A 2035 emissions target range has been set for Australia and plans to achieve it unveiled. So, what’s on the cards for home electrification?
What Target Has Been Set For 2035?
The Albanese Government has set a national target to reduce emissions by 62–70% below 2005 levels by 2035; on our way to net zero by 2050.
While describing the 2035 target range as ambitious — although some have said it’s not enough and others too ambitious — the government believes this is achievable, in Australia’s national interests to pursue and provides a strong investment signal.
The Plan(s) To Get There
Building on existing policies, the Albanese government says it will achieve the target range with actions in five priority areas under the acronym CLEAN.
- Clean electricity across the economy
- Lowering emissions by electrification and efficiency
- Expanding clean fuel use
- Accelerating new technologies
- Net carbon removals scaled up
Six sector plans were unveiled, covering:
- Electricity and Energy
- Agriculture and Land
- Built Environment
- Industry
- Resources
- Transport
There’s heck of a lot to unpack among all that was published, so I’ll just focus on some elements of home electrification and electric vehicles.
Home Electrification
Home electrification falls mainly under the Built Environment sector plan, which focuses on:
- electrification where possible.
- installing more rooftop solar and battery systems.
- improve the thermal performance of buildings.
Several existing initiatives driving decarbonisation and the energy efficiency of commercial/residential buildings and appliances will be expanded and/or enhanced. Among them:
NatHERS Expansion
The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) was established in the 1990’s to assess thermal performance and drive improvements in the energy efficiency of new residential buildings. Late last year, we reported NatHERS would be expanding to incorporate energy ratings for existing homes.
In July this year, stage 1 of the expansion of NatHERS commenced and the Government will invest around $33 million to continue and scale-up the roll out ratings for existing homes.
Modernising GEMS
The Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) aims to improve the energy performance of the appliances we use and prevent the sale of the most energy inefficient products in the Australian market.
A common form of GEMS labelling requirements is the Energy Rating Label, which use a star rating to indicate how much energy a product uses compared to similar products.
The Government will invest approximately $16 million to modernise the GEMS Act and update the program.
Solar Panels And Batteries
Nothing particularly new here for households that I could see, but there’s already support through the generous and hugely popular national solar rebate and government battery rebate schemes.
It’s worth noting in its advice to the Government that informed the 2035 target decision, the Climate Change Authority (CCA) said reaching even the lower end of the target emissions reduction range — 62 per cent — would require (among other things) quadrupling of wind capacity, tripling of large-scale solar and a doubling of rooftop solar in the National Electricity Market (NEM).
What’s so far taken us around 20 years to achieve for the latter, we’ll need to do again in the next 10.
As for home batteries, the Albanese Government is eyeing one million new home battery installations by 2030 through its Cheaper Home Batteries Program. More than 43,000 home batteries had been installed with a new or existing rooftop solar system since the program launched on July 1, 2025 to the end of August.
Pursuing A Fair And Equitable Transition
There’s also acknowledgement in the Built Environment plan of the need for disadvantaged cohorts to be better supported in home electrification and energy efficiency. Among these groups are low-income owner occupiers, private renters, those living in social housing, older and disabled Australians and those living in remote and regional areas.
There’s already some action here, with programs such as the expanded Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative (SHEPI) to deliver energy performance upgrades to over 100,000 social housing properties by 2028–29.
Electric Vehicles
Transport is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, representing 22% of national emissions in 2024. Harking back to the CCA’s advice, in order to meet even the lower end of the target emissions reduction range, half of the light vehicles sold between now and 2035 would need to be electric vehicles.
Among the priority actions for the transport sector is moving to electric vehicles and investing in low and zero emissions transport infrastructure to encourage uptake.
Adding to existing policies and programs, $40 million has been announced to accelerate the rollout of kerbside and fast EV charging across Australia. The Government says it will leverage the strengths of Distributed Network Service Providers (DNSPs) and EV charge point operators to deliver up to 10,000 public chargers.
Commenting on the emissions target and accompanying plans, a joint press release from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen states:
“We are not the biggest polluter or the biggest economy but our commitment to action on climate change matters. It matters to our neighbours, it matters for our economy and it matters for the country that we pass on to our children.”
You can read more on the 2035 target and pathways to net zero here.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
NatHERS, have heard it is a concept to be mandatory to have a rating to sell a home ?
Or, is that in the plan govco has now ?
We have already seen housing prices soaring, and it seems to have no end in sight . . . bureaucracy, red tape is one big factor affecting that.
I don’t like where govco is going on a lot of interference in our lives, seemingly just about anything govco does to help us ends up costing us more, making some industry richer, and / or making such things a lot worse overall with delays or compliance.
Hi Les,
Private Industry™ are the people who deliver houses with zero wall insulation because it’s cheap and they don’t give a toss about comfort, energy consumption or running costs.
Govco are the ones who mandate standards, which the short term profiteers from Building Lobby Inc. rail against.
Meanwhile the average punter buys “high end finishes” without realising they’re just covering up fundamentally cheap sh!t construction.
Star ratings for houses mean people who invest in long term efficiency will have a return.
And it means rentseekers who build ticky tacky boxes will have to lift their game.
How are built homes to be assessed? I mean surely they’re not going to punch holes in walls to see if you actually have insulation right?
Private Industry™ build zero insulation type housing because Government™ demands affordable housing in new developments and the only way to lower costs is to reduce or remove standards like insulation, energy efficiency, firewalls, or other such things many people think should be bog standard.
Idiots wanting ‘high end finishes’ are opting for form over function, which will cost them in the long term – gold plated crap is still crap.
FWIW I suspect some of the housing around here has worse insulation than American style log cabins! Old thin planks without any insulation or interior walls may keep the rain out, but that’s about all they’ll do. Oh well at least the chimney wood smoke is pleasant enough.
Anthony, even this owner-builder grumbled about 6-star mandatory double glazing, hefty ceiling & wall insulation, and the other inescapable requirements, 5 years ago when applying for the building permit. It’s 7-stars obligations now, so shonks go home.
The comfort increase is eye-opening, and 700W of RCAC keeps the open area at 24°C with 12°C outdoors; that’s nifty, off-grid.
Might NatHERS extension to existing houses lead to increased energy upgrade subsidies on draughty old barns?
The much needed 2035 escalated targets seem to omit mention of battery firming, absolutely crucial to the energy transition. Will the $2.3B x 3.33 domestic battery effort stimulate corporate gridscale acceleration, to avoid having their lunch stolen? It doesn’t seem to be anywhere near enough. (And then we’ll have to go onto a war footing in the 2030s, dammit.)
VicGovco just invents new taxes – a 29% rural rates increase on top of quadrupling over a few years, not long ago.
Instead of concentrating on fast chargers they should also be looking at setting up tens of thousands of slow chargers in places where cars are parked for most of the day or night.
Railway station car parks, airport car parks, work car parks, hotel guest car parks are all prime locations where cars could be slow charging while parked.
Only needs to be an inexpensive 2 or 3 Kw AC device with charging spread over ten hours or so which is much better for the battery too.
Agree
Would love to see 22kW AC chargers funded for regional town visitor’s centres as part of an EV tourist drive. Also create a tax incentive for Motels/Hotels to provide 22kW AC chargers as well.
ARH when only half teh current fuel excice goes to road funding, it’s the deployment of decent EV charging infrastructure that could be used to justify a road user charge on hybrids or EVs.
We really need the charging equipment first though.
I agree with the point you make but would add that we’re past the point where it’s an either/or decision – it should be both!
Good ideas given that many locations already have electricity infrastructure in place eg streets, lit carparks etc. There should be focus on installing slow chargers in places where people using them are unlikely to have charging at home or currently don’t such as apartment dwellers, those without offstreet parking etc.
Vehicle range is increasing as battery technology improves. Another thing to do is to educate people more about real world range and matching that to their expectations and vehicle choice. Many people have unrealistic fears about range problems yet could easily live with a current EV as they rarely/never do long car trips and could slow charge at home. Also, buying an SUV or high performance EV might appeal but lowers your range. At this stage of market development, too many people are put off by out of date or erroneous information eg it will catch fire, the battery won’t last, I won’t be able to charge it on a long trip, etc.
Patrick, you’re spot on with the BEV range point.
My base model MG4 has only 320 km nominal range, 286 km actual at 100 km/h on the 65 km return trip to town. But I’ve done that twice in a day, the second time with a trailer to pick up the stuff found on the first trip, and still had range for a third trip for pizza, if needed. (All 100% fossil-free photon powered, and $33k new is cheap for what you get.)
If a little’n will do out here in the sticks, range is no excuse in town, at least for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th family car. (But lack of cheap second hand BEVs definitely is, though.) If the 2035 target only requires 50% of the fleet to be BEV, it should be achievable, from 1% now, with 10% of sales.
The miniscule $40M boost for EV chargers seems half-hearted, as their lack is a major adoption disincentive – the fundamental cause of range anxiety.
Sweden finds ICE car burn 17-19 times oftener than BEV, others find 10 – 100 times. An LFP battery can outlast the car.
2.4kW chargers are already available in most locations. They are called 10A power points.
My EV experience is that the options to charge on a long trip are abysmal. Especially if you attempt to drive west. Reliability issues also mean you cannot plan for that one charger to be operational. Until that problem is solved there exists a fair chunk of middle ages families that are going to resist the EV changeover.
Hi Glen,
If you’re heading due west of Adelaide or Perth you’ll get a bit wet.
There’s enough charging to get right around the country in 10 days though.
However it would be nice to see more for redundancy.
Perhaps a licence to sell petrol should include installing at least one charger as a condition?
Fire, Ambulance, Police stations, Hospitals, Clinics and Council depots would be a fairly easy place to put an AC charger too.
Anthony, the government must provide for redundancy of charging stations throughout the rural areas. Private operators cannot be expected to do this as they will make a massive loss and the government needs to do the pump priming if you will excuse the lame pun. Maybe we should coin a new term, plug priming.
That’s only useful where car parking is large enough for people to park their vehicles as opposed to what’s common in many places which is people forced to park on the nearest available road, or grass spot because parking is full!
And if all spots are electrified, then it some states that is a defacto ban on ICEV parking – ICEV in EV spot is a several thousand dollar fine, but EVs in ICEV spots is free.
John,
You wouldn’t park your EV at the petrol pumps and wander off into the shops for coffee..?
No scratch that, people do all the time.
You wouldn’t park at the only petrol pump for miles and then go to work for 8 hours because your car would rightly be towed away.
While EV chargers are uncommon, d!ckheads who deny people use of them deserve all the fines they can get.
When charging is ubiquitous it won’t matter, but we’re not there yet and you appear to make a disingenuous argument about a nonexistent problem, when the rest of us are looking for solutions.
Say rather an honest argument about a logical future problem. If say every second carpark is an EV park then it might be plausible. But if every park is EV only … Alternatively pass legislation mandating every park be EV friendly BUT also include a clause that permits ICEV usage thereby avoiding the problem.
To fail to address the obvious is disingenuous, coming across as a deliberate attempt to harm ICEV drivers whilst pretending it’s an issue that can be addressed after it become a problem. No! As history shows, the reality is by the time politicians can no longer justify their deliberate delays, the problems have become grandfathered in, redress is no longer possible, and the harm becomes the permanent status quo.
Yes, like you note, entitled EV drivers do occasionally park at petrol pumps then wander off. If ICEV drivers do this to EV drivers then the financial penalties in some states are huge!
John, it is not certain that in 2050, at +2.5°C, with zero CO₂ emissions not yet achieved, but massive heat deaths in the northern hemisphere, that road use of fossil fuels will be permitted. Canola oil and other biofuels will be prioritised for food production, essential transport, and defence. Production is unlikely to extend to mass motoring. (Buy used fish&chips oil now, while you can get it, ‘cos Chris Bowen already has his eyes on tallow. Seriously.)
Exponential climate change, compounded by system response lag, has a horrendous herd of chickens galloping this way, looking for roosts. We’ve known since 1896. The holocene is coming to an end – adaptation is not optional. It will be hard on slow learners, islanders, the poor, and rich folk with seaside property – er, it’ll be a real bugger all round.
There’s 5 Hiroshima bombs of energy going into the oceans per second now. Duck when it comes back out, for farnarkle’s sake!
Parking? It’ll be Biofuel, BEV, or push, mate. 😉
Erik Christiansen: – “There’s 5 Hiroshima bombs of energy going into the oceans per second now.”
Nope, the EEI is more than double that energy equivalence (i.e. 11.36 ‘Hiroshimas’/s, for 36-month running mean per CERES satellite data to May 2025), and more than 90% of EEI is being absorbed by the oceans.
See my Submission (#26), Attachment Slide #11:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/91844/0026%20Geoff%20Miell.pdf
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Good thinking David. Not only would this enable a quicker, more widespread uptake of EV’s, it would help to (a) absorb excess solar power generated from rooftop systems during the day and (b) also enable EV’s to power homes in the evening by either going direct to the house or send excess back into the grid. A win-win in my view.
Hi Joe,
I reckon we need to make daycharging a thing, as distinct from fast charging & home charging.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/daycharging-turns-evs-into-super-storage/
Oh dear. I was wondering where I read that. Sounds like I’m preaching to the choir. hahaha
Net zero by ’35?
And how is middle Australia going to pay for it?
Live in the ‘cleanest state’ where electricity is the dearest? Self finance solar battery systems and ev’s with rebates (?) low to middle income or retired Australians cannot afford?
No renewals ‘power house’ country yet with even solar panels still made overseas? After 20 years Australia is a mining hole with little to show after being promised so much.
The huge emissions Woodside gas processing plant flares will be emitting for the next 70 years is testimony to the hypocrisy of the statement.
Been sucked in by govco for a lifetime already……..
“And how is middle Australia going to pay for it?”
One way is to fairly distribute the $$ going to pay for things that people don’t want/need. I’ve sufficient rooftop solar+batteries to support my house plus two electric vehicles, yet the govt(s) insist on giving me money (read “unusable credit”*) I don’t need off my power bill. To me the wise thing would be for householders to APPLY for power bill relief. My request to the responsible minister was:
“… the requirements to provide these payments to a large number of
electricity consumers mean that an application process would create significant complexity, delay and cost for administration of such a scheme.”
*My latest power bill shows me to be $1200+ in credit!
Correction: “The ANSWER to my request to the responsible minister was:”
You always need to bear in mind that not paying for it now will cost far more later. Whilst that’s not an answer to your question, it’s something that often seems not to be at front of mind for those wrestling with the problem.
I’d like to see some creative financing, such as all mortgages having the cost of solar and batteries added to them, the money not being usable for any other purpose and the term automatically extended to ensure the regular payments do not increase. It’s not like the banks can’t afford it! If a building’s owned outright, then the owners should be offered a similar deal, leaving them with the choice of term, even if that means establishing a new mortgage. If the government wished to chip in to make the cost interest free, then that would be fine too, but probably not necessary. All new builds must have solar and batteries – simple legislation.
Government to create a formula to determine minimum amount of solar and battery per building and we’re away!
Hi Jon,
Australia is a lucky country
It’s a hackneyed phrase but we really should call out those who don’t quote the full passage by Donald Horne.
“Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck.
It lives on other people’s ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.”
We need to acknowledge some problems but I’d like to point out the primary one is the governments we whinge about; but still vote for. We get second rate results because we don’t demand enough.
Have a look at Norway and what they do with tax on their resources.
Just because he has been quoted a lot doesn’t mean Horne was/is right. Many would disagree. Australia IS a lucky country in so many ways. On so many ratings Australia ranks high in the world. Our overall taxation is low yet we are recognised as getting better bank for our bucks from government and the private sector than many OECD countries. In many areas we do as well as or better than other developed countries.
Yet we are a large country with a small population stuck down in the southern hemisphere away from major trade areas and largely concentrated in our south eastern quarter. But we do very well considering. Our households are consistently among the wealthiest in the world. Our climate is highly amenable, lifestyle very good and economy and jobs ticking along well. Just research OECD comparisons for a start.
BTW, Norway has very high tax rates and a high cost of living. And a crap climate. And really pricey beer and wine. Enough said.
Hi Patrick,
Good points. The climate here seems to be quite conducive to a “she’ll be right” attitude, so we build rubbish oversized houses and bolt oversized air conditioners to them.
While we do really well in liveability scores, the Nordics consistently outrank most of the world in liveability, life satisfaction, education & various other happiness measures, just imagine how happy they would be if they had our weather..!
The thing is we can improve our tax system and services and environment tomorrow (if perhaps we sharpen a few guillotines) while the wether in northern Europe is hopefully more difficult to warm up.
Jon, the stated goal is net zero by 2050, not 2035, I think you’ll find.
And even that timeline won’t be adequately met in practice. Loud upbeat pronouncements keep the easily daunted from fainting, and hoping for an easy way out – preferably with continued mindless consumption of the fossil fuel sugar fix.
These are the easy carefree days¹, before the attempt to preserve lifestyle norms gets serious. We’ll be struggling with the growing problem for generations, I’m pretty sure.
But what’s the worry? If electricity is expensive, make your own if you can – even export excess *to* the grid – many do.
¹ Yes, even the cost of living crisis & housing shortage compare favourably.
In times of disruption, it is those who adapt who thrive.
Thanks Michael and good summary.
The CCA is a tax payer funded authority consuming considerable resources and producing nothing at all that the Government has acknowledged as worthy of comment.
As a community we are looking more and more like an experiment akin “‘Willy Wonkers Chocolate Factory”.
The CCA’s discarded advice is a national shame and should now become the centrepiece of discussions that must be addressed and explained by all government representatives.
Failing that, there should be free chocolate dispensers installed everywhere in lieu of EV chargers.
Lawrence Coomber
I’m disappointed the target wasn’t higher, but at least we have a target to work to.
Chris Bowen said we need to double rooftop solar, but what are they doing to push that? I installed a large Sigenergy system and on a sunny day can export 2-3 times as much energy as I use – but why would I? I’m with Amber and during most of the day wholesale export price is negative, and my battery is fully charged by about 10am.
I discharge my battery into the grid when prices peak 5-7pm, but 6-7 hours of solar generation (60+kWh) is wasted. And when I export in the evening my DNSP limits me to 5kW so can only export 10-15kWh. That’s 20kWh or more of my battery capacity wasted. And then there’s my EV that could be used with V2G! In total that’s 80kWh or more per day that it’s not worth exporting. I know I could choose a different retailer from Amber, but in the end they all base their plans on wholesale prices, which don’t encourage the best use of rooftop solar.
The key focus should be on Power Source Technologies rather than Power Load Equipment.l and Appliances.
Manage the abundant, clean, low cost power source subject, then loads various are fully catered for.
Shift the discussion to Power Source not Loads.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Lawrence,
They sort of always were.
Engineering challenges meant off peak tariffs were introduced to shape consumer demand.
Luckily we now have solar to make midday into off peak.
Shifting the consumer mindset is the challenge now.
Ambitious, or so costly it’ll break the country?
Higher NatHERS standards is ultimately something that should be pursued. The problem is, is the middle of a cost of living crisis, and a housing crisis, the time to be making housing scarcer and less affordable?
Bennett’s 16th Sept. SQ article It’s Time To Deploy Power Points In Every Car Park states how home solar owners are whining about terrible FiTs. Won’t quadrupling wind, tripling solar farms, and doubling rooftop solar, exacerbate this very issue?
The needs of the disadvantaged are mentioned, but what concrete action is there? Will pensions increase? Will non-urban dwellers get a subsidy or government payment for greener living? Or is it simply that the cost on such folk is acknowledged but otherwise it’s a giant #$%^& You?
Remember, Australia is the 6th largest by size, but barely in the top 20 for emissions. China emits 34x Australia’s CO2, and this and continues to increase, so why should Australia bother?
Cont. Part 2.
Hi John,
Australia represents about 0.33% of the global population.
Australia is also the highest OECD country for per capita emissions.
We are world champion polluters, emitting more than US, UK or Canada.
We are so profligate that in the gold medal count for the pollution olympics, we are only beaten by a handful of middle east petro-states.
Meanwhile we’ve exported our manufacturing industries and the pollution with them.
We’ve outsourced pollution, so the Chinese can do it cheaper.
Parroting “why should we bother” is either a sad inditement on ethics; or an assumption that the audience is as sharp as a bowling ball.
An insult to intelligence either way.
You’re presupposing per capita emissions are relevant as opposed to by area, or by nation. Pure communism or utopian fantasy aside, all nations will not and cannot be equal.
Actually the top CO2 nations are a mix of petro-states and island nations e.g. Palau which is over 4x worse than Australia. The reality is Australia fares well, falling just behind Canada and Russia, and just ahead of the US, all vast nations. Note too that China is close to twice the global per capita emissions and growing.
In terms of density the US has 37 people/km^2, Russia 8.8/km^2, Canada 4.5/Km^2 while Australia is 3.5/km^2 – between Namibia and the Western Sahara for ‘density’. FWIW Kazakhstan is roughly a third of Australia’s size but has 7.6/Km^2. China? That’s 151/km^2 so there’s no comparison.
Increased density means more mass transit and shorter distances.
I actually agree exporting manufacturing capacity is bad, but until Aussie wages drop to Chinese standards they won’t be returning.
John Alba: – “The reality is Australia fares well, falling just behind Canada and Russia, and just ahead of the US, all vast nations.”
Nope. Australia is a leading global polluter due to its substantial fossil fuel exports, which generate far more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when burned overseas than Australia’s domestic activities produce.
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/08/fossil-fuel-exports-place-australia-among-worlds-top-climate-polluters
We/humanity all share the same atmosphere. GHG emissions do not respect geopolitical boundaries.
Australia’s GHG contributions (i.e. domestic + exports) will inevitably have consequences for Australia.
https://globaia.org/habitability
John, do you realise that it is false to claim that China’s emissions are growing? Many are watching to see if they peaked last month or this, as they put the rest of the world to shame with their amazing decarbonisation efforts – at the same time as powering ours by producing our solar panels and EVs.
Their coal power stations, recently built to reduce a ballooning death rate due to winter power shortage due to drought, are now idling below 50% capacity, and a number already shut down, according to reports I’ve read.
Their economic future depends on a hyper-green economy, and they’re leaving us for dead.
Even Trump can’t stop hyper-electrification. Texas has just topped California in renewables – ‘cos it pays! pays! pays! He and other blind denialists are baying at the moon, as the almighty dollar mandates clean green renewables, and the death of fossil fuels. OK, so slowly that we’ll suffer transition pain *and* inaction pain, due to procrastination – that’s ineffably human.
Anthony Bennet, I have seen the comment “Australia is also the highest OECD country for per capita emissions”. many times.
Could you detail where and what is causing these huge emissions. Or a link where this is explained.
I assumed with the reduction in emissions, more efficient homes and vehicles we would have a comparable level to other countries.
David M: – “Could you detail where and what is causing these huge emissions. Or a link where this is explained.”
Apparently, it seems you have access to the internet. Why aren’t you able to dig around on the internet for this information yourself?
In a matter of seconds I found Our World in Data’s webpage for CO₂ emissions per capita, for the period 1750 through 2023, and an explanation about this indicator.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=OWID_WRL~USA~GBR~OWID_EU27~IND~CHN~ZAF~CAN~KEN~AUS
Here’s another example:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/interactive-how-australia-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-on-co2-emissions/7oooxwnnm
David M: – “I assumed with the reduction in emissions, more efficient homes and vehicles we would have a comparable level to other countries.”
Have you tested whether your assumptions are correct with actual credible data?
Geoff M,
My question was what is causing these high emissions, not that we have high emissions. You total missed the point.
As you pointed out I have previously found the information you have mentioned. But no specifics as to what these sources are, only generalizations
David M: – “My question was what is causing these high emissions, not that we have high emissions.”
Um, I would have thought that was obvious: The burning of carbon-based substances, including coal (thermal + metallurgical), methane gas, petroleum oil products, and to a lesser extent, wood products.
Who are the major GHG emissions contributor countries, and what are the consequences in a warming world?
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/battery-rebate-to-deliver-a-coal-plant-of-power-in-18-months/#comment-1728274
Anthony, the old adage “There is lies,…dam lies,…and statistics” is applicable here.
On a per capita basis Australians do emit more carbon than other nations,…and this is partly due to the size of the houses that many Australians build now,…… while much is due to the size of the land which require transport of goods further distances,… but most importantly Australians supply energy and food to other nations at a very high per capita ratio too.
We could easily cut our omissions significantly on a per capita basis,….just by letting others go cold and hungry!
John Alba: – “The problem is, is the middle of a cost of living crisis, and a housing crisis, the time to be making housing scarcer and less affordable?”
There was a public hearing on 16 Sep 2025, conducted by the Australian Senate Environment and Communications References Committee concerning an inquiry into the Climate Risk Assessment.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/CRA48P/Public_Hearings
Economist Dr Richard Denniss said at the Senate hearing on Tuesday:
“Let me give you an example of how much worse things are, ah, than you might likely expect. A lot of people talk about insurance becoming unaffordable. Just to be crystal clear, every mortgage contract in Australia obliges the holder of the mortgage to have insurance. Every mortgage contract.”
https://youtu.be/kshsde6g59Y?t=12398
Uninsurable is unmortgageable, & affected homes will be unsaleable. This is a growing problem.
Geoff, some houses etc absolutely should be uninsurable!
As Australia continues to expand into dangerous areas – flood plains, bushfire zones etc, the risk of damage and death soars. As risks increase, either everyone’s insurance has to go up to share the load, or those choosing to live in excessively dangerous areas need to face the cost solo e.g. $100,000+ per year insurance bills.
The only way to mitigate risk is if the residence is specifically constructed to negate said risk e.g. flood walls surrounding a property and regularly checked – as one guy in England literally did, with photos from a while back showing his property sitting nice and dry below the floodwater level thanks to said walls holding the water back.
Irrespective of whether climate change is real or pure fantasy, some areas just should not be built on. In my own region there’s new development going on that includes an area that either was underwater a few years back, or right on the edge of it.
Hi John,
If climate change was pure fantasy, my insurance wouldn’t have climbed $1000 this year.
My house backs onto a row of heritage listed cottages that haven’t flooded in living memory.
Yet if we look at Lismore for instance, they seem to be suffering absolute record height floods.
Innundations that are deemed 1 in 100 year events are happening every decade.
The insurance industry and defence department understand climate risk.
It’s about time everyone else got up to speed.
John Alba: – “The only way to mitigate risk is if the residence is specifically constructed to negate said risk…”
How do you mitigate against an Earth System committed to more than 20 m of sea level rise (SLR), albeit over a multi-century/millennia timeframe? Either we cool down planet Earth to save our coastlines, or we retreat from those coastlines that become inundated by a relentless & accelerating SLR.
How do you mitigate against the ever increasing number of days with 50+ °C extreme temperatures in the coming decades? Researchers from the ANU have projected that 50 °C days could occur in major Australian cities like Sydney & Melbourne between 2040 & 2050.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sydney-and-melbourne-should-prepare-for-50-degree-days-climate-researchers-warn/6z1kvr6me
Even if you have an effective/reliable air-con system to handle 50+ °C days, I’d suggest the crops and livestock in the fields won’t. You may be cool but starving!
John, this illuminating senate hearing snippet from 10 days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG-4CXcYVw8
touches on rising uninsurability and its consequences.
It also gives senate evidence that the fossil fuel industry burns more gas than our nation’s industries, more than all the nation’s homes, just to liquefy the exported gas to get it onto the ships. And that the recent fossil fuel expansions and extensions are no transition out of fossil fuels, but rather we’re digging in deeper to accelerate climate catastrophe here in Australia.
So I’m retaining my primary focus on individual electrification for climate resilience, as the gridscale effort is too little too late to do more than take the edge off the consequences. We can deny the fossil mafia a market by going BEV, solar, and batteries. China is working hard toward ceasing coal purchases from us – they’ll do more for our climate credentials than our parliament, I guess.
Part 2.
If I’m reading the information right, electricity and heating comprise about a third of Australia’s total CO2 emissions.
Gas, and coal generated about 90% of power back in 1999, about 84% in 2014, and about 62% in 2024. Labor’s plan calls for a 70% reduction on 2005 figures.
As I understand it this basically means coal and gas power dropping by about 35%, or wind and solar more than doubling their generation. And this has to be reliable output, not the usual half the noon output and next to nil at midnight. Is this level of increase even remotely viable? More importantly, is it affordable?
NSW intends to shut over 80% of the coal power by 2035, VIC about 78%, and QLD about 30% – roughly meeting Labor’s goals, but there have been warnings about supply issues. Add Australia’s soaring immigration and demand is growing while supply is imploding. Can solar or wind solve the shortage?
I’m a pessimist, not an optimist! What’s the CO2 output of candles and camp fires?
Hi John,
If you really look into reliability… as more renewables are deployed the grid reliability only goes up. It’s so obvious even the “conservative” party is claiming credit for it.
This image is what historic energy sources look like when you’re leading the transition.
Brown coal is gone, green & gold renewables are setting a trend blind Freddy can see.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/five-years-after-blackout-south-australia-now-only-state-with-no-supply-shortfalls/
https://reneweconomy.com.au/cheaper-cleaner-more-reliable-the-stunning-success-of-south-australias-renewable-transition/
https://www.electranet.com.au/strength-reliability-boost-to-south-australias-electricity-network/
A top priority should be locating parks of, say, ten, fast chargers in each country town to guarantee charging facilities for country trips and to prevent the disadvantage country towns will suffer with increasing city EVs if this is not done. These will be seldom used and will make a loss, but this will be greatly offset by the uptake of EVs throughout Australia with massive environmental benefits, less childhood cancer, greatly reduced road transport costs and avoidance of the need for Australia to import enormous quantities of oil at massive costs to Australia’s currency and security. If fast chargers cost $50,000 each, $40 million would buy 800, which would be a start.
What?
Not one word about one of the easiest fixes going?
No surprise given still State Govt ownership & political donor private industry owning the rest…
Shifting off-peak HW to between 10 am to 3pm becoming a mandatory requirement for all retailers offering controlled load.
Electricity companies are already doing this and it doesn’t suit everybody. My Catch Green uses solar during the day to heat my water and it tops up at night if required. It suddenly stopped doing the overnight top-up and I eventually found that Origin had shifted my off-peak to the middle of the day.
They were able to put me back on overnight off-peak, so it’s good they were keeping both options available.
This subject/topic has lost its focus:
Political ineptitude over many years in Australia has made the green transition an ideological affair.
This spells trouble; and be assured that when technological and standard of living imperatives, that offer a more prosperous future for individuals; families; communities; and businesses; are totally ignored in favour of unrealistic aspirations and dogma, reality has a way of kicking back – and with extreme prejudice.
In Australia, this ineptitude across the board, has resulted in persistent economic underperformance, the fear of irreversible growing industrial weakness due to high energy prices, and the potential of political instability through the rise of an increasingly agitated community.
To be sure: there is nobility in striving for better environmental outcomes; but if economic health is demonstrably ignored and sacrificed, the backlash will be palpable.
How things are playing out in Australia is a reminder that balance matters.
Lawrence Coomber: – “To be sure: there is nobility in striving for better environmental outcomes; but if economic health is demonstrably ignored and sacrificed, the backlash will be palpable.”
Humanity & human civilisation is dependent on a compatible Earth System environment (i.e. a clean breathable atmosphere, clean drinkable water, a liveable temperature range, predictable weather and seasons, a constant sea level, a magnetic shield protecting us from lethal cosmic radiation, etc.).
The Earth System is not dependent on us/humanity or our economy.
Professor Johan Rockström, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said:
“We have no evidence, whatsoever, that we can support in a dignified and responsible way, eight, soon to be nine billion people in the world as we know it, at anything above 2 °Celsius.”
https://youtu.be/h2VjdyqG-nY?t=1376
The backlash will be palpable, but it will be way too late to avoid any pain.
The NaTHERS equivalent exists in Europe since several decades now.
In some countries, it is now illegal to rent a dwelling with the lowest grade.
If that were the case in Australia, probably 25% of the dwellings on the rental markets would not be allowed…
Yes, I’ve heard that in The Netherlands rent is capped according to energy efficiency of the dwelling. We don’t want to be cutting back on overall rental availability, given the hit this has already taken from Airbnb. But it would be good to make landlords think about doing something about energy efficiency if it meant they could get a bit more rent.