Australia Must Abandon Net Zero, Or Becoming a Net Zero, Economically! By James Reed

The article "Should Australia Abandon Net Zero?" from Macrobusiness.com.au

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/should-australia-abandon-net-zero/

presents a sceptical view of Australia's commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Below is my case for Australia abandoning this goal, and keeping on the fossil fuel path, something Dutton should be doing instead of losing the unlosable election over nuclear power plants we cannot afford because of the climate change bs.

Australia's pursuit of net zero is framed as an exercise in futility given its minuscule role in global emissions. The piece highlights that Australia contributes just 1.1 percent of the world's carbon emissions, dwarfed by giants like China (31.5 percent), the United States (13 percent), and India (8.1 percent), which together account for over half of global output. While China and India's emissions are surging—driven by industrial growth and coal reliance—the developed world, including Australia, is cutting back. Yet, the article argues, this disparity renders Australia's efforts irrelevant. Even if Australia slashed its emissions to zero overnight, the global climate needle wouldn't budge as long as major emitters keep polluting unchecked. Why, then, should Australia bear the economic burden of a policy that won't meaningfully alter the outcome?

The economic cost is a central pillar of the case. Net zero demands a radical overhaul of Australia's energy system, phasing out coal and gas, which power its grid and fuel its export economy. The article cites the deindustrialisation of countries like the UK and Germany, where strict emissions targets have spiked energy prices and gutted energy-intensive industries. Australia risks a similar fate—high energy costs have already pushed manufacturing offshore and strained households. With commodity exports (coal, gas, iron ore) making up half its trade, pivoting to renewables could kneecap a key economic driver. The piece implies that the billions spent on subsidies, grid upgrades, and offsets could be better directed elsewhere—say, infrastructure or cost-of-living relief—rather than chasing a symbolic target.

Population growth adds another layer of impracticality. Australia's emissions are tied to its size, and rapid immigration is ballooning its population. The article notes that policies encouraging a "Big Australia" clash with net zero—more people mean more energy demand, more housing, more transport emissions. If the government won't curb this growth (and it shows no sign of it), net zero becomes a moving target, requiring ever-steeper cuts per capita. This contradiction suggests the goal is either naive or deliberately unachievable, locking Australia into a cycle of failure and blame.

The article also questions the science and urgency behind net zero. It points to global emissions data showing a relentless rise—up 50 percent since 1990—despite decades of climate pledges. If the world's biggest polluters aren't on board, Australia's sacrifice looks performative. Moreover, it nods to natural climate variability, hinting that warming might not be as controllable or catastrophic as claimed. Why dismantle a functional economy for a hypothesis that's faltering under real-world conditions?

Finally, there's a pragmatic angle: energy reliability and security. Coal and gas aren't just economic assets; they're the backbone of a stable grid. The article doesn't explicitly detail blackouts, but the subtext is clear—renewables like wind and solar, being weather-dependent, can't yet match the consistency of fossil fuels. Abandoning net zero would let Australia lean on its abundant resources, keeping power affordable and lights on, while avoiding the chaos of a rushed transition.

In sum, the case for Australia ditching net zero rests on its negligible global impact, crippling economic costs, incompatible population policies, dubious scientific payoff, and the need for reliable energy. The Macrobusiness piece paints it as a noble but misguided quest—Australia punishing itself for a problem it didn't create and can't solve. Better to step back, prioritise prosperity, and let the world's real polluters carry the load. Start with communist China.