Key Takeaway
“We’re told renewables are emissions-free – except that’s a lie, because the materials used to make wind turbines and solar panels require coal to manufacture them, fuel to transport them, and gas to back them up when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.”
Context
In recent years, the Australian right has undergone a striking shift in its approach to the green transition. While climate action and the achievement of net-zero targets have long been treated as an unquestioned basic consensus within the Western political mainstream, the Australian right has chosen a radically different path. Rather than seeking compromise, it has openly advocated taking the issue entirely off the political agenda. This approach fundamentally differs from the logic adopted by most Western political forces, where the debate is generally about the pace and means of the transition, rather than whether the transition is necessary in the first place.
Summary
In an opinion piece, Pauline Hanson, leader of Australia’s One Nation party, does not call for the green transition to be fine-tuned or slowed down, but for it to be abandoned altogether. In her view, Australia does not need to align itself with international climate-policy trends. She argues that achieving net zero is not an inevitable path of development, but rather a misguided course that can — and should — be halted. Hanson argues that the Australian government is pursuing targets that it cannot even clearly define, while those policies are causing serious damage to the country’s economy and to people’s living standards. She considers it contradictory that Australia continues to export vast quantities of coal to countries that use it to produce cheap energy while shutting down its own coal-fired power plants. She sees a similar hypocrisy in the fact that Australia has some of the world’s largest uranium reserves and exports uranium, while the domestic use of nuclear power remains prohibited — even though she regards nuclear energy as a low-emissions, reliable source of power. Hanson also criticizes renewable energy on several fronts. She argues that wind and solar power are not free because they require extremely costly infrastructure funded by taxpayers. She further claims that their manufacture, transportation, and operation continue to depend on fossil fuels, meaning they cannot genuinely be considered emissions-free. In addition, she argues that renewable-energy projects destroy natural habitats and that the equipment has a relatively short lifespan. According to Hanson, net-zero policies have done little to meaningfully reduce global emissions, while contributing significantly to rising energy prices in Australia. She argues that this has created a cost-of-living crisis, increased energy debt, weakened the country’s competitiveness, and led to business closures and job losses. From all of this, Hanson concludes that there is little point in seeking a more moderate or slower version of the green transition. Instead, she argues that the only solution is to remove the issue from the political agenda altogether. Hanson and her party are therefore effectively signaling that they are unwilling to participate in the debate that much of the international political establishment regards as a given. Instead, they are stepping outside that debate entirely and presenting this as the only responsible course of action in Australia’s national interest.
