From the National Press Club: I know many conservatives are not huge fans of the mainstream media, but we shouldn’t be looking to the media for leadership. Leaders are characterised by going first, allowing others to follow. The media are simply spectators and commentators rather than doers. That’s why we elect political leaders. Or so the story goes.

Instead, for years we have been told that coal is bad.

London-based FutureCoal is the rebranded World Coal Association, now referring to itself as the ‘Global Alliance for Sustainable Coal’. Today at the Press Club, FutureCoal’s chief, Michelle Manook, was questioned by journos on her address entitled: Thank You for Not Coaling – when the world insists coal has no future, what would you do?

Manook effectively said that coal had been ‘choked’ and unfairly excluded from the Net Zero debate.

Manook is sharp and unapologetic in a role that few would envy. Especially in Australia, where Chris Bowen and Sussan Ley have the same limited vocabulary when it comes to our energy debacle. But Manook wasn’t arguing for a particular technology, but rather for technological neutrality and a level playing field.

Labor governments typically struggle with technological neutrality – a concept that aims to achieve a certain outcome by taking advantage of whatever works. Instead, Labor (and indeed, Labor-lites) love to select particular technologies like wind and solar, and exclude proven technologies like coal and nuclear when it comes to fixing our energy woes.

Manook stated the obvious. The Net Zero debate is not about outcomes, it is about politics. The oft-touted level playing field aims to give no particular technology an advantage, with the outcomes from any particular technology standing on its own merits.

Coal has been a cheap and reliable source of energy for Australia since the beginning of our domestic electricity system. We have an abundance of coal that we gleefully sell to major polluters like China and India so we can buy back wind and solar technologies.

As Manook argued, it is not about results, but virtues.

The climate lobby has made a compelling case against coal that has been picked up by our young people. But it is not just our young people who are driving the anti-coal narrative.

As I arrived at the Press Club, the usual radical protesters were outside with their enormous banners. They were not young people, however. Most of them were much older than me. Security was necessarily tight, but the address went off without a hitch.

The National Press Club has been quite fair in being a platform for diverse opinions. Few conservatives take advantage of this platform. As I sat next to a colleague who has previously encouraged me while others were actively thwarting my efforts, I was pleased that we could agree to disagree. Even the MC commented on how the two of us – polar opposites – could sit next to one another in civil discussion but fierce disagreement.

Such civility has not been a feature of Australia’s energy debate. Manook called for a proper debate, not one in which coal was choked.

For example, one journo compared FutureCoal to FutureAsbestos. They argued that rooftop solar and batteries are driving prices down. As the journo resumed their seat, a member of the audience jeered: ‘I’m not paying for your batteries!’

Manook held firm. She claimed that modern coal plants use proven, off-the-shelf technologies that are far more efficient than the existing coal plants in Australia. These are being adopted in China, India, and elsewhere in Asia.

Another journo stated that Korea had committed to no new coal. Manook mentioned there were lots of other countries in Asia.

The truth is Korea generates it electricity with 32 per cent nuclear and 27 per cent each for coal and gas. A mere 10 per cent is provided by wind, solar, and hydro, with the rest provided by bioenergy.

Korea has no domestic gas supplies and Australia is a long-term supplier that provides close to 40 per cent of Korea’s gas.

Korea also has no domestic coal. Australia provides around 40 per cent of Korea’s coal, too.

While the premise of Net Zero is the efficient use of low-emissions energy sources, Manook argued that the current debate is really about ideology.

That makes sense when you consider that:

We mine our coal… using fossil fuels.

Then we ship it to China… using fossil fuels.

China burns our coal in plants where the power is used to manufacture solar, wind, and battery equipment. This is then shipped back to us… using fossil fuels.

The wind, solar, and battery equipment is installed… using fossil fuels.

The equipment is maintained… using fossil fuels.

As it ages (at a more rapid rate than coal plants), the equipment is disposed of… using fossil fuels.

Manook argued that we are not getting the whole picture about Net Zero. There are whole-of-life costs that are not being counted or reported. It is ideological.

Producing wind, solar, and battery equipment requires fossil fuels, not to mention the extraction of critical minerals required to produce this equipment.

We keep hearing about clean energy, green energy, Net Zero, and so on, but what does it all mean?

A real debate requires facts and figures, not slogans and ideology. What is the so-called carbon footprint of renewables? Not just the equipment, but the overbuild required for wiring and the environmental devastation it is causing.

Manook argued that we need to see a true picture of the various technologies.

I asked Manook how far behind we were in low-emissions coal research and deployment as a result of the neglect of coal. She responded that China and India are well ahead and Australia is lagging far behind.

I also asked how we could ensure that any government support for coal won’t replicate the grifter model of the renewables industry. She responded that coal is proven, off-the-shelf technology that is increasingly more efficient and, through carbon capture and storage, produces lower emissions than our existing coal fleet.

All it would require is for the various technologies to compete on a level playing field.

In a country that has more coal and uranium than we could use in an epoch, it makes sense. But with Tweedledum and Tweedledee on each side of our Parliament, expect to keep paying through the nose to make everyone feel better about their ‘clean’ energy.

Dr Michael de Percy @FlaneurPolitiq is the Spectator Australia’s Canberra Press Gallery Correspondent. If you would like to support his writing, or read more of Michael, please visit his website.