“Renewables continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation,” says a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency.
It has caused the UN secretary general, António Guterres, to declare: “We are on the cusp of a new era. Fossil fuels are running out of road. The sun is rising on a clean energy age.”
Well, hallelujah.
Except, here in Australia, we are still mired in the politics of climate and at risk of missing the window of opportunity for both environmental protection and economic benefit.
Regulatory hurdles, worker shortages and community blowback in regional Australia have all combined to feed the culture wars and the erosion of social licence that is fundamental to progress the energy transition.
As Ezra Klein, co-author of the viral book Abundance, has remarked of late, “We should be able to argue that the clean energy future should be fucking awesome.”
Yet, we are failing.
And in that we are betraying young people and those who are both most concerned about the impact of the renewables revolution on their communities and most at risk from the disasters that make it necessary.
This week the first sitting of the 48th parliament typified time-wasting point-scoring politics with former Nationals leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack teaming up to push for the repeal of the legislated net zero target, undermining the current leader, David Littleproud, in the process.
This is irresponsible and gutless, and the Albanese government with its characteristic pragmatic caution must not allow its massive majority to be an excuse to curb ambition because it doesn’t need to try too hard to appear to be better
Instead, governments and oppositions at state and federal level need to go back to basics and carefully build the case to step communities through the big changes ahead from the point of view of an opportunity for affordable power and better jobs as well as a necessity.
We know that Australians care about climate.
Many have already been touched directly by climate disasters. Most will have seen their insurance premiums affected at the very least.
The 2022 election was certainly influenced by the floods, fires and storms that led up to it, and the Morrison government’s refusal to “hold a hose”.
And while the Coalition successfully channelled much of the 2025 election debate into cost-of-living pressure, even here in Goldstein, where the demographic is older than the national average, polling still consistently showed climate in the top three concerns of constituents.
Many Australians also understand that climate and environment policy and the economy are intrinsically linked.
In his recent address to the National Press Club, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry tied the two together, as he described failures in improving environmental management as “a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry”.
The government has revived plans for a federal EPA after parking its promised broader reforms to environmental laws towards the end of the last parliament apparently under pressure from business.
Henry argues for an overhaul that protects and restores nature, through high-integrity incentives for nature restoration and carbon storage with genuine cooperation between all levels of government and clear standards and decision-making.
He frames nature restoration as an environmental and economic benefit, both of which are critical to the net zero transition.
Speaking of which, what was not talked about in Canberra this week?
While Joyce and McCormack try to ditch the 43% net zero 2030 emissions target (which is set as a floor not a ceiling because I negotiated that into the law with the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen), Australia’s net zero target for 2035 has not yet been set.
The government has been waiting for advice from the Climate Change Authority to set the new nationally determined contribution (NDC), which required factoring in the outcomes of the Australian election and the 2024 US election.
Now that all of that is over, to what extent will the Albanese government take its power amid this circular debate?
Some in the business world, specifically the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, say a target of 65-75% would be “exceedingly challenging for the Australian economy”.
Yet expert analysis shows that a 2035 target of sub 75% or more (on 2005 levels) is aligned with more than 2C of global heating. And, according to the Climate Council, “climate-fuelled disasters are expected to cost the Australian economy $94bn a year by 2060 if pollution levels remain high”. At least 8.8% of Australian homes will be uninsurable due to high exposure to climate disasters by 2100.
There’s no question it’s complicated, practically and politically.
But arguably, Labor has six years in power ahead. That’s a decent runway.
And pragmatically, three-quarters of millennials and gen Z voters, now the largest group of Australian voters, named climate change as an important consideration for the 2025 election.
By 2028, there will be several hundred thousand more of them.
And they’ll expect something beyond more “intergenerational bastardry”.
• Zoe Daniel is a three-time ABC foreign correspondent and former independent member for Goldstein
