at transport where it is noted
[The] trend has been driven by a shift to bigger, heavier cars that need more fuel, as well as more road freight. Domestic flights also factor into this sector.
The government is hoping to change this with its vehicle efficiency standards. These came into effect this year but haven’t started to eat into the sector’s emissions.
Under these laws, car manufacturers have an emissions cap for all the vehicles they sell that year, so any higher-emitting cars will have to be offset with lower or zero-emission ones.
The Climate Change Authority says there are already promising signs from those changes, with car companies starting to offer more electric and hybrid options for Australians, in addition to more public chargers coming online.
The government obviously has to make plans for future changes to the economy to increase the rate of emissions decline in line with their commitments which may help us achieve the currently unobtainable 2035 target.
One of prominent naysayers is Barnaby Joyce, former National Party Leader, Senator, and currently the Member for New England. The Guardian recently looked back on Joyce’s history of scandals over his time in politics. Ironically Joyce was the Deputy Prime Minister when Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull signed Australia up to the Paris Agreement that has the intention of reducing the world’s emissions to net zero – and preferably by 2050. While he apparently made a deal to increase the Nationals representation on the Front Bench to do so, he obviously provided support a transition to net zero becoming both the political parties and the Country’s policy at the time.
Given the Morrison Government’s ‘answer’ to net zero was to increase the use of gas in generating power and supporting industry, you would have to question the sincerity Morrison and his government professed at the time in emissions reduction. As the use of gas is the burning of a fossil fuel which releases emissions, maybe the agreement on signing up for the Paris Agreement was less about concern of the future of Australia and the world and more about marketing.
In any case, Joyce seems to have had a complete about face in the last few years. Could it be that the case for ‘no net zero’ as prosecuted by Joyce, leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie and Joyce’s former Chief of Staff Senator Matt Canavan is more a marketing tool rather that anything based on science? Assuming the science is correct, it also speaks volumes on what sort of world the three of them want to leave for their descendants?
All three have been very active in selling their position to a loyal band of conservatives that in some cases should know better. It seems that now they have ‘won’ the argument within the Coalition – both the Nationals and the Liberals now claim that Net Zero is not an future objective and the government will send us to rack and ruin. Demonstrably they are wrong as the lights still go on and the air conditioners still work with renewable power and emissions are going down. If the decision was popular, it would be logical to expect increased popularity (from a low base) in opinion polling. Which didn’t happen.
A number of Coalition MPs, Hastie, Joyce and Canavan in particular have been using social media and media stunts to present arguments that net zero is bad, there is too much immigration and attempting to market themselves as the promoters of rational and intelligent points of view. One Nation’s leader has been successfully marketing herself on a similar platform for decades.
It’s probably a good idea to take anything marketed on social media with a grain of salt. To prove the point, you know those expensive ‘mineral based’ sunscreens promoted on social media that promote the use of ‘minerals’ rather than the ‘harmful chemicals’ in mass produced sunscreens they suggest you shouldn’t apply to your skin. Actual testing shows some use the same ingredients – they just don’t print the ‘harmful ingredients’ on the label. Maybe there is a political lesson in there as well.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
I wonder how many are aware of this…..
https://michaelwest.com.au/dirty-rainbow-govt-picks-up-legal-bills-for-terracom-directors-in-coal-fraud-saga/
The government should have simply mandated the EU vehicle energy efficiency laws, rather than wasting time on one of our own. But now that we have one, the big “tradesman” fuel-guzzling utes must be brought into line. They are exempt at the moment.
Next is charging accessibility. Several things need to happen.
1) All servos must be compelled to add at least 1 dual charging EV unit within 2 years and all new or refurbished servos must include the same to get the permit to build or refurbish. They must put the Price per kwh on the pricing boards so they can be seen before entering the servo. Currently there is no way of determining where it will be cheaper to charge and not everyone is keen on Apps to search for or pay for charging. In a servo there should be an option to go inside to the console and pay in person with cash or card or tap the phone. Not everyone is happy to store payment systems on their phone and many don’t want the hassle of installing up to half a dozen apps to use on different charger systems.
2) In more remote areas where energy infrastructure is poor we have EV chargers running on solar/battery systems or diesel generators. Unless there is a need to put them in between existing widely separated existing fuel stops, they should be put as close to an existing business as possible. There is no point in putting these chargers where there is no toilets, no lighting, no facilities or whatever. They should go as close as possible to an existing roadhouse or store that sells petrol. If that area doesn’t have the energy infrastructure for a grid connected charger, that is where governments and councils should put the self powered units. EV drivers can then go to the toilet, get a coffee or something to eat while charging. This supports the local business and town.
There are no official surveys that I know of, but my discussions with some people (women in particular) is that they are reluctant to use an isolated charger at night. This in itself will hold back uptake, particularly among women. So mandating that servos install EV chargers overcomes the problem of finding free land to install the charger is possible.
Besides which, those servos/convenience stores will go out of business if they don’t have charging facilities as more EVs come on line and the ICE vehicles diminish in number.