The Net Zero Cost Clock: Counting the Bill

 For years Australians have been told that the transition to Net Zero would be "cheap", "necessary", or even that it would save us money.

Yet there has been remarkably little discussion about what it is actually costing taxpayers today.

To help put those costs into perspective I have created the Net Zero Cost Clock, a live counter that continuously estimates the taxpayer-funded subsidies being paid under Australia's Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET).

Unlike government reports released months or years after the money has been spent, the clock keeps running every second of every day.

You can view it here:

https://www.grappyssoapbox.com/p/cost-of-net-zero.html

What does the clock measure?

The clock measures the estimated value of the Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) created under Australia's Renewable Energy Target.

Every megawatt-hour of eligible renewable electricity generates one certificate.

Electricity retailers are required by law to purchase these certificates to meet the Renewable Energy Target. The cost is ultimately passed on to electricity consumers through their power bills.

The calculation is deliberately simple and transparent.

It uses:

• the legislated Renewable Energy Target of approximately 33 million MWh per year

• the current market price of Large-scale Generation Certificates

• a continuously updating calculation that converts the annual subsidy into a live running total.

Every assumption is shown on the page, together with links to the official data sources, allowing readers to verify the calculation themselves.

Why this is only the lower limit

The important point is this:

The clock does not measure the total cost of Net Zero.

It measures just one component of the total cost.

Many of the largest expenses are completely excluded.

These include:

• construction of thousands of kilometres of new high-voltage transmission lines

• major upgrades to local distribution networks

• Renewable Energy Zones

• large-scale battery storage

• Snowy 2.0 and other system support projects

• government grants, concessional loans and underwriting schemes

• curtailed renewable generation

• backup generation required during periods of low wind and solar output

• higher system operating costs required to maintain grid stability.

The elephant not included: rewiring Australia

Perhaps the largest omission is the enormous investment needed simply to connect renewable generation to the electricity grid.

Unlike coal-fired power stations, which are generally located close to existing transmission infrastructure, wind and solar farms are often built hundreds of kilometres from where electricity is actually consumed.

That means Australia must build thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines.

Infrastructure Australia notes that the National Electricity Market will require around 6,000 km of new transmission lines by 2050, while Western Australia will require thousands more.

Industry estimates associated with AEMO's Integrated System Plan suggest around $122 billion of investment in generation, storage and transmission, including approximately $16 billion for major transmission projects alone.

Even these figures are moving targets.

Several major transmission projects have experienced substantial cost increases, with some estimates rising by more than 50 per cent in a single year and individual projects now costing several billions of dollars each.

Whether these investments ultimately prove worthwhile is a matter for public debate.

What is beyond dispute is that they represent costs that are not included in the Net Zero Cost Clock.

Transparency matters

Australians deserve to know not only the environmental objectives of public policy, but also its financial cost.

If governments believe Net Zero represents value for money, then they should have no objection to those costs being measured openly and honestly.

The Net Zero Cost Clock is not intended to settle the policy debate.

It simply makes one part of that debate visible.

In reality, it is best viewed as the minimum entry price of Australia's Net Zero transition.

The real bill is certainly much larger.

Bookmark the Net Zero Cost Clock and check back from time to time. The number only moves in one direction.

EVs: Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?

For years we have been told that electric vehicles (EVs) are the future. Buy one and you'll be helping to save the planet. Governments subsidise them, manufacturers market them as "zero emissions", and many buyers proudly believe they are making an environmentally responsible choice.

But what if that isn't the whole story?

A thought-provoking article by Adam Creighton in The Australian, titled "EVs might feel right for the wealthy, but they will destroy our planet", challenges much of the conventional wisdom surrounding electric vehicles. It is well worth reading in full if you have access to The Australian, because it raises questions that rarely receive much attention in the mainstream discussion.

Zero emissions... or simply zero tailpipe emissions?

Perhaps the biggest misconception is the phrase "zero emissions."

An EV produces no exhaust emissions while driving. That much is true.

However, manufacturing the vehicle—particularly its battery—requires enormous quantities of energy and raw materials. The plastics, synthetic fabrics and many other components are still derived from petroleum products. An EV does not magically escape dependence on fossil fuels simply because it lacks an exhaust pipe.

The hidden environmental cost

Figures from the International Energy Agency show that an electric vehicle requires roughly six times more mineral content than a conventional petrol vehicle. These include lithium, nickel, cobalt and graphite, all of which must be mined somewhere.

That mining comes with real environmental consequences:

• destruction of forests

• removal of huge quantities of earth

• pollution of waterways

• habitat loss

• enormous energy consumption

Unlike carbon dioxide projections decades into the future, these environmental impacts are immediate and visible.

The irony, is that many environmentally conscious consumers may unknowingly be contributing to significant ecological damage occurring thousands of kilometres away.

Mining on an unprecedented scale

Replacing the world's billions of conventional vehicles with battery-powered equivalents would require an extraordinary expansion of mining.

Research by Frontier Economics suggesting that the transition to EVs would dramatically increase demand for critical minerals, with major environmental consequences in countries such as Indonesia, Chile, Africa and Papua New Guinea.

One example is nickel production in Indonesia, where large areas of rainforest are reportedly being cleared while much of the refining process itself is powered by coal-fired electricity.

This raises an uncomfortable question.

Are we simply exporting environmental damage from wealthy countries to poorer nations?

The forgotten environmentalists

Modern environmental campaigns often focus almost exclusively on carbon emissions.

Yet environmental protection used to include:

• preserving forests

• protecting rivers

• conserving wildlife

• reducing mining scars

• maintaining biodiversity

These concerns have not disappeared simply because climate change has become the dominant political issue.

Creighton argues that carbon dioxide has become the only environmental metric that governments seem willing to measure.

Subsidies and market distortion

The article also questions why taxpayers should subsidise one technology over another.

EV buyers currently benefit from various incentives, exemptions and subsidies while contributing little or nothing to fuel excise—the tax traditionally used to help fund Australia's roads.  If EVs are genuinely the superior technology, they should succeed without heavy government assistance.

There is still debate

None of this proves that conventional petrol vehicles are environmentally perfect.

Nor does it prove that EVs always have a higher total environmental footprint over their entire lifetime. Researchers continue to debate whole-of-life emissions, and the answer depends on factors such as electricity generation, battery lifespan and recycling technology.

What the article does highlight is that the environmental conversation has become far too one-dimensional.

If the only thing we measure is carbon dioxide, we risk ignoring:

• landscape destruction

• toxic mining waste

• deforestation

• geopolitical dependence on critical minerals

• human and environmental costs borne by developing nations

These are genuine environmental issues too.

The Bottom Line

Electric vehicles are not the simple, clean, guilt-free solution many politicians would have us believe.

Every technology involves trade-offs.

Rather than pretending EVs are environmentally "free", governments should encourage an honest debate about their full environmental impact—from the mine to the factory to the showroom.

If we're serious about protecting the planet, we need to look beyond what comes out of a car's tailpipe and consider the damage that may already have been done long before the vehicle ever reaches the road.

If you can access it, I recommend reading Adam Creighton's full article in The Australian. Whether you ultimately agree with his conclusions or not, it presents arguments that deserve to be part of the broader discussion rather than dismissed because they challenge the prevailing narrative.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 26 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Deal That Isn't A Deal
• A Climate Model Built On Reality
• Importing Problems
• Europe's Great Unravelling
• Fire The Liar
• EVs:Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
• The Net Zero Cost Clock: Counting The Bill

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Fire the Liar

 

Politics often changes slowly. Then, every so often, something snaps.

For nearly three decades, Pauline Hanson and One Nation occupied a small but persistent corner of Australian politics, typically polling around 5–6%. They were dismissed as a protest party with a loyal but limited following.

Not anymore.

Over the past six to nine months, One Nation's support has surged. Polls now place the party at around 30%, ahead of Labor and well ahead of the Coalition. Whether those numbers hold until the next election is another matter, but the political message is unmistakable: a growing number of Australians are looking elsewhere.

Why?

Because many Australians believe the country is moving in the wrong direction.

Energy bills continue to climb as governments pursue expensive climate policies. Government spending has fuelled inflation. Immigration has reached record levels while housing and infrastructure struggle to cope. Household incomes have gone backwards. Communities have watched years of antisemitic demonstrations following the October 7 atrocities with what many see as an inadequate government response. The return of ISIS brides, growing social division and concerns about Australia's cultural identity have added to a sense that the government is failing on too many fronts.

Against that backdrop, One Nation's message is remarkably simple.

Reduce government spending. Pursue the lowest-cost energy. Restart resource exploration. Cut immigration to sustainable levels. Be far more selective about where migrants come from. Stop dividing Australians by race or religion and apply the same rules to everyone.

Whether you agree with those policies or not, they are clear, consistent and easy to understand.

But the real political earthquake came with Labor's latest Budget.

After repeatedly ruling out changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing before the election, the government reversed course. It was not merely another policy shift—it was seen by many voters as a broken promise.

That perception has proven far more damaging than the policies themselves.

One Nation seized the moment with a brilliantly simple fundraising campaign: "Fire the Liar."

Within just two weeks, the campaign reportedly attracted more than 50,000 donors and raised almost $5 million. It even spawned a song.

That is more than a fundraising success. It is a measure of public anger.

This was not the government's first change of position, but it appears to have been the one that finally exhausted the electorate's patience. The budget became the straw that broke the camel's back.

Of course, there are still two years before Australians vote. Polls can change dramatically. One Nation will need candidates, volunteers and a much larger campaign organisation if it hopes to convert polling support into parliamentary seats.

Today's surge could fade as quickly as it arrived.

Or it could mark the beginning of a profound realignment in Australian politics.

Either way, one lesson should already be clear.

Voters will forgive mistakes.

They are far less willing to forgive broken promises.

And perhaps that is the healthiest development of all.

In a democracy, governments should never forget that elections are won on trust—and lost when that trust is broken.

Europe's Great Unravelling

One of the most thought-provoking articles I have read recently comes from the Gatestone Institute's "Is Saving Europe Still Possible?" by Guy Millière. Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, it raises a question that European leaders seem increasingly reluctant to confront.

The article focuses heavily on the dramatic rise in antisemitic attacks across Europe, particularly in Britain, where Jewish communities increasingly report feeling unsafe. It details attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools, businesses and individuals, arguing that these incidents are no longer isolated events but part of a broader social transformation. (Gatestone Institute)

Many commentators treat this explosion of antisemitism as the problem itself.

I think it is better understood as a symptom.

The deeper issue is that Europe has experienced decades of large-scale migration from parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia without requiring successful cultural integration into the values that made Western civilisation successful in the first place.

Western civilisation did not emerge by accident.

It was built over centuries upon Judeo-Christian ethics, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, individual liberty, private property, democratic government, respect for women, and the belief that rights belong to individuals rather than tribes or religious groups.

Those values created the freest, most prosperous and most tolerant societies in human history.

The concern raised by the Gatestone article is that Europe is steadily importing populations whose cultural traditions, in some cases, have developed very different views about religion, political authority, women's rights, free speech and the relationship between faith and the state. The author argues that political leaders have often been unwilling to acknowledge these differences openly or discuss the consequences of rapid demographic change. (Gatestone Institute)

The result, critics argue, has been rising social tension, growing pressure on public services, higher crime in some communities, increasing political polarisation and, most visibly since October 2023, an explosion of antisemitic demonstrations and violence. While the causes of crime and social unrest are complex and vary across countries, concerns about integration have become increasingly prominent in political debate across Europe. (Gatestone Institute)

The tragedy is that antisemitism is only the visible warning light on the dashboard.

If Europe loses confidence in the very principles that created modern liberal democracy, then everyone eventually loses—not only Jews, but women, religious minorities, political dissidents and ordinary citizens who expect equal treatment under the law.

A civilisation survives only while enough people believe it is worth preserving.

That does not mean rejecting immigration.

Europe has benefited enormously from migrants who embrace its laws, freedoms and institutions and who wish to become part of their adopted countries.

But immigration policy cannot simply be measured by the number of arrivals. It must also ask whether newcomers are integrating into the host society or whether the host society is gradually being transformed into something fundamentally different.

Every nation has not only the right but the responsibility to protect the institutions, culture and values that allowed it to flourish.

The real question facing Europe therefore is not whether it can tolerate diversity.

It always has.

The question is whether it still possesses enough confidence to defend the civilisation that made that diversity possible in the first place.

Whether one agrees entirely with Guy Millière's conclusions or not, his article deserves to be read because it asks a question that Europe can no longer afford to avoid.

Read the original article here:

Is Saving Europe Still Possible?