Australia's elites' obsession with achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 is setting the country on a collision course with economic ruin. While the rest of the world, particularly China and India, continue to power their economies with fossil fuels, Australia is pouring billions of dollars into wind, solar, and battery technologies. The question remains: can Australia afford this green transition, or will it cripple our economy?
The Australian government's net-zero agenda is set to cost taxpayers an astonishing $12,000 million dollars per year. This astronomical figure dwarfs the benefits and is a massive drain on the national economy. To put this into perspective, this amount could fund numerous critical infrastructure projects, healthcare initiatives, and educational programs. Instead, it's being funnelled into an idealistic but economically devastating quest to "fix the weather."
"For your sake," the Australian government took at least $440 of yours this year and spent it on electrical hobgoblins that claim to make nicer weather in a hundred years. That's $1,800 for each family of four, in order to reduce world temperatures by nothing in our lifetimes. How many families would willingly give up that kind of money on the witch doctor weather quest?
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has done what the Labor Government is too dishonest to do, and the Opposition was too scared to do. Adam Creighton added up the bonanza the government has spent on climate change since 2022, and it's exploded like a tanker of polyurethane-policy-filler. It sticks to everything, can't be removed and if we burn it down, it fills the room with cyanide.
Back in 2021, the nation was throwing $1.7 billion dollars a year on certified weather voodoo. But after Labor won in 2022, that figure ballooned until now the federal budget spending on "climate change" and 'Net Zero' has expanded to $9 billion. But this is barely the start of the true cost Australians have paid. The transition bonfire added about $150 to most electricity bills in Australia this year. For some Australians, electricity has risen by as much as 50% since the Labor government was elected. Then there's another $3b in electricity rebates each year to hide the true cost of the electricity horror show. Someone has to pay those rebates, and since it's borrowed money, that'll be the kids. Then there are the businesses that folded, the jobs that were lost, the factories that moved away, and the higher cost of frozen everything in supermarkets.
Despite the enormous investment in renewable energy sources, Australia's electricity emissions have actually increased. This counterintuitive result highlights the inefficiency and impracticality of current renewable energy technologies. Wind and solar power are intermittent and unreliable, requiring extensive and expensive battery storage solutions to ensure a stable power supply. The billions spent on these technologies have yielded minimal returns in terms of emission reduction, raising serious questions about the viability of Australia's net-zero strategy.
The array of 'programs' and 'funds' related to climate change and net zero, which are typically piled on top of one another, year after year, has become ridiculous and almost impossible to track. It raises serious questions about how effectively and efficiently public funds are being spent. Despite all this soaring spending on net zero, Australia's emissions have fallen only 2.8 per cent on the government's own figures compared to 2005, once you exclude creative accounting with trees.
While Australia struggles with the economic burden of its net-zero ambitions, global superpowers like China and India are surging ahead with fossil fuel usage. These countries are not shackled by the same environmental regulations and are rapidly expanding their economies by leveraging cheap and abundant fossil fuels. As a result, their emissions are dwarfing Australia's, rendering our efforts almost insignificant on a global scale.
China, for instance, has become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its emissions continue to rise unabated. India is following a similar path, with its coal-fired power plants providing the energy needed to lift millions out of poverty. These countries are not just emitting more; they are also gaining a competitive advantage in the global market by keeping their energy costs low.
Australia's net-zero agenda is not just an environmental policy; it's an economic one. The transition to renewable energy requires massive investments in infrastructure, research, and development. These costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity prices and increased taxes. Small businesses and industries are already feeling the pinch, with many struggling to stay afloat amid rising energy costs.
The economic impact is not limited to increased costs. The net-zero push is also leading to job losses in traditional energy sectors and creating uncertainty in the job market. While new jobs are being created in the renewable energy sector, they do not offset the losses, and the transition is far from seamless.
The construction of electricity generation and distribution, which is dominated by renewable energy projects such as wind and solar, has now reached a record share of total engineering construction. Westpac economist Pat Bustamante said that since 2020, work done on renewables had grown by 250 per cent from around $2bn a quarter to around $7bn, "with a significant portion of this growth driven by the public sector."
It's a scandal that the Labor Government doesn't come clean with a single figure cost for climate spending. Australian voters had no idea how much of their money is being squandered turning our power stations into fake weather control machines.
Australia's net-zero obsession is setting the country on an unsustainable path. The enormous costs and questionable benefits of this policy are taking a toll on our economy. While the rest of the world, particularly China and India, continues to thrive on fossil fuels, Australia is hamstringing itself with an idealistic but economically devastating agenda.
It's time for a rethink. We need a balanced approach that considers both environmental and economic realities. Australia cannot afford to be a global leader in emission reductions if it means sacrificing our economic prosperity. Let's focus on practical and affordable solutions that do not cripple our economy and ensure that Australia remains competitive on the global stage.
"For your sake, the Australian government took at least $440 of yours this year and spent it on electrical hobgoblins that claim to make nicer weather in a hundred years. That's $1,800 for each family of four, in order to reduce world temperatures by nothing in our lifetimes.
How many families would willingly give up that kind of money on the witchdoctor weather quest?
The IPA has done what the Labor Government is too dishonest to do, and the Opposition was too scared to do. Adam Creighton added up the bonzana the government has spent on climate change since 2022 — and it's exploded like a tanker of polyurethane-policy-filler. It sticks to everything, can't be removed and if we burn it down, it fills the room with cyanide.
Back in 2021 the nation was throwing $1.7 billion dollars a year on certified weather voodoo. But after Labor won in 2022 that figure ballooned until now the federal budget spending on "climate change" and 'Net Zero' has expanded to $9 billion. But this is barely the start of the true cost Australians have paid — The transition bonfire added about $150 to most electricity bills in Australia this year. For some Australians electricity has risen by as much as 50% since the Labor government was elected. Then there's another $3b in electricity rebates each year to hide the true cost of the electricity horror show. Someone has to pay those rebates, and since it's borrowed money, that'll be the kids. Then there are the businesses that folded, the jobs that were lost, the factories that moved away, and the higher cost of frozen everything in supermarkets.
How did we go broke — gradually then suddenly.
Climate change spend surges to $9bn a year
By Matthew Cranston, The Australian
"The array of 'programs' and 'funds' related to climate change and net zero, which are typically piled on top of one another, year after year, has become ridiculous and almost impossible to track. It raises serious questions about how effectively and efficiently public funds are being spent," Mr Creighton said. "Despite all this soaring spending on net zero, Australia's emissions have fallen only 2.8 per cent on the government's own figures compared to 2005, once you exclude creative accounting with trees."
What do we call it when the government commands the economy — communism?
The construction of electricity generation and distribution, which is dominated by renewable energy projects such as wind and solar, has now reached a record share of total engineering construction.
Westpac economist Pat Bustamante said that since 2020, work done on renewables had grown by 250 per cent from around $2bn a quarter to around $7bn, "with a significant portion of this growth driven by the public sector".
It's a scandal that the Labor Government doesn't come clean with a single figure cost for climate spending
Australian voters had no idea how much of their money is being squandered turning our power stations into fake weather control machines.
It's another scandal that the ABC never demands to know the answer. Isn't that exactly what we pay them for — to ask the hard questions? What did we get for $500 each —as it happens, more emissions.
It would take a PhD to estimate what the real cost is, but 100% of our academics are too busy trying to scare more funds out of the public to add up something we actually need to know. As a bucket estimate, $9 billion in public spending plus $3b in electricity rebates equals $12 billion annually. That's $440 for every man, woman and child, and by the time we add in extra electricity costs the figure would easily be $500 to $600 each. It's a level of spending that only 2% of Australians say they are happy to pay.
At no point did they ask you if you would rather keep the money yourself. That's because they know Australians don't want the Carbon Sky Whale.
Who do the politicians, the ABC and the Academics serve? The Chinese Communist Party?
Welcome to Futility Island
Anthony Albanese was elected in May 2022 and set God-like new emissions targets in to legislation. Ponder the scale of the national achievements of the last three years. All that money, all the wind factories, the solar panels, the batteries, the holes bored in the Snowy Mountains, and this is all we have to show for it?
This is the graph from the latest Quarterly figures shown on the DCCEEW website (with added notation from me):
Poignantly, Mr Bowen, the Minister for Weather Changing and Energy said — "We're turning around a decade of denial and delay, by setting serious climate targets in law and delivering the policy certainty to industry to bring down emissions". Indeed. (Do tell us when you start Chris?)
The bump last year was because the clouds didn't rain on the Tassie Hydro Scheme as much as we needed. And the wind didn't blow anywhere much in Australia in Quarter 2 last year. Who can forget the calm days of April-May-June last year when the wind turbines on the continent stood still? At one point, $20 billion dollars worth of wind power could only make as much power as two diesel generators.
For some reason none of our expert Climate Models saw any of that coming far enough in advance for us to plan ahead. So we just had to burn a bit more gas and coal. You'd think at this point, the failure of extra wind and solar would be so obvious, the Greens would be begging the Labor Party to build some nuclear plants. But they don't care about CO2 either.
Beyond that, ponder that even despite weather anomalies, the Labor Government and all the extra "renewables" have not seemingly achieved much in the last three years (or not much in the way of emissions). With all the money spent, wasn't the line supposed to dip below the trend, not plateau?
The thing is, more than a million people have immigrated to Australia since 2022, and they like emitting carbon dioxide too, and need houses and cars, but no one talks about that. Does the Labor Government care about our national emissions, or is it all just a performance art to justify trips to Davos and Brazil, and enrich their friends and donors?
Carbon emissions go up, hydro power down, data shows
By Greg Brown and Perry Williams, The Australian
Anthony Albanese's 2030 target to reduce emissions is on life support after new data showed Australia's carbon footprint rose slightly last year driven by a 2.2 per cent increase in the electricity sector.
Figures released by the Climate Change Department show carbon dioxide emissions rose by 0.05 per cent in 2024 to 446.4 million tonnes, equivalent to 27 per cent lower than in 2005.
Despite Labor going all in on renewables as part of its climate change agenda, emissions in the electricity sector increased in 2024 with coal and gas needing to step up due to a lack of water limiting hydro generation in Tasmania.
Australia has currently reduced its emissions by 27% in total since 2005 (mostly due to land use changes, not electricity, but that's another story). Supposedly, if something supernatural happens, like aliens visit, or a meteor hits Sydney, we're going to get to a 43% reduction by 2030.
Otherwise to have even the faintest ethereal chance we'd need to increase "renewable-unreliables" from the current 40% up to 82% and 2030 is only five years away? Everyone knows it's impossible, and yet the crazy bus keeps going?
Even the believers like Bruce Mountain are saying he did not think there was a chance… yet Mr Bowen is still emphatic that "we're on track". (Like we live in a different decade of denial now?)
We're so "on track", that 75% of the projects the Minister is expecting are not taking off:
Only a quarter of the large-scale renewable energy generation required to hit Labor's 2030 target in the first three months of 2025 progressed to a firm capital commitment, new data showed this week, sparking a warning that the pace of investment must quickly accelerate to hit the end of decade goal.
At this point in our breakneck transition, wind-factories and solar panels should be going in all over the country. But we just heard that the price of high voltage transmission towers was going to cost up to 55% more than expected, and the AEMO was throwing their previous plans to the wind. Now, we're all supposed to subsidize each other to buy home batteries, EVs, and solar panels. What do we call that — a pyramid scheme?