Staying the course on energy risks wasting more money

The government’s insistence that “we need to stay on course” to reach its 82 per cent renewables target highlights a common dilemma in politics – what happens when policies don’t go as planned (“Stay course on climate: Bowen”, 19/3). Unlike private industry, where businesses quickly pivot when strategies fail, governments often double down on their commitments, fearing voter backlash.

What is even more concerning is that when faced with mounting challenges, governments frequently respond by increasing spending rather than reassessing their approach, as demonstrated with Snowy Hydro 2.0.

This stubborn adherence to policy, even when evidence suggests a need for course correction, risks significant waste of taxpayer money. The solution is transparency. Every dollar spent to achieve renewable energy targets must be subject to public scrutiny.

Accountability, not blind persistence, should be the foundation of energy policy.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is quick to label those who do not accept climate change as climate deniers (“Dutton’s energy policy hostage to climate deniers”, 19/3).

Why the need for insults? There are many like me who are climate sceptics. The algorithms used to show that if warming is not kept below 2C then the world will suffer irreversible warming, wiping out the human race, are so complex they are meaningless. Even a slight tweak and they give different results. Also, there are many factors that contribute to warming cycles, some of which we do not understand, such as influences from the sun, but all of which we have no control over.

Many like me are climate realists. Fossil fuels are embedded in our Western way of life and have enabled massive improvements in lifestyles and life expectancy. Close all fossil fuel usage down, as some exhort, and our economies will collapse. It is foreseeable this would lead to massive civil unrest as the ranks of unemployed grow, and maybe wars.

There are many like me who see Bowen’s renewables panacea as simply being worse than the fossil fuels he demonises. Power bills will surge, as we are seeing. Many industries may close here as we will not have reliable and cheap power. We are going to spend a fortune on poles and wires as the nation is rewired.

It is time for a major rethink of where we are going rather than seeking submission with bullying overtones.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

David Pearl’s brilliant article (“Net-zero black hole a self-inflicted tariff against the nation”, 18/3) is a wake-up call.

It points out that more wind and solar energy will result in higher power prices, a reality that is denied by Bowen and the bureaucrats who advise him. Hopefully, if the prosperity of this country and the wellbeing of its citizens are of paramount concern to the Liberal-National Coalition, they will abandon the net-zero policy at the first opportunity.

Deirdre Graham, Moss Vale, NSW

Chris Bowen ends his opinion piece by stating that Australians will be worse off under Peter Dutton while ignoring the fact Australians are already worse off under the Anthony Albanese government than they were under Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison Liberal governments. Bowen has no answer for the fact every increase in cheap renewables pushes up the price of electricity and flows through to increased prices for all our day-to-day needs.

All of his renewable energy projects and extensive extra transmission lines have to be paid for or subsidised by taxpayers. Consumers have to be subsidised with rebates as well.

Alexander Haege, Tamarama, NSW

Peter Dutton is copping criticism for not disavowing a net-zero target. In fact, he is being very politically astute in leaving it on the books. The issue between the parties is not the target but how to reach it.

Dutton says overseas experience shows it can’t be reached without nuclear power generation. It also shows the target cannot be reached by relying on wind and solar propped up by batteries. The choice is clear: there is a chance to reduce emissions and keep the lights on, or the lights will not stay on, in which case any reduction in emissions will be bought at too high a price.

Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld