“Australia is sleepwalking into an election that could deliver the most anti-renewable government in Australia’s history,” John Grimes from the Smart Energy Council told ABC Radio.
Australia stands at a scary crossroads at this election. As global temperatures soar to a staggering 1.75°C above pre-industrial levels, the impacts of climate change are becoming impossible to ignore. Homes are becoming uninsurable. Extreme storms and flooding are driving up the cost of living by disrupting food and water supplies. Deadly heat waves are escalating. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities. And yet, as the world moves towards renewable energy, the Coalition under Peter Dutton has outlined a vision for Australia that locks us into a fossil-fuel-dependent future.
John Grimes, Chief Executive of the Smart Energy Council, recently laid out exactly what is at stake in the next federal election. His words should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who is concerned about what the escalating climate crisis will lead to:
“We’re really concerned Australia is sleepwalking into an election that could deliver the most anti-renewable government in Australia’s history.”
Mr Grimes told the ABC Radio National Breakfast that a government led by Peter Dutton would mean a deliberate step backwards on climate action. This is not an exaggeration. The Coalition has clearly stated their intention to cap renewable energy in Australia at 54 per cent of the total energy mix until 2050 – a limit we are set to reach next year. This means no further investment in renewables, including solar, wind, rooftop solar, batteries, and pumped hydro.
In other words, the Coalition’s plan would put a complete halt to Australia’s renewable energy transition. Offshore wind projects? Scrapped. Emissions standards for electric vehicles? Repealed. Requirements for energy efficiency and solar in new homes? Removed.
Australia is in a race against time to decarbonise its economy, yet under a Dutton government, we would see the country deliberately sabotage its own progress. This is a policy approach that benefits only one small group of people: the stakeholders of the fossil fuel industry.
A deliberate campaign of misinformation
Unfortunately, many Australian voters are tuning in to Donald Trump, a man who deliberately lies about climate change. His approach is being echoed by Peter Dutton, who has openly praised Trump as a “big thinker.” That alone should be enough to make voters question Dutton’s judgment and moral compass.
John Grimes highlights how the Coalition’s statements on renewable energy are filled with either dangerous misinformation or outright lies:
“We’re hearing actually a stream of comments from Mr Dutton that are either dangerously misinformed – or he is simply lying to the Australian people. He’s saying that ‘Renewable energy cannot power a modern economy.’ It’s a lie.”
“He says ‘Australia can’t build enough renewables to meet our current target by 2030’. He says we can’t put in 22,000 solar panels a day. Well, we did the numbers. Today in Australia, last year, we averaged 37,000 solar panels every single day.”
This is the strategy: sow doubt about renewables, shift attention towards nuclear – which won’t be operational for at least 15-20 years, if ever – and in the meantime, ensure that the fossil fuel industry continues to profit.
“We are really concerned because they’re actually doing something kind of smart. They’re trying to get us focused on nuclear energy, which is a policy that is probably undeliverable in the next 15 or 20 years. And in the meantime, not think about their agenda against the renewable energy industry.”
The Coalition’s real energy agenda: more coal and gas – renewables stagnation
If elected, the Coalition’s energy plan will be built on three key pillars, Mr Grimes told ABC’s listeners:
- Coal Keeper – Taxpayer-funded subsidies to keep ageing coal-fired power stations running for decades longer than necessary.
- Gas Booster – Expanding methane gas extraction and use, locking Australia into high-cost, polluting fossil fuels.
- Solar Stopper – An explicit cap on renewable energy development to ensure fossil fuels maintain their market share.
“What’s happening at the moment is a transfer of wealth worth billions of dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry to the new renewable energy industry. Those incumbents are not standing by and allowing that market share to just disappear. They are coordinated, sophisticated, well-resourced, they’re piling on on social media, and it’s actually working.”
This is not about what’s best for Australians. It is about ensuring that fossil fuel companies continue to dominate our energy market. If Dutton wins the election, their influence will only grow stronger.
A question of democracy
If the Coalition wins, they will argue that they have a mandate to pursue their anti-renewable policies. But democracy only works when voters are informed about the consequences of their choices.
The Labor government has put in place investment schemes to ensure a smooth transition away from coal. The Coalition wants to dismantle these policies and leave Australia exposed to an energy crisis. The consequences of this decision will be felt for decades.
“With renewable energy, you need to build renewable capacity before you turn off the coal-fired power stations. And we know that they’re coming to end of life, so that build-out is critical.”
“So we are not being alarmist. Already, industries and companies are looking to exit the Australian market. There’s a chill, an investment chill through the entire large-scale sector.”
This is the stark reality: If the Coalition wins, Australia’s renewable energy industry will grind to a halt. Investment will dry up. Jobs will be lost. The cost of living will rise. And our ability to combat climate change will be severely weakened.
Consider the consequences
In Corangamite, Darcy Dunstan is campaigning to win the seat for the Coalition on a “Cheaper energy”-election slogan. If he succeeds, he will be part of a government that actively works against renewable energy. A vote for the Coalition is a vote for stagnation, for higher power bills, and for a country that falls behind the rest of the world in clean energy development.
The choice could not be clearer.
Australia needs to move forward, not backwards. We need leaders who embrace the future, not those who cling to the past. The coming election is about more than just politics – it is about the kind of country we want to live in.
Do we want an Australia that leads the way in clean energy and innovation, or do we want an Australia locked into a dying fossil fuel economy?
The decision is ours to make within the next few months.
“A bucket load of gas”
The Coalition have announced that they want to “approve a bucket load of gas”, massively expanding the polluting gas industry off our coasts. Their destructive election promise would:
• Pre-approve the gas processing plant Woodside wants to extend to 2070 to service its toxic Burrup Hub – bypassing environmental assessments.
• Allow multinationals to continue to export 80 percent of gas drilled in Australia.
• Fast-track offshore gas drilling approvals – including potential projects the current government have already rejected.
• Release new permits for gas exploration across Australia’s coastlines, including New South Wales and Victoria.
→ The Guardian – 24 February 2025:
Coalition nuclear plan hides a 2bn tonne ‘carbon bomb’ that puts net zero by 2050 out of reach, new analysis shows
“Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean says Dutton’s energy proposal is equivalent to adding ‘two Beetaloo basins’ worth of emissions to atmosphere.”
→ The Guardian – 18 February 2025:
The election could be called any day – but Peter Dutton still hasn’t explained how his nuclear proposal will work
“His claim that nuclear power would lead to cheaper bills in the near future isn’t supported by the modelling released to back it up. But the soundbite survives …”
→ Financial Review – 13 February 2025:
‘Worst in a decade’: Why the campaign against renewables is thriving
“After a recent boardroom shake-up, Australia’s top renewables industry group wants to take the fight to its enemies.”
→ See also: www.energyfactcheck.com.au
The claim that “We shouldn’t have to choose between energy security and environmental protection—nuclear power gives us both” is deeply flawed and manipulative. Here’s why:
1️⃣ Too slow to matter – Nuclear power plants take 15-20 years to build in Australia. Meanwhile, renewables and storage can be deployed now, delivering clean energy and lowering power bills immediately.
2️⃣ Sky-high costs – Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity, requiring billions in subsidies. Who pays? You do, through higher energy bills and taxpayer-funded handouts to the industry.
3️⃣ No solution for waste – Decades in, no country has solved the long-term problem of nuclear waste. In Australia, where would we dump it? Whose backyard becomes the sacrifice zone?
4️⃣ Water guzzler – Nuclear plants need massive amounts of water for cooling. In a country facing worsening droughts, does it make sense to invest in the most water-intensive energy source?
5️⃣ Tied to fossil fuels – Australia’s nuclear plan is a delaying tactic designed to extend the life of coal and gas. Why? Because if we wait decades for nuclear, fossil fuels stay in business longer.
The reality: We don’t have to choose between energy security and environmental protection—because wind, solar, and batteries already provide both, faster and cheaper than nuclear ever could.
Don’t be fooled by political spin. The Liberal Party’s nuclear push is a dangerous distraction when we need real climate action now. Australia doesn’t have decades to waste.
Dutton’s nuclear sham continues
CSIRO, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Climate Change Authority all agree: nuclear is a more expensive way to replace the coal stations than wind and solar.
Recently, the Climate Change Authority found that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan would create an extra two billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by extending the life of the nation’s geriatric coal power plants.
Nick O’Malley, Environment and Climate Editor at The Age, wrote:
“The Coalition’s response was swift and emphatic. It attacked the Climate Change Authority as partisan; the CCA that is headed by the former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister, Matt Kean.
“The Climate Change Authority has become a puppet of Anthony Albanese and [Climate Change and Energy Minister] Chris Bowen, as its latest report parrots Labor’s untruthful anti-nuclear scare campaign,” said the Coalition’s energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, as reported by the Australian Financial Review.
The opposition’s finance spokeswoman Jane Hume suggested that should the Coalition win government in the coming months, Kean, or the agency he heads, might have to go. “I cannot imagine that we possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so badly politicised,” she told ABC TV.
“It simply isn’t serving its purpose to provide independent advice to the government on its climate change policy.”
The problem the opposition faces is that if it was to abolish all the bodies casting doubt on its nuclear power plan, it would have to do a lot of abolishing.
Both the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have published findings that the opposition’s nuclear plan would be a slower and more expensive way to replace the coal stations than the government’s policy of speeding up the deployment of wind and solar, backed by gas and energy storage infrastructure including batteries and pumped hydro.
Both those bodies have copped criticism from the Coalition for stating their case too.
A (Labor dominated) parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power published its interim report, which also found that nuclear would be more costly – in cash and emissions – than the renewable path charted by Labor. O’Brien dismissed the inquiry as a “sham”.
Messenger shooting is an old sport in politics, one with a particularly rich history in climate and energy policy.”