Climate, Energy and Prosperity: The Debate That Shapes Our Future

Few issues reach as deeply into modern life as climate change and energy.

Climate change begins as a scientific question: How much is the Earth warming? How much is caused by human activity? What might happen in the decades ahead?

But deciding what we should do about it takes us much further.

It involves engineering, economics, politics, international relations and ethics. It affects electricity prices, transport, industry, agriculture, government spending and ultimately our cost of living.

At the centre of it all is energy.

Energy and the Modern World

Modern civilisation depends upon abundant, reliable and affordable energy. It powers our homes, hospitals, factories, transport and communications. Fossil fuels also provide raw materials for fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals and countless everyday products.

Yet burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, and governments around the world have committed enormous resources to reducing emissions.

That creates one of the great policy dilemmas of our age:

How do we reduce our environmental impact without undermining the prosperity and technological capacity that make modern civilisation possible?

There are no simple answers.

Beyond "Is Climate Change Real?"

The Earth has warmed since the nineteenth century, and human greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to that warming.

But that does not settle the debate.

How much future warming should we expect? How reliable are climate models? How much damage will warming cause? How much can we adapt? And, most importantly, which policies provide the greatest benefit for their cost?

Those questions deserve open examination.

So do the proposed solutions.

Wind and solar offer low-emission electricity but are weather-dependent. Nuclear provides reliable low-carbon power but brings questions of cost, construction time and waste. Batteries and transmission networks have important roles but substantial costs. Electric vehicles eliminate tailpipe emissions but require considerably more mineral extraction.

Every technology involves trade-offs.

The Economic Question

Energy prices flow through almost everything we buy.

More expensive electricity increases the cost of manufacturing, mining, construction, transport, food and services. Industries that depend upon cheap energy can become uncompetitive or move overseas.

Climate policy therefore cannot be assessed simply by counting tonnes of CO₂ avoided.

We also need to ask:

What does it cost? What does it achieve? And are there better ways of achieving the same objective?

That is particularly important with Net Zero, which potentially involves transforming electricity generation, transport, industry, agriculture and buildings over just a few decades.

The Moral Questions

Climate policy also raises questions that cannot be answered by climate models.

Today's wealthy countries achieved their prosperity using abundant coal, oil and gas. Billions of people in developing nations are still seeking the reliable electricity, clean water, refrigeration, transport, hospitals and industry that we take for granted.

Do wealthy countries have the right to deny poorer countries access to inexpensive energy?

And who should bear the greatest burden of reducing emissions: today's largest emitters, the countries responsible for the greatest historical emissions, or everyone equally?

There is another moral question closer to home.

Governments routinely restrict individual freedom for the common good. But how far should that extend in pursuing climate objectives?

Should governments determine which cars we drive, which appliances we use or which technologies generate our electricity? How much additional cost can reasonably be imposed on today's population to obtain benefits expected decades into the future?

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

A Continuing Conversation

I have been writing about climate change and energy since Grappy's Soapbox began.

My views have evolved as the evidence, technology and politics have changed—and I expect they will continue to do so.

This page therefore isn't intended to provide the final word.

It is a gateway to the discussion.

Below is a selection of previous posts examining the science, economics, technology and ethics of climate and energy policy. New articles will be added as the debate develops.

---

Explore Climate & Energy

Climate Science & Evidence

Six Charts Put Climate Alarmism into Perspective
A recent look at claims surrounding extreme weather, fires, floods, disease and mortality in their historical context.

The Real Climate Deniers, Those Who Want to Erase the Past
Why historical climate records matter when assessing claims about today's climate.

The Sunlight Shuffle: John Clauser's Revelation Shakes Up Climate Models
Nobel laureate John Clauser's challenge to aspects of climate modelling, particularly the role of clouds and reflected sunlight.

Credo on Climate Change
An early attempt to set out my position in what was already becoming a highly polarised debate.

Is the World Warming … to Climate Change?
One of my earliest examinations of climate change and the evidence surrounding it.

---

Net Zero, Energy & Economics

The Australian Net Zero Cost Clock
An ongoing attempt to make at least some of the costs of Australia's Net Zero policies visible.

Is Net Zero Desirable?
A discussion of whether eliminating fossil fuels is practical—or even desirable—given their role in modern civilisation.

Abundant Energy Drives the Modern World
The relationship between affordable energy, economic development and human prosperity.

Australia's Renewables Obsession
Examining the implications of Australia's rapid transition towards wind and solar generation.

Net Zero Destroys the Economy
Considering the wider economic consequences of expensive energy and Net Zero policies.

---

Renewables, Nuclear & Technology

Is Spain the Canary in the Renewables Coalmine?
What Spain's major blackout might tell us about electricity systems containing large amounts of intermittent generation.

Intermittent Renewables Cause Grid Instability
The engineering challenge of maintaining a stable electricity grid as wind and solar generation increase.

What the Heck Is Thorium?
An early look at thorium reactors and their potential role in low-carbon energy generation.

EVs: Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
Looking beyond tailpipe emissions to battery production, critical minerals, mining and the broader environmental footprint of electric vehicles.

---

Climate Justice & Who Should Pay?

In 2015 I wrote a five-part series attempting to answer a deceptively simple question:

What would constitute a fair global greenhouse-gas reduction target?

Seeking a Fair GHG Reduction Target — Part 1: The Problem

Part 2: Current Climate Change Measures Are Misleading

Part 3: Misleading Measures — Misleading World Ranking

Part 4: Propositions for Consensus

Part 5: Who Is Responsible?

And two related articles:

Climate Change Theatrics, Again!
Why historical emissions as well as current emissions matter when considering national responsibility.

Is Australia One of the Worst Net Emitters in the OECD?
An examination of how national emissions performance is measured and compared.

---

Where Next?

The climate and energy debate will not stand still.

Technology will change. Climate observations will accumulate. Electricity systems will evolve. Governments will change policy. Some predictions will prove correct and others will not.

This article will evolve with them.

New Climate & Energy posts will be added here, and older posts revisited where new evidence warrants it.

The objective is not to defend a fixed position. It is to keep asking the questions that matter:

What is happening? How serious is it? What can realistically be done? What will it cost? Who should pay? And what unintended consequences might follow?

Last updated: August 2026

SA renewables crisis goes viral

In his recent insightful article in Townhall, Paul Driessen calls it how it is "Insanity and Hypocrisy Down Under". Our energy chaos has made it to the world stage!

What do you call the willful destruction of the quality of life of your own citizens without any measurable benefit from your actions? Insanity! Our State, and to some extent our Federal, governments have sacrificed energy security and price in favor of tokenistic emissions targets. Targets that, even if met, will not make one iota of difference in the temperature of the planet in 85 years. Insanity. Shutting down coal fired power stations in Australia and exporting the coal to be burnt overseas. Insanity! State governments setting renewable energy targets so onerous that continuous supply is unlikely. Insanity! The very same state governments preventing further exploration for new natural gas resources that could provide low emission base-load energy. Insanity!

Yes Driessen called it - Insanity. It is hard to argue otherwise.

The best that can be said for our insane energy policies is that it has given some warning to the rest of the world. If you follow the same renewables-uber-alles policies you will end up with spiking energy prices and blackouts, with the consequent burden on citizens and industry.

You have been warned.

Climate change debate heats up

With Finkel's energy report sitting on the shelf for weeks, the government is under increasing pressure to come to some sort of decision on the Clean Energy Target. Given the political fall-out whichever way they turn, it is no wonder they have been vacillating

Then there's South Australia's self-inflicted energy crisis, with intermittent electricity supplied at the highest prices in the world! The state is now receiving an injection of new-technology bravado with Elon Musk 's 100MW battery farm to be completed in 100 days or your money back. Great for headlines, and depending on your disposition, a great 'up-yours to coal' or simply 'lipstick on a pig'. I guess we will see.

If that was not enough, Mr Climate Change himself, Nobel laureate, almost POTUS, Big Al Gore landed in Aus last week to promote his latest Global Warming Disaster film. Naturally the climate skeptics came out in force to remind us of some inconvenient truths about his first film, that it was banned from British schools lest its blatant untruths corrupt the minds of minors.

Everywhere you turn it seems energy policy and Climate Change are once again taking centre stage.

Yes Climate Change is hot again, but not quite as hot as it has been. It seems to me the deniers are gaining traction. Even John Howard has been reported to say that he is "today more skeptical of the science". The news is not that he is more skeptical, but that he was reported widely to have said so. I note however that the ABC's AM program last Friday, despite reporting widely on his recent comments, selectively omitted his skepticism on Climate Change. In some ways this is flattering to elder statesman Howard, an implicit recognition by the doyens at the left-leaning public broadcaster that his very words may spread this denier-virus to listeners. Heaven-forbid, lets just leave it out. Fake news by omission?

While Gore's film no doubt will receive wide audiences and plaudits from the believers, what about the skeptics. Well it seems the skeptics have fought back with a documentary of their own, "Climate Swindle". It will be shown in some theaters, though my guess is that it will receive scant attention from mainstream movie outlets. Nevertheless another movie length documentary, perhaps an earlier version from 2011 called  "The great Global Warming Swindle" is available, free of charge on You-tube. It presents a compelling case against Anthropogenic Climate change.

In summary Climate Change believers claim; -

1. Global Warming is real
2. It is man-made caused by excessive emissions of greenhouse Gases primarily Carbon Dioxide.
3. It is dangerous, threatening life, living standards and potentially global catastrophe
4. If we act decisively and collectively we can do something about it.

In "the Great Global Warming Swindle" skeptics argue; -
1. Climate change is real with cyclical warming and cooling. The earth is currently in a warming cycle that started following the "little Ice Age" of the 17th century.
2. The warming is NOT caused by Carbon Dioxide, but by natural Solar cycles. They argue that increase in Carbon dioxide is dominated by release of Carbon Dioxide from the oceans and it occurs as a result of global warming rather than as its cause.
3. Given well documented history showing periods of much high global temperatures and much higher carbon dioxide than today with abundant life, such changes are not dangerous to life on earth on the contrary a greener warmer wetter world is more fertile.
4. Given there is no problem there is not reason to do anything about it. On the contrary the attempts to limit fossil fuels are doing enormous harm, especially in the developing world, by increasing energy costs.

Here is the film judge for yourself.

Put Energy Security first !

Once again the Turnbull government is in a mess largely of its own making. It needs to decide on how it will react to the Finkel report ( Blueprint for the future:Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market), a report it commissioned. It can either accept the key recommendation to establish  CET (Clean energy target) of some 42.5% (much greater than the current 24% RET) and accept the already high an dlikely increasing energy costs as well as the instability in supply or it can reject the key recommendations reneging on its emission reduction commitments and renewable energy targets and in effect rejecting the recommendations of its own report. With passions high in both sides there is no doubt there are electoral consequences to this decision. 

However I can see no way of avoiding conflict and with vocal proponents of each side it is likely to be loud. 

Avoiding Finkel's poisoned chalice

So lets just put the political issues to one side and consider the energy equation. The three critical factors are ; 

• Energy security - electrical energy must be available whenever and in whatever quantity required on a continuous basis for both industry and for households.
• Energy costs- must be as low as possible to ensure the quality of life of individuals and households and to make industry productive
• Emissions - Energy generation should as much as possible ensure emissions of GHG are minimal.

Finkel's report is grossly inadequate. By focusing on Emissions targets and how existing global commitments may be met, the report sacrifices the other two critical factors.

Finkel does recognize energy security as a key issue and sensibly proposes that suppliers of intermittent renewable energy be required to provide base-load power as a backup. However by limiting the backup power required to a mere 90 minutes his proposal does not provide anywhere near adequate cover. In effect he papers over this very real limitation of the most popular renewables, solar and wind. 90 minutes is totally inadequate should a South Australia style event recur.

Real energy security requires continuous supply. Anything less is not acceptable to Australia, or indeed any country worth its salt in the 21st century.

Hence all suppliers of energy should be required to meet a Base-load Equivalence Test, BET.

BET requires every energy supplier to provide continuous supply. For example for solar, in a region where daily sunshine can provide the equivalent of 6 hours of supply (averaged over normal climatic conditions) the supplier would have to source an additional 18 hours of base-load power per day. Only by adding this base-load power could the energy supply for intermittent energy sources be regarded as 'equivalent'  to continuous supply alternatives.

Suppliers of intermittent energy such as solar or wind could meet the BET by battery or pumped hydro, or by sourcing base-load power from other suppliers. Where such supply was externally sourced it would have to be backed by formally agreed long term supply contracts. No doubt this would add to the cost of intermittent renewables, but without BET any energy supply management process, such as Finkel's CET or the older RET, is flawed.

Frydenberg's get out of jail card...

Given the potential political consequences it is no wonder that the government has been vacillating on their response to Finkel.

By putting Energy security first there is a sensible path through this dilemma   

Step 1: Clearly state that of the 3 conflicting needs identified by Finkel, Energy security is the first priority.

Step 2: In order to ensure all energy supply alternatives are comparable when it comes to energy security, all new supply will have to meet the Base-load Equivalence Test to provide 100 percent continuous energy. Solar and wind will have to either purchase base-load power from other suppliers or add their own battery, pumped hydro or other base-load power solutions hydro.

Step 3: Reject CET, retain the RET, accept the possibility that the current emissions reductions and renewable energy targets may not be met, but argue that Australia cannot afford to jeopardize energy security.

While the above three address the immediate problem, they do not re-build the shortage of base-load power following closures of coal fired generators over the past decade. Nor is it likely, given the current political environment, that commercial operators will build new base-load power generators. So the government needs to step in with Step 4.

Step 4: Commit federal funds to building new base-load power stations to compensate for closures over the past decade. The government would supply this energy at commercial rates and in competition with other suppliers, and be willing to sell the asset once it was proven to be competitive. Given current electricity prices and the re-balancing of demand due for base-load power due to the need to meet BET, in all probability these power stations will be able to be sold off at a profit.

Look to the electorate

Any proposal that is willing to sacrifice Australia's commitments to GHG reduction or indeed the RET is likely to receive widespread condemnation by the Chatterati. However Australian Industry and households will accept it as a fair compromise. This is especially so given that Australia's contribution to global warming is minimal and any effort we could make is dwarfed by the increasing emissions by China and India.

What is LENR?

Is a solution to the world's energy needs just around the corner?

Over the years we've all heard such claims so you have good cause to be skeptical. My recent readings however, have made me stop and think. I happened to re-read an article first published in 1999 by Arthur C Clarke predicting the future 100 years.

Of the many interesting predictions what struck me most was his prediction, made in 1999, that the world's energy problems would be solved by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) by, wait for it, 2002! That was at the time only 3 years into the future. Why would such a renown futurologist make such a dramatic prediction just three years into the future. I had to check it out.

Arthur C Clarke, Beyond 2001, the sun herald, June 13, 1999

So here is what I have gleaned over the past few days.

LENR is effectively Cold Fusion re-branded and though out of the limelight there is a lot of information out there.

It all started in 1989 when, you may recall, two well respected chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons declared, with great fanfare, they had discovered Cold Fusion. The fusion power of the sun, and hydrogen bombs, replicated in a small laboratory experiments at near room temperature. Given scientists have been "just 30 years from a successful hot fusion reactor for the past 30 years", this was big news. Unfortunately after initial wide acclaim their results were debunked by the scientific community and Cold Fusion was relegated to crackpot science.

However it did not die. Many scientists continued the work and now after some decades it is making a very quiet resurgence.

While much of the material out there is a bit technical here is a video that explains the history and introduces the potential of this technology without requiring a technical background.

Arthur C Clarke was correct, LENR has the potential to revolutionize the world, and given the simplicity of the approach this could happen very quickly. Hey,Arthur C Clarke though it would happen by 2002!