Australia’s green energy experiment has left millions of its citizens with a shaky power grid, serving as a case study on how blind allegiance to climate dogma leads to economic and social turmoil.
The once sacred “net zero” pledge has been exposed as a curse producing public anger, stark warnings from industry and a rethinking of national energy policy. Cracks in the so-called consensus about human-caused global warming are widening.
Last week, the National Party of Australia finally broke the spell. By unanimously voting to abandon a 2050 net zero target, party members fired the first shot in a rebellion against the “green” agenda, declaring that cheap and reliable power must come before climate ideology. Faced with a struggling grid, shuttering industries and an angry electorate, and the party stated the obvious: “We need to prioritize cheaper energy.”
On November 13, the Liberal Party followed in the footsteps of Nationals and reversed their commitment to net zero by 2050. “Our emissions reduction goals will never come at the expense of Australian families, and this is the principle that will guide every decision we take,” said Sussan Ley, the leader of the Liberals, the main opposition party.
These decisions did not emerge in a vacuum. It is a natural reaction to years of recklessness that dismantled a stable energy system and replaced it with wishful thinking. Wind and solar technologies have not delivered the affordability or reliability their advocates promised.
Household electricity prices in Australia are currently 45% higher than those in the U.S. Power bills are up by as much as $526 per household. Why endure this when reliable coal and natural gas plants once kept lights on affordably?
Governments sidelined these sources, labeling them outdated, while wind turbines could operate less than half the time of conventional sources and solar panels less than a quarter. These numbers reveal the truth: Intermittent wind and solar cannot sustain a modern economy.
Battery storage – heralded as the backup savior of wind and solar – has failed to live up to its billing. Flagship mega-projects like the Snowy 2.0 pump-hydro scheme suffered cost blowouts, delays and technical hurdles. What began as a $2 billion project has ballooned beyond $12 billion, with tunneling disasters and technical setbacks making completion uncertain.
Australian Capital Territory’s Page Research Centre (PRC) says the net zero commitment no longer serves the interests of Australians. It notes electricity and gas prices have increased by around 40% since Australia committed to the “decarbonization” target. “Lower-income households already spend nearly four times the share of their income on energy compared to higher-income households, making affordability a question not only of economics but of equity,” says the PRC.
A PRC review also shows that the fiscal burden of green policies is substantial: “Between the Capacity Investment Scheme, Rewiring the Nation, hydrogen subsidies, and state-based SuperGrid programs, the combined public exposure to net-zero-aligned spending exceeds $120–$140 billion.”
Industries suffer most from this chaos. The Tomago Aluminium Smelter), Australia’s largest, warns of closure without a viable energy deal, as current contracts expire amid unaffordable prices. Tomago employs thousands, but high grid costs render operations unsustainable.
BlueScope Steel reported a 90% profit plunge in 2025, blaming energy expenses three to four times higher than in the United States. Manufacturers like these once thrived on cheap coal, but now they demand subsidies or face shutdowns, accelerating deindustrialization.
Farmers’ federations and business councils have raised alarms that current energy policy risks national competitiveness. Entrepreneur Dick Smith – known to some as Australia’s national treasure – recently condemned the “lies” demonizing fossil fuels and fostering fear about climate change.
Australia can reclaim its energy sovereignty by investing in what works: coal, natural gas and nuclear. Modern coal plants with high-efficiency, low-emission technology produce a fraction of the emissions of older units while providing stable baseload power. Gas remains indispensable for balancing supply and demand.
Nuclear, long demonized by green lobbies, offers reliability that no solar array can match. Yet regulatory barriers persist. Successive governments have banned nuclear power since 1998, even as allies like the U.S., France and Japan expand their fleets. The ban looks more absurd than ever.
The National Party’s abandonment of net zero signals broader rebellion. State branches in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia had already rejected the target, pressuring federal leaders. Even mainstream media outlets that once championed “green” narratives are now questioning their validity.
The conversation has shifted from “how fast” to decarbonize to “whether” it makes sense at all.
This piece originally appeared at RealClearMarkets.com and has been republished here with permission.
