Vikki Campion: Gambling our future on alternatives while renewables’ biggest cheerleaders say coal for energy is on the rise

When paying your power bill, keep feeling good and fuzzy about net zero. It’s a moral imperative to shut coal down, writes Vikki Campion.

The first time we tried to shut down coal on moral grounds was in the 1800s, not because of warm and fuzzy net zero ambitions but due to allegations of homosexuality in the coal pit, then viewed as an “unnatural crime”.

The moral reasons for shutting down coal now are just as bizarre, not made on economic grounds but on politicians’ feelings about the subject.

Since the late 18th century, coal has been one of our top exports.

The NSW Statistical Register for 1900 shows trade per head of population; we were exporting 19.8 shillings of coal per person, on par with gold, during a gold rush.

Look for the line item in this week’s MYEFO, where our so-called “renewables superpower” returns the tens of billions splashed on alternative intermittent power back to taxpayers, and you will be looking for a long time.

They wanted to shut coal mines in the 1800s over allegations of homosexuality among miners. These days it is also a moral imperative to shut the mines – but it makes even less sense.

Instead, you will find intermittent power risks not “fully reflected” in MYEFO. Due to apparent “commercial sensitivity”, the Albanese government that promised transparency refuses to reveal how much of your money will be handed to private, overwhelmingly foreign companies over the next 15 years to build renewables.

If you did this in a corporation, you would be hauled before ASIC for withholding vital information from financial statements.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers at the release of the mid-year Budget update. Picture: NewsWire/Martin Ollman

Look for our green hydrogen export returns to taxpayers, the way we did for coal in the 1900s, and instead of a dollar figure per capita, there is an explainer: ”The uncertainty surrounding these measures could affect budget estimates”.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers justifies increasing handouts on top of the existing $22.7 billion for the “transition” as the cost of “advancing the transition to a net zero economy … (to) … maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the international move to net zero.”

Except, there isn’t one. Not in the biggest economies, such as India, China, Russia or the United States.

As the International Energy Agency’s coal forecast this week shows, global coal demand is expected to grow to an all-time high of 8.7 billion tonnes.

A truck passes a huge pile of coal at the Mt Arthur mine in Muswellbrook. Even the biggest cheerleaders for renewables say coal for energy is on the rise.. Picture: Ian Waldie/Getty Images

This is after their 2015 forecast, where they claimed global coal demand would fall to 5.5 billion tonnes by 2020.

It seems the Albanese government is wedded to IEA figures that have proven to be hopelessly wrong.

The IEA found: “The power sector has been the main driver of coal demand growth, with electricity generation from coal set to reach an all-time high of 10,700 terawatt-hours in 2024.”

When even the biggest cheerleaders for renewables say coal for energy is on the rise, Australia instead turns to strangle its production and gambles our future on alternative intermittents.

We are killing coal to run our economy on power subject to the whim of the weather, of sun and cloud, breeze and rain. Any farmer will tell you there is no harder boss.

Six renewables projects that the taxpayer is underwriting come with the following terms: “Once the projects are built and operational, if the annual revenue earned by a project is below the agreed revenue floor, the Australian government will pay the project operator 90 per cent of the revenue shortfall up to the agreed annual cap for 15 years.”

So we will give you a handout to build it and a handout to keep it and, to rub salt in the wound, Mr Chalmers’ MYEFO says: “The Australian Government’s maximum liability and estimated payments under these agreements are not for publication due to commercial sensitivities … final payments will depend on future electricity prices.”

Translation: Massive scam.

Victim? You.

Please do not let the Coalition be complicit in this.

That’s on top of $20bn Rewiring the Nation and another $1.2bn on transmission lines.

We have more and more demand with less and less supply, from more and more unreliable sources, and the price, naturally enough, soars.

You don’t have to be an economist to see this is not working.

A government that truly understood the cost-of-living crisis would be working on changing the climate inside the house, not outside.

We have three power choices wind (and solar), nuclear or coal-fired.

We have three choices: Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen’s 100 per cent wind and solar by 2050, to cost trillions; his shadow spokesman Ted O’Brien’s 14GW nuclear by 2050 to the cost of $331bn, or coal-fired power to the cost of $43bn.

We would not be in this crisis if we had spent even a portion of this on injecting new life into our current fleet of coal power stations.

More and more people are coming to the epiphany that net zero is pushed by a clique of bureaucrats, grifters on the public teat, billionaire opportunist fearmongers on the make, and politicians with a naive view of how an electricity grid works and the economics of what happens with the price of an essential when its supply is massively restricted for portions of the day.

When paying your power bill, keep feeling good and fuzzy about net zero. It’s a moral imperative, after all, just like closing down a gay coal mine.

WHY ALBO'S GOVERNMENT DOESN’T LIKE TO ANSWER HARD QUESTIONS

What excuse do you think justifies refusing to release the business case on a contentious $100 million road that just happens to lead to the Prime Minister’s clifftop mansion?

Try this one out for size from our Infrastructure Minister Catherine King: “The release of correspondence relating to discussions between the Australian and NSW governments on projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment Program (IIP) would constitute a risk to Commonwealth-State relations and therefore will not be provided as part of this request.”

It’s not like this road is crucial to the nation’s defence; it’s convenient to get to the PM’s new abode.

Anthony Albanese’ a new house. The PM would never consider asking for a multimillion-dollar road upgrade to his house – but it makes getting there more convenient. Picture: Supplied

People First Senator Gerard Rennick translated her response as: “I don’t think my boss would like that”.

We are not suggesting for a moment that the PM would ever consider asking for a multimillion-dollar road upgrade to his house.

This unique version of transparency is all explained by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Penny Wong, in a letter explaining why her government failed to fulfil 80 requests for the production of papers.

“The excessive use of orders for production makes governments less likely to comply with them as they are unable to properly assess the documents asked for, and the frequency of orders means they also lose their moral authority,” Senator Wong wrote.

Leader of the Government in the Senate Penny Wong. Picture: Jacquelin Magnay

Whinge, and you’ll get nothing may work for mothers of little children, but not by politicians using a legitimate instrument of the Senate.

The purpose of the Senate is precisely this transparency; what else do they do?

How can Senator Wong justify refusing to provide documents to senators because the Senate wants too many documents?

“The Albanese government is delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency, and accountability,” Senator Wong claimed in the letter.

No wonder Mr Albanese’s trust rating is one of the lowest ever for a prime minister.

Do you have a story for The Telegraph? Message 0481 056 618 or email [e-mail]