A Spot of Myth Busting and the Case for NET ZERO

 

The Pushback against Net Zero

Today I really wanted to focus on the positive steps many countries are taking with respect to reducing emissions and making their agriculture more resilient in the face of climate change. Agriculture – and hence our food security, is very dependent upon that happening. We have seen the damage which just 1.1 ⁰ C of warming is causing around the world – fish kills, crop failures, flooding, water shortages and huge storms, not to mention trillions of dollars in damage.

If we allow that to continue, we are predicted to reach 3⁰ C by 2100 and even if we make some effort to reduce our emissions, but not meet the targets agreed upon at the Paris Accords in 2015, we will reach 5⁰ C by around mid -century. 

What we are seeing is a huge misinformation campaign – largely backed by fossil fuel industries, which are seeing their source of wealth slipping away, and their message has been taken up by several political parties in Australia and elsewhere, especially in the UK, NZ and the USA. Internationally, governments that have stepped back from Net Zero targets are often right‑leaning and using public dissatisfaction over rising power bills for political ends rather than addressing the real causes, so for this reason I want to do a little myth busting first before going on to the topic I promised.

“You will be eating bugs by candlelight….”

 Their arguments rest largely on the following claims:

1. The transition to renewables is too expensive.
2. Renewable energy is to blame for huge power bills and cost of living increases.
3. Renewables are unreliable and cause blackouts.
4. Renewables damage the environment.
5. Renewables will cost jobs and destroy rural communities.
6. Climate change is a hoax to keep climate scientists and the renewable energy sector in business.
7. It’s a conspiracy by governments, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, George Soros [ insert any others you care to name] to enslave people and take away their freedoms.
8. Renewable energy would be uncompetitive without subsidies.
9. Net zero is bad for business.
10. Trying to reach Net Zero will be disastrous for the national economy.
11. Fossil fuels are cheaper 
12. Australia doesn't need renewable energy. It has coal, gas, and uranium. Why import expensive wind turbines and solar panels?
13. Australia's efforts to reduce emissions don't matter because big emitters such as China and the USA are still using coal
14. Australia only produces 1-2 % of global emissions. It doesn't make any difference if we reduce ours 

The short answer is that none of these claims are supported by the available evidence. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels and transitioning to clean energy is economically beneficial — not disastrous — for national economies. A more detailed response to counter each myth follows.

Myth# 1: The Transition to Renewables is too Expensive

FACT: Opposition claims that trying to achieve Net Zero will cost Australians trillions have been thoroughly debunked. 

The figure quoted in the media and press releases includes overseas investment and export infrastructure—not domestic costs. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and energy experts put the price tag closer to $90 billion over 25 years.  It says as much about the parlous  state of our media  to be repeating these claims unquestioningly as it does about the people who utter them.

MORE FACTS: Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity generation globally. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports that 91% of renewable energy projects in 2025 are cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. 

 The Real Cost of Energy (2025)*

The Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) is the average cost to produce each kWh of energy over the entire lifetime of a project, after you factor all expenses in. It is used by policy makers and investment planners to compare different energy sources—like solar, wind, coal, or gas—on an equal footing.They include all of the following:

•     Upfront capital costs – Building the plant or installing solar panels.
•     Operating costs – Maintenance, fuel (if needed), staffing.
•     Financing costs – Loans, interest, return on investment.
•     Lifetime energy output – Total electricity produced over the system’s life.

LEVELISED COST OF POWER USING DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES

TECHNOLOGY	COST (2025)
Solar PV (Utility-scale):	4.4 cents/kWh (12% decrease from 2022)
Onshore Wind	3.3 cents/kWh (3% decrease from 2022)
Offshore Wind	7.8 cents/kWh
Hydropower	4.7 cents/kWh
Fossil Fuels (Combined	10.0 cents/kWh
Natural Gas	8.9 cents/kWh

 Sources: IRENA, Lazard LCOE v15, CSIRO GenCost 2025

It should be noted that these are global averages. In some countries with say, abundant wind or sunshine, the odds will be even better. In the Middle East for example, solar comes in for as low as 2.4 cents per kWh. In Australia and the Pacific, the cost of solar drops to 3.2 cents per kWh and is falling. It is expected to be one third cheaper than fossil fuels by 2030. In 2023 alone, global energy savings from renewables reached $409 billion, and this is projected to grow.

Storage of excess energy is no longer the problem it was. The cost of batteries has fallen by 89% since 2010 and is expected to fall by a further 50 -70% by 2030. Critics often point to grid integration and storage costs as hidden expenses for renewables. However, recent analysis shows these costs are manageable and declining:

Grid Integration: Typically adds 0.5-1.5 cents/kWh to renewable costs

Battery Storage: Now averaging 15 cents/kWh for 4-hour duration systems

System Flexibility: Smart grid technologies even out intermittent supply from wind and solar

Even accounting for these additional costs, renewables plus storage remain competitive with fossil fuels in most markets. Technological innovation, economies of scale, and competitive supply chains are driving costs down.

Myth# 2 Renewables Cause High Power Bills and Cost of Living Crises

"If energy prices are falling, why isn't my power bill going down?" 

FACT: According to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)  the cost of generating electricity fell by 30% in the  September Quarter (2025) largely thanks to the uptake of rooftop solar. However, this refers to the wholesale price, not household bills. While renewables are driving down generation costs, retail prices remain high due to network charges, retail markups and legacy infrastructure. Power bill increases are driven more by fossil fuel volatility and infrastructure bottlenecks than by renewables. 

• Fossil fuel prices are highly volatile, especially during geopolitical crises (e.g., Ukraine war, Middle East tensions).

• Countries with higher renewable penetration (like Portugal and Denmark) have seen more stable electricity prices.

• Grid integration and financing challenges do exist, especially in emerging markets, but these are solvable and not inherent to renewables.

• In the long-term, renewables reduce exposure to fuel price shocks and lower operating costs.

• Upgrading Australia’s ageing coal plants is also extremely costly and will most likely exceed the inflated costs which have been mentioned by the Opposition parties for switching to renewables. 

• People confuse short-term infrastructure upgrades with long-term energy pricing. It’s true up -front costs for renewables are typically higher initially, but fossil fuels demand ongoing input ever after, whereas renewables generate free energy and only require a little maintenance. 

• Domestic power supply structure also matters. In Australia for instance, parts of the grid and electricity transmission and distribution networks are privatised, with significant foreign ownership and market concentration. This structure limits consumer control and can amplify price volatility, regardless of net zero policies. 

 Yes, Energy costs are contributing slightly to the cost of living, but price rises have largely been driven global fuel price shocks, supply chain disruptions, and the debt hangover from the pandemic that all Western economies are grappling with. Renewables are in fact, cushioning households against volatile fossil fuel costs — and once built, they will deliver cheaper electricity for decades.

MYTH# 3 Renewables are Unreliable and Cause Blackouts

The "Bugs by Candlelight ..." comment at the top of the post pops up quite often in my social media feed. It claims two things: namely that renewables are unreliable and prone to blackouts and that striving for Net Zero means giving up meat because cows emit too much methane - a potent greenhouse gas which contributes disproportionately to global emissions.

FACT: Most Outages Are Not Due to Renewables. in fact, they help to prevent them

According to the AEMC and other analysts almost all interruptions to customers (around 96%) in Australia are due to network faults, ageing coal plants, or extreme weather events such as bushfires and cyclones, not generation problems.

There have been several failures at coal fired plants which show that coal is not inherently stable or risk – free.  For example, the Callide Power Station in Queensland experienced a major outage in May 2021 as a result of an explosion due to ‘insufficient protection.' Almost half a million people lost power and the operator it was fined $9 million. Another failure in in April 2025 raised safety concerns about risk controls and design flaws.  

Eraring in New South Wales - Australia’s largest coal-fired plant, has experienced frequent outages with up to 6,000 hours of downtime annually in recent years and is blamed for rising power costs because more expensive fuel has had to be used to keep the lights on. 

Internationally, incidents like Spain’s 2023 outage which took much of Europe’s network with it during a heatwave, were largely due to operator and system-management errors, not renewables themselves.

  According to the 2024 Texas Reliability Entity report, wind and solar provided 30–40% of power during the peak of a weeklong heatwave and helped to keep the grid stable and avoid blackouts. Despite growth in variable generation, the risk of energy emergencies in Texas has sharply declined — largely because of clean energy and batteries and the price of energy has fallen 24% below the national average.

Engineers critical of renewables because of their lack of ‘inertia’ will be pleased to know there are modern technologies available to provide system strength and stability – synchronous condensers and grid forming batteries, and they are already being deployed in Australia.

Synchronous condensers are relatively cheap to operate (just a few dollars per mWh) and provide robust inertia and fault current, but they come with high upfront capital costs if built new. Grid-forming batteries, while even more expensive to install, offer multi-service value—combining energy storage, fast frequency response, and system strength in one asset, which offsets some of that cost.

The short answer is: Modern renewable-heavy grids, when combined with system-strength solutions like batteries grid-forming inverters, syncons, and smart management -increasingly using AI, are reliable and stable and can actually be more resilient than legacy fossil-fuel systems. 

MYTH #3 b  As for eating “eating bugs” we’ll be lucky to find any if we keep depending on fossil fuels. Globally there has been a decline from 27 – 40% depending on location and species. It also far more likely that the choice will be taken from us if we continue with business as usual and farmers cut their herds in anticipation of further droughts. 

MYTH #4  Renewable Energy is Bad for the Environment

" A two -megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that requires 300 tons of coking coal all mined, transported with ore  and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons . A windmill could spin until it falls apart  and never generate as much energy as it took to build"

FACT: The claim that “renewables are bad for the environment” is misleading and often weaponized to distract from the far greater, ongoing damage caused by fossil fuels. While renewables do have environmental impacts, they are dramatically lower, shorter-lived, and more manageable than those of coal, oil, or gas.

The claim that wind turbines never repay their energy cost is pure spin. In reality, they do so within a year— about 5.4 months now, according to the latest from the UN figures, and then generate clean power for 20 -30 years. Fossil fuels, by contrast, burn energy to extract energy, every single day. Their energy return on investment (EROI) is far higher than fossil fuels.

“260 tonnes of steel, 300 tonnes of coking coal, mined and transported .. "

• Iron ore and coking coal are used are used in the manufacture of wind turbines, but this is true for all large-scale infrastructure—including fossil fuel plants, pipelines, and transmission lines.

• The embodied energy in a wind turbine is finite and front-loaded—not ongoing like fossil fuel combustion.

•  It is historically true that the inputs are “All mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons…” but this too is rapidly changing. Increasingly, mining and transport are electrified or powered by renewables.

• Even if hydrocarbons are used in manufacturing, the net energy gain from wind far outweighs the initial input.

Renewable Energy Destroys Farmland and Wildlife Habitat 

Renewable energy projects can be highly compatible with farming. Hosting wind turbines can provide farmers with a reliable income. Solar panels can be beneficial in other ways. Studies in the US have shown that crops can benefit from reduced evaporation and less exposure to winds and harsh weather and livestock can benefit from their shade. 

When sited on farmland, degraded land, or rooftops, renewable energy installations can be highly compatible with biodiversity and agricultural productivity. But in sensitive bushland—rainforests, national parks, bird sanctuaries, and migratory flyways—the story changes. Poorly placed wind farms or transmission corridors can fragment habitats, disrupt breeding cycles, and threaten endangered species. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Mapping Renewables for Nature report urges planners to avoid these high-value ecological zones and prioritise degraded or cleared land instead.

The Clean Energy Council also acknowledges that while renewables reduce pollution and help combat climate-driven biodiversity loss, they must be carefully planned to avoid localised harm. That’s why the federal government launched the Renewables Environmental Research Initiative (RERI)—to guide developers away from ecologically sensitive areas and improve biodiversity outcomes. This includes not only site choice but thorough assessment beforehand and rigorous monitoring afterwards. There are also technologies which prevent collision with birds. Feral cats, dogs, foxes and traffic do more harm to native animals, as do bushfires and drought.

The Cattle Hill Wind Farm is in Raptor country in Tasmania. It has bird detection sensors which automatically shut down turbines if a bird is sighted. When I looked into this, there had been no eagles killed in the two years since the equipment had been installed.. 

Those who point to the temporary chaos of construction of such facilities have obviously never seen an open -cut coalmine or the devastation an oil spill can cause. Coalmines in the Hunter Valley have swallowed prime farmland and vineyards. Air quality suffers in the surrounding towns leading to health problems among residents and the water demands of these mines and others threaten water security.

Fracking for natural gas brings its own problems. Not only does it use vast quantities of water, but the chemicals used can leak into soils and groundwater. It is also linked to Methane leaks, heavy metal contamination, seismic activity and subsidence.  By 2019 approximately 9,000 coal seam gas wells had been built around Australia -many on prime farmland, with more than double that number expected to be built by 2030.

Fossil Fuels = Ongoing, Irreversible Damage

•     Open‑cut coal mines destroy ecosystems and leave toxic tailings
•     Fracking contaminates water tables and destabilises farmland
•     Combustion pollutes air and water, harming health and biodiversity
•     Carbon emissions are the leading driver of climate change

Renewables = Localised, Manageable Impacts

•     Require land, materials, and energy upfront
•     No ongoing emissions once operational
•     Land use can be dual‑purpose (solar + cropping, wind + farming)
•     Recyclability of blades and panels improving rapidly
•     Hydropower and bioenergy have more complex footprints, but still lower than fossil fuels

Myth # 5   Renewables will Cost Jobs and Destroy Rural Communities   

FACT: With adequate preparation, the transition from coal to renewables does not have to be brutal as the case studies below show. Renewable Energy already employs some 30,000 workers around Australia and this number is expected to continue growing, whereas that in coal mining and coal -fired generation is expected to decline in line with commitments made by some 60 countries to end the use of coal by 2030. The benefits are not only environmental, but because they are less polluting, bring health benefits as well. Around Australia some 16 large Battery projects are currently either being completed or in the process of development.

 Two Case Studies

1. The Hazelwood Power Station Shutdown (2017) 

When the French owner of Victoria’s Hazelwood  coal -fired power station (Victoria) unexpectedly shut it down in March 2017, it still employed about 750 people, comprising roughly 450 direct employees and 300 contractors.

Many of its employees had been with the company and in the same close-knit community for generations and it was left to the state government to pick up the pieces. It invested $AUD 266 m  and with a further $AUD 46 m from its Federal counterpart, it set about rebuilding the local economy and creating new opportunities for displaced workers largely following a plan developed by the European Commission in 2007, “Knowledge for Growth” but adapted to local conditions.  

The first step was the creation of the Latrobe Valley Authority which spanned the three communities involved. Recognising that in long -established, one -industry towns, the loss of that industry wasn’t just about finding new jobs for workers, but involved the whole community, it brought together university researchers, workers, unions, government agencies, suppliers, businesses and their families and began to conduct a number of community forums to find out what the region really wanted and needed. Some residents participated in study tours to Germany and the Netherlands to see how they were managing similar transitions.

A Government Hub was established to  provide support services to affected workers – financial and emotional, along with education and training. The Morwell Hi Tech Precinct was established in collaboration with Federation University. Gippsland Technical School and Latrobe University created specialist industry education courses in areas such as construction and allied health and community services and is developing training for the EV industry. Interest free and low interest loans were available to those starting new businesses. An Energy Jobs and Investment Program brought new industries and partnerships. Several wind farm projects are in various stages of development.

With the average age of employees at 57, many chose the generous retirement package and around 130 employees found  immediate, if not permanent employment in the extensive rehabilitation project, designed as it was to ensure that subsequent plantings would be adapted to a warming climate. 

Through The Worker Transfer Scheme managed by unions, around 90 workers found work in other power stations or other industries. Those who did not want to leave the area provided energy upgrades to 1000 homes of low -income households. By the end of 2019, 74% had found work or were not looking for any and the unemployment rate for the region was slightly lower than that of Melbourne and lower than it was prior to the shutdown. In a survey conducted at the time, some workers complained that their new jobs weren't as secure or highly paid. Among those who had taken early retirement there were complaints of having lost their sense of purpose.

Although it wasn’t perfect, with delays in executing some projects due to COVID and budgetary constraints, the experience offers valuable lessons for transitioning to a new post -coal future. A longer period of notice would have helped.

The towns benefited through the acquisition of new industries, sporting facilities, education facilities and a number of projects which brought the arts, education, entertainment and more tourists. Their populations were also boosted by an influx of government employees including Parks personnel, health and community workers and training providers, along with those connected to new services such as  maintenance, surveying and monitoring. 

The inclusion of the Arts was an important step because it not only brought tourists to the region, nurtured local talent and gave it greater cultural richness, but helped to fill the void left in a community whose whole existence had previously revolved mainly around work. Another excellent idea was the pairing of schools with their counterparts overseas for student exchanges. This will help students to gain a broader outlook, a wider appreciation of other cultures and could become a catalyst for new ideas.      

2. Collie (Western Australia) 2027 

Power stations scheduled to close now have an advantage because they are gearing up ahead of closure and are constructing new facilities before the original power stations cease operations. Take the he township of  Collie in Western Australia for example, which has been mining coal since 1898. Of its 9,000 residents about 4,000 are employed in coal mining and power generation. It already has its big battery up and running and is turning itself into a renewable energy hub before it closes in 2027. 

Because of its proximity to the distribution network, new industries will be located there. The WA Government has committed over $662 million to Collie’s transition, including industrial diversification funds, retraining programs, and new project investments. Local initiatives include proposals for steel mills, magnesium plants, and renewable energy projects, to create new jobs and industries.

While change is always difficult and not without anxiety, especially in long established industries and locations, this does not have be an ending but can be the start of a bright new era for rural communities, tired of seeing their young people heading to the cities in search of opportunity. 

When I was travelling through the small highland town of Miena last year, residents and businesses were excited about the prospect of the nearby wind farm expanding. The wind farm has been the only excitement in the region since the Hydro completed works there. 

Myth# 6  Climate Change is a Hoax to keep Climate Scientists and the Renewable Energy Sector in business 

"Follow the Money," say the critics. 

FACT:  I have yet to see a wealthy climate scientist and I do know quite a few. Those whom I do know, entered the field to be of service to humanity, not to make a profit. Their work is about evidence, resilience, and safeguarding our shared future. If climate change were truly a hoax, it would be the most elaborate, least lucrative one in history. The reality is that these scientists dedicate their lives to understanding complex systems and warning us of risks, often under intense  criticism and with limited resources. 

It’s true that the renewable energy sector is a business — but so is fossil fuel. The difference is that renewables are building industries designed to reduce harm, not perpetuate it. Every energy sector involves money, jobs, and investment. The question is whether those investments serve our long‑term interests or are only about short‑term profit.

 Myth# 7 It's a Conspiracy by Governments/ The United Nations/ the World Economic Forum/ George Soros/  [insert any other entity] to enslave the human race and take away our freedom 

FACT: Climate change is a physical reality, not a conspiracy.
 The only conspiracy with evidence behind it is the one funded by fossil fuel producers, via manufactured community groups, think tanks and donor networks—some of which are now the subject of court cases. 

Myth#  8 Without Subsidies Renewables couldn't Compete

FACT: Renewables are already the cheapest new source of electricity in most of the world. What keeps fossil fuels afloat are the billions in subsidies they receive each year. Without that support, coal, oil, and gas would be far less competitive. In reality, the market is showing us that clean energy wins on cost, resilience, and scalability.

Myth# 9 Renewables are Bad for Business 

FACT: Some businesses are struggling with high power costs, but the reasons are complex. The structure of our electricity market, foreign ownership of gas, and the fact that we are only partway through the transition. Variability is real, yet many businesses have already adapted. Net Zero itself is not the problem—unchecked climate change is. In the long run, clean energy reduces costs, builds resilience, and strengthens economies. According to the Climate Council, business installations in Australia increased by 60% between 2016 and 2017 with some 40,000 commercial systems being installed. Below are just a few examples. 

•  Concerned about its high power bills, the Country Cob Bakery in Victoria installed solar panels on its roof and now saves $9,000+ on its energy bills. 
• Young Henry's Brewery, a well‑known craft brewery and tasting bar in Sydney’s Inner West, has also made big savings. 
• Large retail chains chains such as Officeworks and Bunnings Hardware are progressively converting all their stores to solar energy
• Restaurants, cafes and food service companies which have heavy daytime use, are doing likewise 
• 130 of the world's largest companies plan to be 100%  powered by renewables,  as are two thirds of Fortune 100 companies and around half of Fortune 500 companies and they are not doing it out of charity. Who is going to tell them they are all on the wrong track?

What is bad for business, is governments chopping and changing on policy. This creates uncertainty, makes planning difficult and undermines investment in large projects.  

Myth# 10 Renewables are Bad for the National Economy 

FACT: Renewables strengthen national economies in multiple ways:
•     Job creation — via construction, installation, maintenance, manufacturing, and research.
•     Rural development — solar and wind projects bring income and infrastructure to communities that would otherwise rely on support.
•     Energy independence — reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, keeping wealth within national borders.
•     Lower long‑term costs — renewables are now cheaper than new fossil fuel generation.
•     Health savings — cleaner air reduces healthcare costs and productivity losses.
•     Resilience — decentralised systems (like rooftop solar and batteries) protect economies from shocks and outages.
•     Investment and GDP growth — renewables attract capital and can boost GDP by up to 10% in emerging economies.
•     Household and business benefits — reliable renewable grids lower bills and improve competitiveness.

Myth# 11 Fossil Fuels are Cheaper

FACT: Renewables do require large upfront investment - the phase we are in right now, but rebuilding coal- fired power stations is also expensive. The difference is timing. Renewable energy costs are concentrated at the start, while fossil fuels lock us into endless expenses for fuel, health impacts, and climate damage. Even grid operators don’t want to go back to coal, because the long‑term economics favour renewables. The real choice isn’t between “cheap coal” and “expensive renewables” — it’s between investing now in clean energy or paying forever for fossil fuel dependence.

Coal is increasingly uncompetitive against renewables, which are cheaper to build and operate. Given the rapid pace of change, new coal mines risk becoming stranded assets — projects that never deliver returns because global demand collapses before they pay back their investment.

Myth# 12 Australia doesn’t need Renewables — we have Coal, Gas and Uranium, and future technologies like Cabon Capture and Storage (CCS) will save us from Climate Change.

FACT: Australia’s coal is domestic, but rebuilding coal -fired power stations would cost far more than the roll out of renewables. Our gas is largely foreign‑owned, meaning profits flow offshore and Australians must not only compete for it against other countries, but must pay the same fluctuating prices for it on the global market as they do. Nuclear energy is poorly suited here due to water scarcity and unresolved waste issues. Our transport industry and farming  are major contributors to our emissions and currently depend heavily on imported oil and diesel which are subject to price volatility and can experience supply shocks. They are also finite. 

Some still hope for a techno‑miracle like carbon capture and storage, but that remains a long shot while climate change is already here. The proven path is renewable electricity. It is cheaper in the long run, cleaner, faster to deploy, and strengthens our national economy.

Myth# 13 Australia’s efforts don’t matter because big emitters like the US and China are still using coal 

FACT: Big emitters are shifting. Fossil‑fuel goods will face penalties. Australia must act now to stay competitive.

 Even the world’s biggest emitters are transitioning. The US has already moved past coal, with wind and solar now generating more electricity than coal and federal investment driving a long‑term shift toward Net Zero. China has installed more renewable energy in the past year than the rest of the world combined and has the world's largest EV fleet. It's  emissions are also levelling off. It is still building coal fired power stations presumably as a hedge against supply disruptions, but also because large sections of its rural areas remain underdeveloped. Under the Paris Agreement, China has until 2040 to end its dependence on coal generation for  electricity, while OECD and wealthier countries must stop by 2030. All other nations have until 2050.  

Global trade is also changing. The European Union has begun phasing in carbon border tariffs, and other economies are considering similar measures. Goods produced with fossil fuels will soon attract penalties. By switching sooner, Australia protects its competitiveness, strengthens its economy, and plays its part in the global transition.

MYTH# 14. Australia Only produces between 1-2 % of Global Emissions. There's no point in trying to reduce them.  

FACT: The collective impact of all those 1-2% countries is greater than that of the two biggest emitters combined and they are in fact reducing theirs fast. We also have some responsibility to our Pacific neighbours and poorer countries who have contributed almost zero to global emissions but already bear most of the consequences of climate related disasters and have the least capacity to respond.  

 WHY WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO PRESS ON WITH NET ZERO

Apart from a noisy few, most countries are still forging ahead towards Net Zero. Although the upfront costs of renewables are real and we are now in the costliest phase of the transition, power costs in Australia should then technically start to fall, subject to the structure of our energy market. 

The costs of inaction are far greater. Climate disasters have already cost Australia billions, with the Black Summer fires alone wiping $2.8 billion from tourism and adding tens of billions in long‑term losses. Those losses are expected to keep rising by around $8 billion a year. Globally, extreme weather has cost $2 trillion in the past decade, with the UN estimating the true annual burden at over $2.3 trillion.

 

Goods produced with fossil fuels will soon attract penalties. Australia will be economically disadvantaged if it doesn't make the switch. 

 

Lastly, with its abundant sunshine, lengthy coastline and open spaces, Australia is well placed to take advantage of new renewable technologies. Failure to act would be an opportunity lost. Just as early adoption of hydro electricity once made Tasmania a global leader with expertise it could export, renewable energy technology offers the same opportunities for innovation and leadership — rather than  Australia being remembered as a climate wrecker and a laggard. 

 

Thank you to Copilot and Others for your help and to Copilot for fixing the above image without spelling errors. Sadly, it no longer does tables, so they won't be as pretty from now on and it has become much harder to save any notes.

There's far too much happening here in the lead -up to Christmas, so forgive me if it takes a while to finish Adaptations re Agriculture as there's a lot of reading to do. Check in though, who knows I might manage to write about something else.  I don't want you to be disappointed.