UPDATE: The Coalition’s new energy plan is drawing sharp criticism for lacking crucial details on how it intends to lower power prices and reduce emissions. Experts warn that the plan, which favors coal and gas while eliminating green energy incentives, raises serious questions about its effectiveness.
Earlier this month, the Coalition announced it would abolish green mandates and scrap the 2050 net-zero emissions target. Instead, it proposes a “technology neutral” strategy that embraces gas, coal, and nuclear power in a bid to reduce electricity costs. Monash University Associate Professor Roger Dargaville stated, “This is the Coalition’s strategy for a plan to write some policy – not a policy.” He added that there is no clear evidence of how the proposed policies will achieve their goals.
The opposition argues that while reduced emissions would be a positive outcome, it should not come at the expense of affordability. Professor Dargaville emphasized that the Coalition’s claims of applying downward pressure on electricity prices and emissions lack clarity, especially since they are not currently in government and have no imminent federal election.
Currently, Australia’s residential electricity price stands at 39 cents per kWh, slightly above the OECD average of 38 cents. However, when adjusted for cost-of-living indices, Australian electricity prices drop below the OECD average of 45 cents per kWh. “To suggest that we have overly expensive electricity is not correct,” Professor Dargaville stated, acknowledging the rise in prices due to factors like increasing fossil fuel costs and network charges.
The decision to abandon the net-zero target has intensified internal divisions within the Coalition. This 2050 target is a fundamental goal of the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C. The Coalition has insisted it will not withdraw from the Paris Agreement, claiming emissions will still decline under its new plan.
However, Professor Dargaville highlighted a major disconnect: “There becomes a big disconnect between achieving the Paris commitments and having any policy in place that actually drives it.” He warned that repealing green energy incentives would result in “around 70% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions” having no incentive to cut back.
Currently, the energy sector accounts for 32% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions, a figure that includes energy generation from fossil fuels. Other sectors, including transport and agriculture, lag significantly behind in decarbonization efforts.
The Coalition’s strategy also includes extending the lifespan of “reliable” generation sources, such as coal-fired power plants, in response to concerns about the reliability of renewable energy. However, Professor Dargaville argued that new coal or nuclear plants are unnecessary for backup power. “We do actually have a backup system,” he explained, referring to existing gas turbines and diesel generators that remain largely underutilized.
Professor Dargaville concluded that the Coalition’s portrayal of energy reliability is misleading, stating, “It’s scare mongering to suggest that we need everything backed up on those rare occasions when the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing.”
As the Coalition’s energy plan unfolds, many are left wondering about the implications of its proposals on both affordability and environmental commitments. With critical voices emerging, the effectiveness and clarity of the plan remain hotly debated as Australia navigates its energy future.
Stay tuned for further developments as this story continues to evolve.
