Net zero emissions: The alternative plan Australia needs to see
The first concealment is the approximate $500bn Business Council estimate of required expenditure to reach 2050 emission targets. An outlay at that level will cause massive rises in power costs and eliminate most current and prospective processing and manufacturing industries.
The current social fabric of the nation will be destroyed, yet this is rarely discussed in the debate.
Second, there is a low-cost solution that can achieve the net emissions targets at a profit. But, again, it is not discussed.
It involves using Australia’s large areas of arid land to grow major plantations of saltbush and other plants that take carbon from the air and store it in massive root systems. The foliage can be exported to satisfy a world need for protein, provide rich food for local livestock and greatly enhance the soil.
There is also a legitimate debate over whether Australia should wreck its living standards via the current renewables plan when we contribute only one per cent of global emissions.
What we do has no meaningful impact on the global climate. No other major country is contemplating such an action.
The nation is split on this issue and a significant segment of voters regard emissions as more important than living standards, which is why an alternative, value-adding solution to reduce emissions might actually bring the nation closer together.
In past decades when our political leaders were examining alternatives the early estimates of the cost of renewable projects made them economic. But, now, as the Business Council of Australia has set out, they are no longer economic as a result of skyrocketing construction costs, the need for backups and the limited life of panels and windmills.
Next year there are two state elections — Victoria and South Australia — and one would hope the Coalition, at least in ravaged Victoria, will put forward the low-cost emissions solution. South Australia is even better placed to launch the low-cost solution, and ALP Premier Peter Malinauskas is very practical.
In Victoria, opposition leader Brad Battin seems petrified to talk about gas for fear of enraging voters who want a target of no emissions by 2045 or 2050.
But, via large saltbush (and similar plants) plantations in Victoria and the rest of Australia we can have gas-generated power, and gas as a fuel has no, or minor, net emissions from our domestic use.
Victoria’s gas can come from its vast onshore reserves which require six test wells to make sure the gas will flow. There are many other gas supply alternatives, albeit more costly.
Victoria has areas in Gippsland and around the Mallee and the Wimmera which are ideal to plant saltbush. South Australia has larger areas. For the nation, large outlays are required to set up hundreds of 10,000 hectare plantations, but the outlays can be recouped in two or three years.
Proposals to use Australia’s capacity to grow saltbush have been around for a long time and indeed Malcolm Turnbull, when Prime Minister, was fascinated by the plans and then Scott Morrison began looking hard at them in his final months in office.
Much of the available land is the subject of Aboriginal land rights but the Aboriginal community has shown great interest in developing saltbush, particularly as it would create jobs in more isolated areas.
Exactly the same principle applies to timber, which enables dwellings and other buildings to be used to store carbon. And, each tree cut down is replaced.
The timber exercise will be tougher because the greens will oppose it, preferring forests to remain in place. But, timbering buildings is a magnificent way to store carbon.
Sadly, that debate has been confused by the felling of forests for non-dwelling purposes.
Given the exorbitant cost of renewables will see power prices skyrocket, Australians need to have a way of insulating their cost of living, as power subsidies will be unsustainable in the longer term.
Accordingly, cottage owners and renters will need rooftop solar plus batteries to generate power for daylight living, while storing power to at least cover part of the power demand in the evening and/or charge car batteries. A way will need to be found to help apartment dwellers.
Rooftop solar will not solve the overall problem, but it will enable Australian households to insulate themselves from the high-cost renewable programs currently being rolled out.
The most ambitious of the operations in this space comes from Bunnings, which has combined with Intellihub to offer the combination of a solar installation and battery for no upfront fee, with a monthly fee-of between $112 and $200 for standard dwellings.
Smart meter installer Intellihub will install both the batteries and the solar. The program is being trialled in Newcastle and Sydney using the brand Zelora. If successful, it will be extended to other major cities.
At this stage only owner-occupied houses are being offered the product but later it will be extended to rentals and other dwellings.
The fact that there’s no upfront fee and the monthly fee is likely to be covered by power bill reductions makes it different from most offers. But, it has inspired great activity by the energy companies to sell solar and batteries.
When more enlightened policies are in place the city grids will be redesigned to take larger quantities of rooftop solar into the system and pay a proper price.
We will then see solar be a major power generator via city-based industry instead of the remote locations which damage agriculture and boost costs.
Meanwhile, let’s have a real debate about a program of self-destruction designed to make us different from the rest of the world and feel good about our suffering, even though we are so small we will not change the global climate.
More Coverage
Turning hype into defence gains
The political debate on emissions reduction forecasts is one of the most absurd and dangerous political games ever played in Australia. The debate is being used to disguise monumental issues.