Australia is ill-prepared for major changes to US energy policy likely under incoming President, Donald Trump. The incoming Republican has indicated his intention to withdraw the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which was aimed at supporting the renewables industry and restricting fossil fuels. Trump is likely to step-up support for crude oil, natural gas, and coal production while pushing for an increase in US exports of liquefied natural gas. There will be a reduction of financial assistance offered to the renewables industry and an abandonment of the Net Zero targets and greenhouse gas emissions monitoring. In Australia, both major parties remain committed to the Paris Agreement and Net Zero targets, as do major business organisations. The Business Council of Australia supports ‘facilitating a coordinated transition to Net Zero by 2050’. The Minerals Council of Australia says that it ‘has a strong commitment to climate action, supporting the Paris Agreement and an industry ambition of Net Zero by 2050’. The Australian Banking Association supports ‘a balanced and orderly transition to a Net Zero emissions economy by 2050’. These positions entail an increasing role for renewables and a declining role for fossil fuels. Is this approach sustainable? More importantly, can renewables do as they promise and supply reliable electricity? Not according to the experience of Broken Hill in October 2024, when the town’s link to the main grid was broken by the collapse (resulting from a storm) of nearby transmission towers. The town had little electricity for two weeks, notwithstanding wind and solar power being available. Broken Hill once had the dream of becoming Australia’s first carbon-free city by 2030. This dream has since been shattered. As the mayor, Tom Kennedy, said in late October, ‘There’s no way that renewables at this time are capable of supplying Broken Hill … the reality is, it’s not consistent power … for Broken Hill, it’s almost useless.’ Then we must consider, can renewables supply low-cost electricity? Not if our experience of the last 25 years is any guide. In 2000, Australia ranked among the lowest electricity prices in the world. They are now some of the highest, with retail electricity prices in Australia having increased at nearly double the rate of all prices since 2000. This is because of:

• High transmission costs for most wind and solar farms.
• Costs associated with frequency control, arising because of the need to convert direct current from wind and solar farms to alternating current required for the grid.
• The serious overbuilding required of renewables because of their intermittency (for example, to replace a 500-megawatt coal plant would require at least 1,500 megawatts of renewable facilities).

Then we might ask, is coal really on the way out? Not if we look at the deals being done by NSW and Victorian Labor governments to ensure that coal-fired plants stay open beyond their scheduled closure dates, deals backed last month by Federal Energy Minister, Chris Bowen. Coal is our cheapest source of reliable electricity and is readily available – for example, Victoria has enough coal for at least 800 years. Far from being on the way out, coal will be needed in Australia until at least the 2050s. Natural gas is in short supply in the eastern states and, in any case, comes in at twice the cost of coal for electricity generation. Nuclear power, if accepted in Australia, is unlikely to play a major role before 2050. Renewables cannot provide reliable or low-cost electricity. Does climate science dictate that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Scientists agree that emissions contribute to global warming, but are they the main driver of global warming? Yes, in the view of the Climate Council in Australia, which says that ‘scientists have concluded that humans have been driving the significant changes in climate that we are currently experiencing’. No, in the view of Judith Curry, a prominent US scientist: ‘The climate system is way more complex than just something that you can tune with a carbon-dioxide control knob.’ No, in the even stronger view of Steven Koonin, a US physicist and former senior science official in the Obama administration: ‘The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.’ No, in the blunt view of John Clauser, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2022: ‘There is no climate crisis.’ Under the previous Trump administration, consideration was given to the formation of blue and red teams, to present differing views regarding the effect of emissions on climate. This proposal did not get off the ground but, if revived, it will open up public discussion of climate science in the US and globally. Such discussion will challenge the views of the Climate Council and those here in Australia who think similarly. In promoting the transition to renewables over the past 20 years, Australian governments have been supported by the Obama administrations (2009-17), Biden administration (2021-25), and by the European Union (EU). This is changing. Neither Labor nor the Liberals can expect support from the incoming Trump administration for their energy policies, notably, their continuing commitment to renewables and Net Zero targets. Three-quarters of EU governments are now led by a right-of-centre party or a coalition that includes at least one such party – resulting in weakening government commitment to renewable energy in the EU. According to current policy, Australia is transitioning from coal to renewables, which now supplies 30 per cent of our electricity (excluding hydro-power). As the US under Trump reverses its position on renewables (with at least partial support from some EU countries), and developing countries go their own way (often favouring fossil fuels), Australia may be faced with the question: Should we transition, not from coal to renewables, but from renewables back to coal? Brian Wawn is a Melbourne-based consultant