You cannot power commercial aircraft with renewable energy. They need oil-based aviation fuel.  Fact: Aviation is actually one of the easiest industries to decarbonise. All that is needed is to replace traditional fuel sources with sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF can be made from feedstock, vegetable oil, used cooking oil, algae or even household waste. It is carbon neutral, as it draws in CO2 when it’s produced (i.e. grown), then expels it when it’s burned. Using this fuel source can cut CO2 emissions by as much as 80 percent when compared with conventional sources. The beauty of using SAF is that it doesn’t require any modification to either planes or airport infrastructure. The problem, however, is that SAF is expensive. To use it would raise the cost of air travel by about 140 percent – a not insignificant amount. Of course, over time costs will fall dramatically, once economies of scale are achieved, but that will not be till the middle of the next decade. 

You cannot power heavy industries like steel, aluminium and cement on renewable energy. They need coal, oil and gas. Fact: Some industries are indeed very difficult to decarbonise. They represent about 27 percent of global emissions. While replacement technologies are not currently available, replacement ones will be available over the next two decades.  Let’s start with steel. Several European companies have announced plans to produce low emissions versions of this vital building material. One is ArcelorMittal, the world’s second largest producer. It intends to make steel in its facility in Spain using hydro power. The Swedish power company Vattenfall plans to do something similar. Another Swedish company, HYBRIT, has supplied Volvo with the world’s first fossil-free steel. It intends to produce ‘green’ steel on an industrial scale as early as 2026. In Germany, ThyssenKrupp is committed to cutting emissions in its steelmaking operations by 30 percent by 2030, and by 100 percent by 2050.  As far as aluminium is concerned, the good news is that over 60 percent of the CO2 emitted when making it occurs when electricity is generated. By using renewable energy, all those emissions can be eliminated. Further reductions can be achieved by replacing the carbon anodes used in smelting with inert anodes that emit oxygen rather than CO2, and by using a process known as ‘mechanical vapor recompression’. Unfortunately, the remaining 18 percent of emissions cannot be eliminated, so will have to be sequestered using carbon capture and storage (CCS).  The real difficulty with decarbonising aluminium is not technology but cost. As yet, the necessary processes are too expensive to be commercially viable without government assistance. But that will change with time.  Cement is even more difficult and expensive to decarbonise than either steel or aluminium. One company that is seeking to do so is the Swiss conglomerate Lafargeholcim, the largest producer of concrete in the world. It has lowered its carbon emissions by 25 percent since 1990 and is pushing to reach net-zero emissions. Two other companies that have reduced their carbon footprint are China National Building Materials (the largest producer of cement in China) and CEMEX. The latter plans to reduce its carbon emissions by 35 percent by 2030. A cement plant [Source: Wikimedia Commons] Until new technologies come along, the solution may be to find products that can replace cement altogether. Already, such a polymer has been produced from a combination of waste plastics and soil contaminated with hydrocarbons and heavy metals. If this polymer could be produced at commercial rates, it would allow emissions to be reduced and dangerous waste to be disposed of simultaneously.  So, it’s simply not true to say that some industries cannot be decarbonised. What is true is that they cannot be decarbonised yet or, at least, cannot be decarbonised at a price that is commercially viable. This means that while we wait for the situation to change, we must do everything we can to decarbonise the 73 percent of emissions that we can currently can.

If the world shifts to renewables, we will make it much harder for poorer nations to develop. This will sentence their populations to decades more poverty. Fact: This argument is completely disingenuous, as many climate deniers are unconcerned about poverty in their own countries, let alone in developing ones. In fact, many developing nations have discovered that renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and are adopting them at a faster rate than we are. The cost of renewables is actually much less for developing countries, as they don’t need to scrap existing fossil fuel plants. They can go straight to renewables as they develop. Even so, it will be necessary to provide some funding to the poorest nations, to kickstart the transition. This was agreed to in Paris in 2015 and at COP27 in Egypt in 2022.

Phasing out Australia’s fossil fuel exports would deny the country billions of dollars of foreign income and cause its exchange rate to collapse. Fact:  It’s true that the elimination of fossil fuel exports on its own would have very negative impacts on the economy, as about 7 percent of our GDP is derived from this source. However, the Commonwealth Treasury estimates that revenue from such exports is set to nosedive over the next two decades – from A$198 billion in 2025 to A$106 billion in 2030 and A$46 billion in 2050. By contrast, exports of products related to clean energy – like ammonia, iron, steel, bauxite, alumina, aluminium, copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt are expected to rise from about A$46 billion in 2025 to A$120 billion in 2035 and A$270 billion in 2050. In fact, they are set to bring in far more income and foreign exchange than fossil fuels do today. In addition, the switch to EVs will save us from importing $40 billion a year of petroleum and diesel to run our vehicle fleet. An added advantage is that we will no longer have to worry about having our energy supplies cut off in the event of a regional conflict, like the one between Iran, Israel and the United States. And, of course, there is always the awkward fact that our fossil fuel exports are going to decline and ultimately collapse anyway, since our trading partners are all committed to net zero emissions and energy self-sufficiency.

7.8 million people work in the coal industry worldwide. 45,000 do so in Australia. If the industry were to be closed down, it would put all of these people out of work, and would threaten the livelihoods of those who depend on them.  Fact:  It’s true that phasing out coal will eliminate millions of jobs, but that is the same with any industry in transition. When typesetting was automated, large numbers of skilled workers lost their jobs. The same happened when cars replaced horses as the principle means of road transportation. Computers eliminated a vast array of jobs, but created many more in other fields.  In Australia, many jobs were lost when the footwear, clothing and textile industries were closed down in the 1980s, and when the car industry was jettisoned thirty years later. That didn’t stop the government from supporting or initiating those changes. Nor did it affect the Australian economy in the long-run. In fact, the changes were overwhelmingly beneficial, as they allowed workers to move into better, higher-paid jobs.  The fact is, there can be no economic development without some dislocation. The key is to ensure that workers can transition into other areas of employment. In nations where that happens, there is little objection to such change. But in ones where workers are left to fend for themselves, the result can be greater poverty, more crime and less social cohesion.  Finally, in Australia’s case it’s worth remembering that decisions about the future of the coal industry will not be made locally but overseas. This is because 77 percent of the coal the nation produces is exported. The problem is, Australia’s trading partners are already transitioning away from coal, and as they do so, export revenues will shrink. There is nothing whatever that Australians can do about this. Coal Mining in Australia [Source: Rawpixel.com]

Renewables are not only more expensive than fossil fuels, they also can’t provide baseload power, particularly when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.  Fact: This is simply untrue. In most parts of the world, solar and wind are cheaper than coal, and only a third the cost of nuclear power. Batteries and stored hydro can provide most of the backup we need to keep the lights on ‘when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow’, as climate sceptics love to say. In fact, Britain’s National [Electricity] Grid set itself the target of operating completely fossil fuel free by 2030. [Climate sceptics sometimes suggest that Britain will only be able to achieve this because of an excessive reliance on nuclear energy. This is not true either. Britain currently gets only 15 percent of its electricity from nuclear.] Scotland is even more advanced. It currently gets 97 percent of its electricity from renewables (mostly from wind). The other 3 percent comes from gas. And in Australia, South Australia now gets 76 percent of its electricity from renewables and is on track to reach 100 percent by the end of 2027.  As for the costs involved in eliminating fossil fuels from the grid, it is estimated that Australia will need to spend an additional $180 billion in wind and solar generation, plus about $20 billion in various forms of storage. This represents about $800 a year per person, over a ten-year period – or about $2.20 a day. Such an amount will hardly bankrupt the country.

The Net Zero Australia Report that came out in 2025 estimated the cost of reaching net zero emissions to be $9 trillion. That is more than three times the nation’s GDP.  Fact: The figure of $9 trillion has been taken completely out of context. It actually refers to the total amount of investment that will be needed by 2050, not the amount that will be needed to reach net zero. In fact, $8.7 trillion of that investment will have to be spent anyway, even if we were to stick with fossil fuels. This is because large numbers of private appliances and industrial machines, and almost all our road transport fleet, will need to be replaced over the next 25 years. If in the process we ensure that all the replacements are powered by electricity, we will cut our emissions and upgrade our technology at no extra cost. We may actually save money, as electrical equipment is, in general, cheaper to buy and to run than fossil fuel equivalents.  Hence, the actual cost of getting to net zero is not $9 trillion, but $300 billion – a figure that amounts to $12 billion a year. This is less than half of what is spent on alcohol each year and only a third of what is spent on gambling!

It will cost way too much to decarbonise the global economy. We would be better off just adapting to climate change. Fact: It’s not true that decarbonising the global economy is excessively expensive – at least not if it’s done over a 25 year period. Ross Garnaut, one of Australia’s leading economists, estimates that a move to zero emissions would cost the country between 0.67 and 1 percentage point of GDP growth per year, if a price were put on carbon. That’s not 1 percent of GDP, but of GDP growth. In the long run, the move will actually save money, as it will spawn a raft of new industries, with new sets of skills and export potential. More importantly, it will generate jobs that have a long-term future, because they will not be threatened by declining resources, changing international demand or government action to reduce pollution. And even if the move to renewables did cost a lot, it would be far less than what was spent on dealing with COVID-19. And it would certainly be less than what was spent by the major combatants during World War Two. By 1945, the US was devoting 37 percent of its GDP to the military, without destroying its economy. Australia was devoting 40 percent of its GDP without collapsing, while for Britain and Germany the figures were 52 percent and 70 percent respectively. Yet it was not this spending that destroyed the German economy; it was bombing by the Allies. Finally, there is an important comparison to be made with the cost of home insurance. Although this is not cheap, the vast majority of people still choose to take it out, even though the chance of their home burning down is about one in 3,000, or 0.03 percent per year. The chance of dangerous climate change is much greater than this and the cost of dealing with it is significantly less. In fact, offsetting your lifestyle against climate emissions costs about 10 percent as much as insuring your home. And it should be remembered that as the impacts of climate change increasingly manifest themselves, it will become prohibitively expensive to insure against them – especially in regions prone to fires, floods and storms.

China is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is doing nothing to get these emissions under control. There is no point other nations taking action until China does the same. Fact: While it is true that China is currently the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and is responsible for 32 percent of the world’s annual total, on a per capita basis the nation is not a huge emitter. The emissions of the average American are double those of the average Chinese and almost nine times those of the average Indian. So, it is quite disingenuous to single out China as the main culprit when it comes to global warming.  Secondly, it is not true that China is doing nothing about climate change. In September 2020, President Xi Jinping announced that the country would reach peak emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2060. In fact, the country is way ahead of schedule, with peak emissions reached in March 2024 and total emissions falling by 1.6 percent during that year. If this trend continues, China will reach net zero by 2054 – well ahead of many other nations.  The reason for this is not surprising. In 2022, the nation added 125 gigawatts of renewable energy to its grid. In 2023, the figure rose to 278GW, then to 357GW in 2024 and to 430GW in 2025. This has brought the total to 1,190GW over the last four years. To put this in context, the US managed to install just 45GW in 2024 and 30GW last year. China also had 215 gigawatt hours of battery storage in 2025 – two and a half times that of the United states – with this figure expected to rise to 720GWh by the end of 2027. By the middle of 2026, Australia had 17.5GWh of battery storage.  All this means that China’s grid is now 42 percent renewable – about the same as Australia’s – and the electrification trend shows no signs of slowing down. By the end of 2025, the nation had electrified 76 percent of its rail network, 98 percent of its buses, 99 percent of its two-wheelers and 12 percent of its passenger vehicle fleet. Indeed, 58 percent of all cars purchased were EVs (up from 4.8 percent in 2019), with EV sales expected to reach almost 100 percent in the next few years. In addition, 28 percent of all heavy-duty trucks sold were fully-electric in 2025 – up from just 9 percent the previous year – and the number is expected to reach 60 percent by the end of 2026! The nation has 9,000 public charging stations dedicated to heavy-duty electric trucks, and another 21 million charge points devoted to EVs in general. China is also taking other steps to reduce its emissions. In June 2021, it introduced an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to punish companies emitting CO2, and to encourage a shift to renewables. This priced emissions at US$6.30 a tonne and rose to US$10 in 2025. [By contrast, California’s ETS prices emissions at US$17 a tonne, while the EU’s scheme does so at US$98 a tonne (up from US$5.50 in 2017). Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, which Tony Abbott said would destroy the Australian economy, was US$20 (A$24) a tonne.] The Chinese ETS is already the biggest in the world, but will need to be ramped up considerably if the nation is to reach zero net emissions by the middle of the century.  Despite all of these initiatives, it is true that China is still building coal-fired power stations, but these will likely only be used as backups, to avoid a repetition of the power shortages that occurred in 2021-22. (These were the result of a severe drought that reduced the nation’s hydroelectric output.) Those coming online now also represent decisions that were made between five and seven years ago, before China fully committed itself to renewables. In fact, coal is in steep decline in China, falling at a rate of 2 percentage points a year. In the first half of 2025, its use fell by 3.4 percent. That year it was responsible for only 55 percent of the nation’s electricity generation, and China’s coal-fired power stations were operating at only 44.8 percent capacity. This is why coal use is going down, even though new plants are coming online. With gas representing 3 percent of the nation’s electrical generation use, renewables now make up 42 percent – and growing rapidly!  Besides doing its bit to stop climate change, China has other important reasons for reducing its carbon emissions. Foremost among these is the fact that its cities have been among the most polluted in the world, and the only way to reduce this pollution has been to stop burning coal and oil. In addition, many of its coastal cities are very low-lying and face inundation, even with relatively modest rises in sea levels. Similarly, its river systems are fed by glaciers that are threatened by warmer temperatures. Their loss would devastate the nation’s agriculture. The Chinese government is well aware of these problems. Another reason to decarbonise is that China cannot aspire to superpower status while being dependent on fossil fuel imports, and it lacks sufficient domestic supplies to pursue a policy of fossil fuel autarchy. Were a war to come, the country would be vulnerable to a cut-off of oil, coal and gas supplies, and it does not have the military might or political will to defend far-off sea lanes. Decarbonisation is the only way it can achieve energy self-sufficiency. Returning to the question of why Australia should take action on climate change even if other nations don’t, there are strong moral reasons for us to do so. The argument that we should do nothing is similar to that espoused by slave traders in the 18th century. If England were to withdraw from the slave trade, they asserted, other countries would simply fill the vacuum; no fewer slaves would be traded and England