Australia’s Costly Climate Gamble: Why Albanese's 2035 Targets Are a Leap into the Abyss, By James Reed
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has once again thrust Australia into the global spotlight with his bold announcement of a 62-70% emissions reduction target by 2035, measured against 2005 levels. While the rhetoric paints this as a "responsible" step toward net zero, the fine print reveals a radical overhaul: modelings behind the target assumes a staggering 62-70 %, and on some scenarios up to 90-93% of our electricity will come from renewables like wind and solar, and electric vehicles (EVs) will need to dominate new car sales potentially up to 85% by 2035, to even hit the lower end of that goal. This means that half of all cars on the road would be electric. That's the implied trajectory if trends hold, forcing a seismic shift in transport. Yet, in true Labor fashion, Albanese has glossed over the eye-watering costs, treating them like an inconvenient footnote. As a climate skeptic, I argue this isn't just expensive, it's recklessly so, given the profound uncertainties surrounding the supposed climate crisis. Pouring billions into unproven green dreams while ignoring scientific doubts and economic realities could leave Australians paying the price for decades.
Let's start with the numbers, because transparency is apparently optional in Canberra. The government's own Climate Change Authority (CCA) modelings, which underpins this target, envisions a near-total reliance on intermittent renewables for power generation by 2035. Achieving up to 90% renewable electricity means blanketing vast swathes of our sunburnt country with solar panels and wind turbines; already, we're seeing projects like the 20-gigawatt Sun Cable in the Northern Territory, but scaling up requires trillions in infrastructure. The Treasury's rosy projections claim the overall net zero push could "boost" the economy by $2.2 trillion by 2050, but that's predicated on optimistic assumptions about technology costs plummeting and global demand for green exports soaring. Inaction, they warn, would cost $1.2 trillion. But flip the script: What if these models are wrong? Sceptics like me point out that similar forecasts have overestimated benefits and understated burdens before — remember the carbon tax's "dividend" that never materialised?
The transport sector is where the pain hits hardest. To meet even the 62% reduction, EVs must comprise 85% of new car sales by 2035, according to the CCA's analysis. That's not "half" the fleet overnight, but with Australia's aging vehicle stock, it means mandating a rapid phase-out of petrol and diesel engines. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), rolled out earlier this year, is the stick: Fines for manufacturers who don't hit average emissions thresholds, which will jack up prices for traditional cars. An average EV costs $10,000-$15,000 more than a comparable internal combustion model, and that's before factoring in home charging infrastructure. For rural Aussies or tradies relying on utes, this is a non-starter; EVs' limited range and long recharge times could strand them. The government's dangling $5 billion in the "Net Zero Fund" for industrial decarbonisation, but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the estimated $100-200 billion needed for grid upgrades alone to handle EV charging surges and renewable intermittency. Households? Expect power bills to spike 20-30% as we subsidise this shift, per independent analyses from groups like the Institute of Public Affairs. Jobs? Coal and gas sectors, which employ tens of thousands, face wipeout, with no guarantee green jobs will fill the void, wind farms don't need the same skilled workforce as mines.
These aren't abstract figures; they're a direct hit to everyday Australians. Low-income families, already squeezed by inflation, will foot the bill through higher energy taxes and subsidies funnelled to virtue-signalling projects. And for what? A target that assumes flawless execution in a country prone to droughts, floods, and bushfires, ironies that the alarmists conveniently ignore.
At the heart of my scepticism lies the shaky foundation of climate science itself. Only 60% of Australians even accept that climate change is primarily human-caused, according to recent global polls, a figure that underscores widespread doubt Down Under. Why commit to such draconian measures when the evidence is riddled with uncertainties? The IPCC's models, which Albanese's policy leans on, have a track record of exaggeration: Predictions of accelerating sea-level rise haven't panned out as feared, and coral reefs like the Great Barrier have rebounded despite doomsday forecasts. Natural cycles, solar activity, ocean currents like El Niño, play a far bigger role than CO2 fluctuations, as many articles at Daily Sceptic.org document, yet policies treat every weather event as proof of catastrophe.
Consider the uncertainties: Climate sensitivity to CO2 is debated, with estimates ranging from 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling, a factor of three! Satellite data shows modest warming, but urban heat islands and adjusted temperature records inflate the trend. Australia's own Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of tweaking historical data to fit the narrative. If the crisis is overstated, as sceptics like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen argue, then why saddle our economy with costs that could exceed $500 billion by 2035, per conservative estimates from the Productivity Commission? Benefits? Dubious. Greener energy might cut some pollution, but the global impact of Australia's 1.2% share of emissions is negligible, China's coal binge alone, never mentioned by the Labor socialists, dwarfs our efforts. Adaptation, better water management, resilient infrastructure, makes more sense than chasing elusive net zero.
Albanese's silence on costs isn't oversight; it's strategy. By framing this as an "economic opportunity," he dodges the reality: This target could trigger blackouts (as seen in South Australia's 2016 renewable fiasco), inflate living expenses, and export jobs to less scrupulous emitters. The CCA admits the transition is a "mammoth task," but glosses over risks like supply chain vulnerabilities for rare earths in batteries or the intermittency of renewables requiring massive battery storage, at $300/kWh, that's unaffordable fantasy.
Anthony Albanese's 2035 targets are a high-stakes bet on a climate narrative fraught with doubt. The costs, trillions in infrastructure, soaring bills, lost jobs, are crystal clear, while the benefits hinge on unproven alarmism. As a sceptic, I see this as economic self-sabotage: Australia, blessed with abundant fossil fuels, should leverage them for energy security and growth, not virtue-signal to the UN. Uncertainties demand caution, not commitment. Let's invest in nuclear, innovation, and adaptation instead of this green gamble. Otherwise, we'll be the ones left in the dark, literally and figuratively.
Comments