Lithium mining has a devastating effect on the environment, so will cause widespread damage if we have to rely on it for our energy needs.  Fact:  It’s true that lithium production can be environmentally damaging, particularly in ecologically sensitive regions like the Atacama salt flat in Chile. For this reason, strict regulations will be needed to ensure that mining is carried out as responsibly as possible.  Of course, the bulk of lithium mining no longer takes place in sensitive regions like Atacama. Australia now produces 52 percent of the world’s lithium and does not use the brine extraction technique used in Chile. Instead, it uses the much less damaging hard rock extraction technique. In addition, new technologies like Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) are on the horizon. These promise dramatic improvements in the environmental impact of lithium mining.  Finally, it is not yet certain that lithium batteries will underpin the global shift to renewables. Many alternatives are being developed, and only time will tell which of these will win out.

Demand for lithium will increase 42-fold if all the world’s cars become electric. There simply isn’t enough lithium in the world to make this transition possible. Fact:  It is true that the world’s known sources of lithium would run out by mid-century, if we were restricted to using lithium just once in batteries or if no other technologies became available. Neither of those caveats is true, however. In the first place, lithium can be recycled. To quote a 2021 report by BloombergNEF, “With universal battery recycling, not only does primary lithium demand remain below known reserves, but there is also the prospect of a fully circular battery industry, with supply of recycled lithium exceeding total annual demand by mid-century.” [See James Fernyhough, “EV-to-grid could supply three times peak electricity demand: BNEF,” Renew Economy, 9/6/21.] In fact, the commercial recycling of lithium is already a reality. Hydrovolt owns the biggest EV battery recycling plant in Europe. Based in Norway, it is capable of recycling 12,000 tonnes of battery packs each year. 95 percent of the battery packs can be recycled. Secondly, a number of new technologies have been developed which either do not require lithium at all or use it in far smaller quantities than is the case now. These technologies include sodium-ion batteries, zinc-ion batteries, zinc-air flow batteries, vanadium flow batteries, nickel hydrogen batteries and iron air batteries. Iron air batteries offer the prospect of storing energy at one-tenth the cost of traditional lithium-ion systems. So, the supply of lithium is not going to be a problem.

The manufacture of lithium batteries produces more greenhouse gases than the batteries save during their lifetime. Hence the move to renewables is futile.  Fact: A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) showed that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the manufacture of lithium batteries are offset after 6 to 18 months of battery use. Given that such batteries currently have a lifespan of about fifteen years, this represents a huge saving in emissions. 

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!