Power Bills and Climate Fears Collide in Regional Australia’s Uneasy Energy Transition

Regional Australians face
rising bills as climate risks intensify

Key Points

Regional polling reveals tension between climate concern and cost pressures 1 Energy companies blamed more than renewables for rising bills 2 Support for clean energy remains strong despite local anxieties 3 Infrastructure delays and ageing coal plants drive volatility 4 Regional inequality shapes energy burden and climate exposure 5 Policy narratives struggle to match lived economic reality 6

Perception and Measurement

The numbers appear clear but their meaning is less certain. A survey of nearly two thousand residents across Renewable Energy Zones suggests rising concern about climate change alongside deep anxiety over power bills ^[1].

Yet the methodology raises questions about representation. Communities inside Renewable Energy Zones experience infrastructure change directly, which may amplify both concern and resistance.

Polling firms often weight for demographics, but geographic exposure is harder to balance. Without clarity on stratification, the results risk reflecting the loudest pressures rather than the broadest sentiment.

Framing also matters. Asking about “energy companies” invites blame attribution, while “clean energy” invokes policy identity, shaping how respondents assign responsibility.

The result is less a neutral snapshot and more a map of perception under stress. It captures how people feel about the transition, not necessarily how it functions.

Climate Concern Meets Household Economics

Only a third of respondents report increased concern about climate change despite escalating disasters. That figure suggests climate awareness competes with more immediate financial pressures ^[1].

In regional Australia, climate risk is not abstract. Bushfires, floods, and prolonged heatwaves reshape daily life, yet they coexist with rising grocery bills and mortgage stress.

For many households, concern becomes instrumental. Climate change matters because it threatens crops, incomes, and insurance, not simply because of environmental values.

This creates a cognitive balancing act. Families weigh long-term planetary risk against next quarter’s electricity bill.

Behavioural change remains uneven. While rooftop solar adoption grows, broader political shifts lag, reflecting the gap between concern and capacity.

Who Gets the Blame

Half of respondents blame energy companies for rising power bills. That perception aligns with public distrust of large utilities and retail pricing structures ^[2].

Yet the electricity market is structurally complex. Wholesale price spikes, transmission investment, and fossil fuel volatility all contribute to higher costs.

Ageing coal plants play a central role. Breakdowns reduce supply and drive price surges, particularly during peak demand periods ^[4].

Only a minority attribute rising costs to clean energy. This challenges political narratives that frame renewables as the primary driver of price increases.

The reality is more layered. Consumers interpret outcomes through experience, not system diagrams, and experience points to bills, not policy design.

The Clean Energy Paradox

Support for the clean energy transition remains strong across regional Australia. Nearly two thirds back the shift, even as local tensions persist ^[3].

This creates a paradox. People support the destination but question the journey, especially when infrastructure appears imposed rather than negotiated.

Transmission lines and wind farms reshape landscapes. For landholders, the issue is not abstract climate benefit but immediate land use and compensation.

Economic participation becomes decisive. Communities that see jobs and investment tend to support projects, while those that do not often resist them.

Opposition persists in a minority but remains influential. It draws on concerns about fairness, trust, and control over local environments.

Technology and Trust

Solar dominates public imagination as the future energy source. Its visibility on rooftops reinforces a sense of control and affordability.

Wind and large scale infrastructure evoke a different response. They are distant, complex, and often associated with external investors.

Fossil fuels retain residual support despite declining economic logic. Familiarity and perceived reliability still shape attitudes.

Nuclear sits at the margins of public preference. High costs and long development timelines limit its appeal in a system under immediate pressure.

The deeper issue is informational. Many communities lack clear explanations of how storage, firming, and grid integration actually work.

Energy Inequality on the Ground

Regional households face disproportionate energy burdens. Longer transmission distances and lower incomes compound cost pressures ^[5].

Extreme heat intensifies demand for cooling, pushing bills higher. In some communities, energy becomes a trade-off against other essentials.

This creates a feedback loop. Climate change increases energy demand, which increases costs, which deepens vulnerability.

Policy responses often treat climate and cost as separate issues. For households, they are inseparable.

A case from Central Australia illustrates the stakes. Prepaid electricity systems can leave residents without power during extreme heat events ^[7].

Infrastructure and System Strain

The transition requires massive infrastructure investment. Transmission lines, renewable generation, and storage must expand simultaneously.

Delays in these projects increase short term costs. The system pays for both ageing coal assets and new renewable infrastructure at once.

Coal plant failures add volatility. Each outage tightens supply and pushes wholesale prices higher ^[4].

Governments promise long term savings but struggle to communicate the timing. Households experience the costs before the benefits.

This mismatch fuels scepticism. The transition appears expensive because its savings are deferred.

Politics and Narrative Control

Energy policy sits at the centre of political contest. Cost of living pressures provide a powerful frame for shaping public debate.

Fossil fuel interests emphasise reliability and affordability concerns. Renewable advocates stress long term savings and climate necessity.

The public navigates between these narratives. Trust depends less on ideology and more on lived experience.

Policy inconsistency adds confusion. Federal and state approaches often diverge, complicating the overall message ^[6].

The result is a fragmented narrative landscape. Competing claims obscure the structural realities of the energy system.

Community and Consent

Consultation emerges as a critical fault line. Communities want involvement in decisions that reshape their landscapes.

Early engagement improves outcomes. Late stage consultation often breeds resistance and mistrust.

Farmers and regional advocates call for meaningful participation. This includes transparent compensation and long term local benefits.

Indigenous communities add another layer of complexity. Land rights and cultural heritage intersect with energy development.

Failures in engagement risk mischaracterising resistance. Opposition is often about process, not principle.

The System Beneath the Sentiment

The tension between climate concern and cost pressure reflects a deeper systemic challenge. Multiple crises intersect within the same households.

This dynamic resembles a broader polycrisis. Economic stress, climate risk, and infrastructure transition amplify each other.

Public support remains conditional. It depends on whether the transition delivers tangible benefits within a reasonable timeframe.

Sequencing becomes critical. Poorly timed reforms can erode trust even if long term outcomes are positive.

A just transition requires more than emissions targets. It demands alignment between policy ambition and lived reality.

Conclusion

The polling reveals a public neither resistant nor fully convinced. Regional Australians accept the necessity of climate action but question its execution.

The energy transition is not failing in principle. It is struggling in delivery, particularly where costs arrive before benefits and consultation follows decisions.

Bridging this gap requires more than infrastructure. It demands transparency, fairness, and a clearer narrative about how the system works.

If policymakers can align economic relief with climate progress, support is likely to deepen. If not, the current tension may harden into durable scepticism.

The future of Australia’s energy transition will be decided not in policy documents but in households weighing bills against belief.

References

1. Climate change, power bills are key concerns in regions
2. Power Games: Who’s driving high power bills?
3. Clean Energy Australia Report
4. AEMO Market Notices and Reliability Reports
5. Energy Poverty in Australia
6. Electricity and Energy Sector Plan for Net Zero
7. Extreme heat driving up power bills in Central Australia

Back to top

Australia’s Energy Transition Hits Milestones While the System Strains to Keep Up - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

The energy transition accelerates while the
system beneath it struggles to keep pace

Key Points

Renewables growth masks underlying grid constraints 1 Firming costs shift quietly to consumers and markets 2 Transmission delays strand clean energy capacity 3 Battery boom expands but remains short-duration 4 EV uptake rises unevenly across income and geography 5 Energy milestones outpace emissions reductions reality 6

Introduction: A System Under Pressure

On paper, Australia’s energy transition is advancing at speed, with renewables regularly supplying large shares of electricity demand.

Headlines celebrate records, yet those figures depend heavily on timing, measurement and interpretation. Instantaneous peaks tell a different story from annual averages, and both obscure deeper system stress ¹.

Behind the numbers sits a grid designed for predictable coal generation, now adapting to variable solar and wind. The shift is not just technological but structural, reshaping markets, communities and political narratives.

The tension between progress and fragility defines this moment. Australia is moving fast, but the infrastructure, rules and social licence required to sustain that pace lag behind.

Renewables and the Reality of Displacement

Claims that renewables have surpassed fossil fuels often rely on short intervals when solar and wind dominate supply. Over a full year, fossil fuels still provide a substantial share, particularly during evening peaks and low renewable output periods. This distinction shapes public understanding of progress ¹.

In many cases, renewables add capacity rather than fully displacing fossil generation. Rising electricity demand absorbs new supply, meaning emissions reductions lag behind generation milestones.

Curtailment further complicates the picture, with renewable output constrained due to network limits.

Reliability and the Quiet Cost of Firming

As renewable penetration rises, the need for firming capacity becomes central. Gas generation, batteries and demand response systems fill gaps when output falls, with costs often obscured ².

Gas has not disappeared but shifted roles, operating less frequently yet more critically, often elevating prices during tight supply periods.

Market operators increasingly intervene to maintain stability, reflecting a system in transition.

Transmission Bottlenecks and Stranded Energy

Major transmission projects underpin clean energy ambitions, yet delays leave renewable capacity underutilised ³.

Developers often secure approvals before transmission pathways are guaranteed, creating project backlogs.

Regional opposition to transmission lines has intensified, turning infrastructure into a political flashpoint.

Battery Storage: Promise and Constraint

Battery capacity has expanded rapidly, stabilising the grid and reducing price spikes ⁴.

Yet most batteries are short-duration, limiting resilience during prolonged low renewable output.

Ownership is increasingly concentrated, raising questions about market power.

Electric Vehicles and Uneven Adoption

EV sales have reached record levels but remain a modest share compared globally ⁵.

Upfront costs and infrastructure gaps limit access.

Charging reliability continues to shape perception.

The Grid Impact of Electrification

EV adoption will increase demand, especially during peak periods, stressing networks if unmanaged ⁶.

Vehicle-to-grid technology offers potential but remains limited.

Multiple systems must evolve together.

Conclusion: A Transition Defined by Tension

Australia’s energy transition is advancing but uneven.

Infrastructure, policy and social alignment remain critical.

The coming decade will determine whether momentum becomes coherence.

References

1. Australian Energy Market Operator
2. CSIRO GenCost
3. Australian Government Energy
4. ARENA
5. BITRE
6. Climate Change Authority

Back to top

Climate policy must work for everyday Australians - Thom Woodroofe

Power, Prosperity & Planet: Climate & Energy Policy for All - Thom Woodroofe

This article is an extract from Power, Prosperity & Planet: Climate & Energy Policy for All by Thom Woodroofe, published by Monash University Publishing. Thom Woodroofe Thom Woodroofe is a Senior International Fellow with the Smart Energy Council. He played a key role in securing the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015, including helping establish the High Ambition Coalition of progressive nations.  He has since worked as chief of staff to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; for the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade in Washington, DC; and at the Asia Society in New York, where he forged a backchannel for US–China climate talks.  Thom studied diplomacy as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University and grew up off-the-grid on a solar-powered property in regional Victoria.

Many Australians believe two things to be true: that climate change is real, getting worse and of major concern; and that the week-to-week grind of paying for groceries, rent, fuel, school costs and electricity leaves little bandwidth for anything that seems like a big, nation-changing endeavour, unless it helps to alleviate those pressures.

This dynamic also ties into our political polarisation: most Australians want to see action on climate change, but where that can be perceived or mischaracterised as ‘going too far’ or decoupled from these immediate pressures, it can also be weaponised in the other direction. 

Take, for example, the successful campaign that Tony Abbott waged against Australia putting a price on pollution by presenting it as a ‘tax’ on Australian households. Or the exploitative reverse narrative by the new National Party leader, Matt Canavan, in the face of this year’s fuel crisis when he says that a ‘strategic wind reserve’ doesn’t do a thing for Australia.

This is not just anecdotal; the statistics back it up. In 2024, a large CSIRO survey found that most Australians backed a shift to renewables, with an overwhelming majority supportive of a significant transition. While many favoured a steady pace for that transition rather than a rushed one, the direction of travel was clear.

The other striking finding was that people wanted more transparent, local information about large-scale projects such as solar farms, wind farms and transmission. In other words, to be a success, this needs to be an open, shared journey.

Similarly, the 2024 Lowy Institute Poll revealed that ‘the vast majority of Australians’ (87 per cent) said they support the government subsidising renewable technologies, but ‘reducing household energy bills’ had overtaken ‘reducing carbon emissions’ as the main energy priority for Australians, even though both were considered important.

Likewise, the 2025 poll showed that more than half of the Australian public felt that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem’ and that ‘we should begin taking steps now, even if this involves significant costs’, with 75 per cent in support of renewables playing a major role in the energy mix. But, strikingly, Australians were divided on whether achieving a net zero target would leave the economy better off (38 per cent), worse off (36 per cent) or the same (23 per cent).

This trend was also pronounced among younger people, with Mission Australia’s 2024 Youth Survey Report revealing cost of living as the top concern, overtaking climate change. Mission Australia CEO Sharon Callister noted, “While climate change remains an important issue for young people, ranking second … it currently takes a back seat to the urgent financial challenges many are facing.”

This is also not a challenge that is unique to Australia’s climate and energy movement. In the United States, lifelong environmental campaigner Bill McKibben has been candid about the movement’s limits: it has often succeeded in winning the argument on the science, but struggled to build the kind of durable political coalition needed to overcome vested interests and the daily pressures that shape how people vote.

As Naomi Klein, journalist and Professor of Climate Justice, has said, the calculus cannot simply be about ‘end of the planet’ struggles versus ‘end of the month’ struggles, or humanity will lose. Just as Australia’s former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has conceded, while humanity has undertaken enormous transformations before, they were always driven by self-interest.

The transition from people power to animal power meant that farmers could plough large fields and couriers could get from A to B much faster. The transition from horse power to steam power opened up previously unimagined industrial opportunities and led to mass transport. The transition from coal-fired steam engines to diesel engines for trains cut the expense and plumes of black smoke. The transition from town gas to natural gas allowed us to heat our buildings and run our factories at lower cost and with greater safety.

If we were in America, where I have spent a considerable amount of time working with and around both sides of politics, we would say we need a climate and energy policy for the ‘middle class’ or ‘the heartland’. To put this in the equivalent Australian political vernacular, some might say we need a climate and energy policy for ‘working families’, ‘the battlers’ or ‘quiet Australians’. But to put it more simply, our next wave of climate and energy policymaking needs to increasingly be fixed on middle Australia.

The fact is that Australia needs a climate and energy policy that works for everyone, from the Cabinet Room to the boardroom, to every lounge room across the mortgage belts, in the regions and beyond. Because the moral imperative to address climate is not enough to galvanise everyone. Good climate and energy policy should cost people less each month, not more.

It should help the increasing proportion of the country that rents to also embrace renewables and reduce their energy bills, as opposed to simply those who own housing, the increasingly out-of-reach ‘Australian dream’.

It should make the replacement for the family car a debate about what is cheaper, not a culture war.

It should show that there can be upwards, or at the very least sidewards, economic mobility during the transition, not downward mobility, as many workers fear.

It should breathe new life and confidence into our regional towns and industrial centres, rather than just being there for the bailout.

It should shorten commutes for those who live in the mortgage belts, not lengthen them.

It should make homes cheaper, to incentivise people to do more than insure their home to protect it.

I have come to believe that it is only through demonstrating these things we can finally convince all of the Australian population of the benefits of being an international leader on climate change, and that ambitious emissions targets, renewable energy and green exports will help to create a more stable and prosperous nation for us and our children. While we have made good progress in recent years, we have a long way yet to go.

References

• Smart Energy Council – Profile and organisational information
• Paris Agreement – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change overview
• High Ambition Coalition – Carbon Brief explainer
• Kevin Rudd – Australian Government Prime Ministerial archive
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Official site
• Asia Society – Programs and policy work

When Heat Becomes Unliveable: The Legal Reckoning Emerging From Papunya - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Extreme heat is turning homes
into hazards in remote Australia

Key Points

Papunya residents allege homes are dangerously hot and legally uninhabitable 1 Case tests duty of care for governments in a warming climate 2 Indoor temperatures exceed recognised health safety thresholds 3 Climate change is increasing extreme heat frequency in central Australia 4 Housing design failures amplify exposure in remote Indigenous communities 5 Case could reshape climate adaptation law across Australia 6

A Town Built for Heat Now Overwhelmed by It

In Papunya, a remote community west of Alice Springs, heat is no longer an environmental condition but a daily threat inside the home. 

Residents describe interiors that trap heat through the night, where relief never arrives and sleep becomes fragmented.

Medical evidence increasingly shows that prolonged exposure to high indoor temperatures can push the human body into dangerous physiological stress. Core temperatures rise, dehydration accelerates, and the risk of heat exhaustion or stroke intensifies, especially without cooling or recovery periods.

Against this backdrop, Papunya residents have launched a landmark legal action against the Northern Territory Government, arguing their homes are effectively uninhabitable under modern climate conditions ^[1].

The Legal Argument Taking Shape

The case rests on a convergence of legal claims, including negligence, breach of tenancy obligations, and failure to provide housing fit for habitation. Lawyers argue the Government has a duty of care that extends beyond structural safety to thermal safety in extreme climates.

This argument reflects a shift in legal thinking, where climate conditions are no longer treated as external factors but as foreseeable risks requiring mitigation. The claim links rising temperatures directly to housing performance failures, using climate data and engineering assessments.

While Australian courts have seen climate litigation focused on emissions, this case moves into adaptation, asking whether governments can be held liable for failing to protect citizens from known climate impacts ^[2].

Inside the Heat Burden

Residents report indoor temperatures exceeding 35 degrees overnight, well above thresholds associated with safe sleep and cardiovascular recovery. Studies suggest sustained exposure above 26 degrees significantly disrupts sleep and increases health risks ^[3].

These conditions persist for consecutive days during summer heatwaves, compounding physiological stress. Without adequate cooling, the body cannot reset, leading to cumulative strain that disproportionately affects children and elderly residents.

Overcrowding intensifies the problem, with multiple occupants generating additional heat in poorly ventilated spaces. Coping strategies include sleeping outdoors or running inefficient cooling systems, both of which carry risks.

Climate Change and Attribution

Central Australia has experienced a marked increase in extreme heat days over recent decades, with climate models projecting further escalation in both intensity and duration. The Bureau of Meteorology reports a significant rise in days above 40 degrees across the Northern Territory ^[4].

Attribution science now allows researchers to link specific heat events to anthropogenic climate change with increasing confidence. Scientists argue that conditions once considered rare are becoming the new baseline.

This raises a critical legal question, whether housing built for historical climate norms can still be considered adequate in a rapidly warming environment. In Papunya, the answer is increasingly contested.

Design Failures in a Harsh Climate

Many homes in Papunya were not designed for prolonged extreme heat, relying on materials and layouts that absorb and retain thermal energy. Poor insulation, limited shading, and inadequate ventilation contribute to heat build-up.

Research into remote housing has identified systemic design flaws, including lack of passive cooling features and insufficient maintenance. These shortcomings reduce resilience to heat and increase reliance on mechanical cooling ^[5].

In contrast, best practice designs in similar climates emphasise cross ventilation, reflective materials, and shaded outdoor spaces. The gap between these standards and existing housing is stark.

Government Knowledge and Responsibility

Documents and prior reports suggest that risks associated with extreme heat in remote housing have been known for years. Complaints from residents and assessments by housing bodies have highlighted overheating and infrastructure deficiencies.

Funding for remote housing upgrades has fluctuated, often failing to keep pace with population growth and climate pressures. Critics argue this reflects a pattern of underinvestment in remote Indigenous communities.

The division of responsibility between federal and territory governments has further complicated action, creating gaps in accountability that the Papunya case seeks to address.

Health, Rights and Inequality

The legal action frames extreme heat exposure as not only a health issue but a question of human rights. International standards recognise the right to adequate housing, which includes protection from environmental hazards.

Public health research shows that sustained indoor heat exposure contributes to chronic illness, mental stress, and increased mortality risk. These impacts are amplified in communities with limited access to healthcare ^[3].

The case intersects with broader inequities faced by First Nations communities, where housing shortages and infrastructure deficits compound climate vulnerability.

Economic and Social Costs

Residents bear significant economic burdens, including high electricity costs from running cooling devices that often fail to achieve safe temperatures. Health-related expenses and reduced productivity add further strain.

From a policy perspective, the cost of retrofitting homes may be substantial, but studies indicate that inaction carries higher long-term costs. These include healthcare expenditure and potential compensation liabilities.

Social impacts are equally profound, with some residents forced to leave homes during peak heat, disrupting community cohesion and cultural connection to place.

A National Test Case

The Papunya case could set a precedent for climate adaptation litigation across Australia, particularly in regions facing similar heat extremes. Legal experts suggest it may redefine the obligations of governments in providing climate-resilient housing.

Globally, jurisdictions are beginning to address heat resilience through building codes and public housing upgrades. Australia has been slower to integrate climate projections into housing policy.

If courts recognise extreme heat as a factor in habitability, the implications could extend to urban settings, where heatwaves increasingly affect vulnerable populations ^[6].

Community Leadership and Agency

The legal action reflects a broader movement for Indigenous self-determination, with residents asserting their right to safe living conditions. Community leaders and legal advocates have played a central role in organising the case.

Researchers and non-government organisations have supported the effort by providing data and analysis linking climate change to housing outcomes. This collaboration has strengthened the evidentiary base.

Residents emphasise that the goal is not only legal recognition but tangible improvements, including housing that supports health, dignity, and cultural continuity.

Pathways to Adaptation

Immediate interventions could include improved insulation, shading, and ventilation, alongside access to efficient cooling systems. These measures can significantly reduce indoor temperatures.

Long-term solutions involve redesigning housing to align with projected climate conditions, incorporating passive cooling and resilient materials. Policy reform is needed to embed these standards in building codes.

Funding mechanisms, including federal investment and targeted programs, will be critical to scaling adaptation. The speed of implementation may depend on the outcome of the legal case.

Conclusion

The Papunya case marks a turning point in how climate change intersects with law, housing, and public policy in Australia. It shifts the focus from emissions to lived consequences, where the failure to adapt becomes a matter of legal accountability.

As temperatures rise, the question is no longer whether homes can withstand heat, but whether governments can justify leaving citizens exposed to known risks. The outcome may redefine the meaning of habitability in a warming world.

Beyond Papunya, the case signals a broader reckoning with climate inequality, where those least responsible for warming often bear its most immediate impacts. The law may now become a tool for forcing adaptation where policy has lagged.

References

1. Northern Territory housing reports and legal filings on Papunya conditions
2. Australian climate litigation review
3. WHO guidance on indoor heat exposure and health
4. Bureau of Meteorology climate trends
5. CSIRO research on remote housing performance
6. Climate adaptation policy analysis Australia
7. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
8. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare heat impacts
9. UN adequate housing standards
10. Productivity Commission remote housing review
11. Nature Climate Change attribution studies
12. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute reports

Back to top

The greatest threat to global security - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

AUTHOR Julian Cribb AM ATSE is an Australian science writer and author of seven books on the human existential emergency.  He is Co-founder, Council for the Human Future.  Julian Cribb's latest book is How to Fix a Broken Planet (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

A war is quietly being waged against humanity that threatens the security not only of all nations but of the entire planet and all its people.

The warning comes in the latest report from the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group (ASLCG), a taskforce of distinguished military and defence personnel headed by former Australian Chief of Defence, Admiral Chris Barrie.

The warning is particularly relevant to outmoded militaries like those of the USA and Russia, with their World War II force structures and assumptions, that are now being outgamed by asymmetric opponents, adding fresh meat to the 1920s proverb that “generals always prepare to fight the last war”.

According to the ASLCG, the war now being waged is not with bombers and warships, nor even with drones and smart missiles. It is being waged with misinformation – and its war aim is to cripple all efforts by humanity to avoid a climate catastrophe.

“Over the last two decades, anti-climate action propaganda and disinformation networks have grown into multi-billion dollar permanent campaigns that run across the entire information ecosystem, with expenditure globally of up to $7 billion dollars a year.” the report states.

“Power in this digitally networked age comes from dominance in the information space and (we) are now living in a world increasingly shaped by propaganda and disinformation rather than factual information.

“These campaigns may be best understood through a lens of information warfare, combining traditional media influence, coordinated online activity and algorithmic amplification to shape narratives and perceptions at scale.”

The Group has long argued that global heating constitutes the more dangerous security threat both at national and global level, and that traditional military thinking does not encompass the scale or imminence of this threat. Consequently, many militaries are trapped in a 20^th Century model of inter-nation conflict that has been superseded by far more grave and universal dangers.

The aim of the war is not only to wreck the global climate response, but also to undermine democracy, the group warns: “The overall objective is not simply to convince, but to degrade the information environment itself, creating confusion, mistrust and institutional delegitimisation that weaken democratic decision making on complex issues including climate and energy.”

“Climate disinformation is evolving from a communications issue into a national security challenge, with implications for…sovereignty, economic resilience, disaster readiness, institutional trust, and strategic autonomy in shaping the energy transition.”

“Currently there are offensives ranging across global information to turn back momentum on renewable energy and climate action, but also to attack democratic norms,” the report admonishes.

The strategy aims to control online content production and dissemination, via think tanks, corrupt PR companies, domination of social media, broadcast, cable and radio networks, the cultivation of high-profile ‘influencers’ to spread propaganda, and the mass deployment of bots and digital disruption, it explains.

To confuse and distort its effect, the narratives combine anti-climate-action sentiment with anti-immigration, antidemocracy, anti-journalism, anti-racial-equality, anti-LGBTQI, anti-science and anti-government themes, it adds, destroying the trust that should exist between a people and their government.

Prior to the election of Donald Trump, the US defence establishment released several reports in which it warned that global heating was a major threat to both US and world security. Such warnings have vanished as the Pentagon, along with other government departments, have been gagged from even mentioning climate and commanded to cancel their climate research. Coupled with this is the Trump push to increase fossil fuel use and discourage the spread of renewable energy. Such measures will greatly exacerbate the climate threat to both US and world security.

Climate deaths are already estimated at several million a year worldwide and affect all countries. They are expected to climb sharply as the planet heats. Climate fatalities include deaths from flood, fire, famine, heat and storm. To these must be added millions of deaths due to plastics, pesticides, air pollution, water pollution and toxic chemicals used in food, clothing and furnishings and other petrochemical products.

“The continued expansion of the use of fossil fuels is a death sentence to millions. There is no excuse for persistent delay in climate action,” the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Gebreyesus has stated.

The goal of the fossil fuels $7bn disinformation campaign is thus nothing less than the systematic mass murder by industry of millions, potentially billions, of people – all for the sake of preserving profits in the oil, gas and coal sector. Governments, such as those of the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, Venezuela, China, Australia and Canada, are complicit. It is, as the ASLCG says, an act of war – and this mass slaughter is a war crime for which all the culprits deserve to be indicted.

The ASLCG makes several recommendations for dealing with the problem including tougher anti-trust laws, AI and social media regulation – but these are all national measures and, as such, will never be adopted by all 197 nations globally. This means the spreaders of deadly lies and disinformation will always have somewhere to hide.

In The Age of Lies, I warned that disinformation is, potentially, the biggest threat facing the human species – since it corrupts all public discourse, rational decision making by government or industry and by individuals. In other words, it prevents humanity from saving itself.

In How to Fix a Broken Planet, I proposed the adoption of a World Truth Commission to expose the liars to public scorn, and a World Integrity Service, which ranks websites and media sources according to their truthfulness. Such measures can at least let the public know whom to trust – and whom to ignore, for their own safety.

The war being waged by the fossil fuels lobby against humanity is universal. It will destroy their own grandchildren as surely as yours. It will certainly wreck civilisation and, as many scientists have warned, could end in human extinction.

It is intentional, uniquely evil and driven by pure greed. It’s cruelty, caprice and callousness is unmatched by any murderous regime or conqueror in the whole of history.

It must be stopped.

Julian Cribb Articles

• Turning Waste Into Wealth
• Up to our eyeballs in 💩💩💩
• Plasticide: a crime against humanity Our Rising Oceans
• Will climate change put women in the ascendant?
• When the water runs out...
• The great dying
• Australia issues ‘terrifying’ climate warning
• 'Died of a delusion': the fate of modern civilisation?
• Collapse is near, scientists warn
• De-icing the Earth: a fatal human choice. 
• Rivers of Death
• Unlike politicians, thermometers do not lie
• Welcome to BunkerWorld: Home of the rich and fearful
• Wisdom of the elders
• The black work of Big Oil
• Stealing the Breath of Life
• The Earth Uncloaked - a catastrophe in slow motion 
  
• Military experts warn of climate wars
• Tackling the Earth Emergency
• A distracted world marches steadily towards catastrophe

States have driven climate action until now. It’s time for the Australian government to step up - Chris Wright

The Conversation - Chris Wright, Macquarie University

Rachel Dulson Getty

Author

Chris Wright, PhD Candidate in Environmental Policy, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For more than a decade, Australia’s emissions reductions have been driven not by the Federal Government but by the States and Territories, often in relative obscurity.

State governments took the lead in driving rapid uptake of renewable energy, driving emissions down even as the federal “climate wars” raged.

But the heavy-lifting era of the States may be coming to an end. Reaching the goal of cutting emissions by 62–70% (relative to 2005 levels) in less than a decade will require much stronger leadership at a Federal level.

States drove the first renewable surge

From 2013 to 2022, Australia endured a “lost decade” on climate policy, as successive Federal Coalition governments struggled to build durable national climate policy.

But emissions fell regardless. From September 2013 – when Coalition leader Tony Abbott became Prime Minister – until September 2019, national emissions fell by almost 12%. Emissions then fell sharply as COVID restrictions began in 2020, before a slight bounce, but overall emissions fell almost 20% during 2013–22.

Since then, however, our emissions haven’t changed much at all. Between September 2024 and September 2025, they fell just 1.8%. 

Australian emissions reductions have flatlined
Quarterly emissions in gigatonnes CO₂-e, seasonally adjusted and weather normalised.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and WaterGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

What happened during the supposedly lost decade? States took the lead through initiatives such as large-scale renewable energy rollouts in South Australia and Victoria, market-shaping reforms in New South Wales, and a more recent renewables surge in Queensland.

Aided by the Federal Clean Energy Finance Corporation, these efforts reshaped the electricity sector. National emissions cuts were delivered to Canberra on a silver platter, making it easier to meet national targets without substantial Federal effort.

When the Albanese Government came to power, it set a legal target to cut emissions 43% (from 2005 levels) by 2030. But this measure was made possible largely by state action.

State efforts also underpinned the new 2035 targets as well. Modelling last year by Climateworks suggested existing State and Territory policies could – by themselves – deliver national emissions reduction of 66–71% by 2035.

But just six months later, these assumptions look shaky. While some State Governments have hit sectoral speed bumps, others have shifted to outright backsliding.

What’s happening with the states?

In Western Australia and the Northern Territory, previously debated 2030 targets now lie abandoned.

In Queensland, signs of climate backsliding are clear in the new government’s Energy Roadmap, laying out plans to keep coal power until mid-century. The Government has cancelled large renewable projects and wants new gas-fired power stations to fill the gap. The State will likely still reach its 2030 emissions targets, but the 2035 goal now seems close to impossible.

South Australia has long been a leader on renewables. In 2007, renewables supplied just 1% of the State’s power. This year, renewables are forecast to supply 85%. But its efforts to build a green hydrogen industry as a way to create new exports and cut industrial emissions have hit a very rocky patch.

The SA government has disbanded its Office of Hydrogen Power and signed a ten-year contract to power the Whyalla Steelworks with gas. State Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis has acknowledged there are no Government-led plans to develop green hydrogen left.

The State’s success in cutting emissions from electricity means transport and farming are now the largest emissions sources. Emissions from these sectors will be much harder for the state to bring down alone.

New South Wales faces a different challenge: whether it can reach its legislated State targets in time. It has to roughly double its current rate of emissions reductions to do so, and questions remain over how fast it can roll out renewables – as well as whether it can cut emissions from coal mining.

The State’s huge Eraring coal station was slated to close in August last year, but this has been pushed back twice and it is now meant to close in 2029. The owners of Vales Point Power coal station similarly hope to extend its life. 

The closure of NSW’s Eraring Power Station has now been pushed back to 2029. CSIRO/Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-ND

Victoria’s nation-leading efforts to move away from gas have reduced fossil fuel emissions 22% since 2005. But the State’s overall emissions have been increasing since 2021. While offshore wind farms may offer new opportunities in the longer term, local and interstate transmission lines, transport and agriculture emissions will remain critical challenges.

Time for federal leadership

The 2035 emissions target is just six months old. But the Federal Government already faces a real challenge of its convictions.

On May 12, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will hand down his budget. Given the fuel crisis, increases in military spending and cuts to the NDIS, it’s unlikely we’ll see a big boost to renewables.

This would be a missed opportunity, given renewables produce energy locally, boost energy security and act against inflation.

The next test for the Government will be the Safeguard Mechanism review in July. This scheme has led to some emission cuts from big industrial facilities, though most cuts come from closures and operational shifts rather than direct reduction on site.

The mechanism could do much more. If the review leads to targeted sectoral reforms, a focus on onsite emissions intensity reductions and long-term signals providing clear investment horizons for onsite mitigation, it may just shift the needle towards real industrial transitions.

States can’t do it all

Australia is at a tricky stage. Federal climate progress has long been underwritten by a free dividend of emissions reductions delivered by State Governments.

Going forward, the Federal Government will likely need to shoulder much more of the heavy lifting and become more willing to intervene – especially as some States baulk at the challenge.

The Conversation Climate Change Articles

• We eat a lot of wheat. So how can we grow more in a changing climate? 
• Overheated cows, flooded highways, and now a fuel crisis: why Australia’s food system is in big troubl
• Searching for a ‘technofix’ to climate change has many dangers. Could radical humility save the planet? 
• Climate change means more landslides in NZ – but new tech can help reduce the risk 
• The carbon tax debate damaged Julia Gillard’s leadership – and good climate policy for years to come 
• What Australians really think about climate change
• People around the world will act on climate change to create a better society: study
• How well does the new Australian Curriculum prepare young people for climate change?
• Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real 
• ‘I tend to be very gentle’: how teachers are navigating climate change in the classroom

Back to top

Earth Day 2026 and the Politics of “Our Power”: Agency, Accountability and the Limits of Collective Action - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Earth Day 2026 reframes climate action around people
while power largely remains with governments and industry

Key Points

“Our Power” reframes climate agency but risks shifting responsibility to individuals 1 Government underperformance drives emphasis on behavioural change narratives 2 Earth Day pillars lack binding targets or enforcement mechanisms 3 Corporate participation raises persistent greenwashing concerns 4 Australian case studies reveal limits of household-led emissions reductions 5 First Nations leadership highlights alternative models of climate power 6

Reframing Power in a Warming World

Earth Day 2026 arrives under the banner “Our Power, Our Planet”, a slogan that signals urgency but also ambiguity about who truly holds agency. 

Organisers emphasise collective action, urging households, workers and communities to drive change through daily decisions and civic engagement. 

Yet the architecture of emissions remains dominated by energy systems, industrial production and policy frameworks that individuals do not control ¹.

The language of “our power” suggests a redistribution of responsibility that is both empowering and politically convenient. It invites participation while obscuring asymmetries between citizens and major emitters. 

This tension sits at the centre of Earth Day’s evolving narrative, particularly as global emissions continue to rise despite decades of awareness campaigns ².

In Australia, where climate impacts intensify through heatwaves, floods and bushfires, the question of agency is not abstract. Communities are adapting in real time, yet policy decisions on fossil fuel approvals and energy transition remain concentrated at federal and state levels. 

The gap between lived experience and structural power defines the stakes of this year’s theme.

From Policy Failure to Behavioural Focus

The shift toward individual and community action reflects a broader failure of governments to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement. Global emissions trajectories remain inconsistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, despite formal pledges and national targets ². In this context, behavioural change narratives have gained prominence as a complementary, and sometimes substitute, strategy.

Policymakers often endorse these narratives because they diffuse responsibility across society. Encouraging energy efficiency, dietary shifts and consumer choices appears politically feasible compared with regulating fossil fuel production or imposing carbon pricing. However, this approach risks underestimating the scale of structural transformation required.

Australia illustrates this dynamic clearly. While renewable energy investment has accelerated, new coal and gas projects continue to receive approvals, creating a policy contradiction that individual action cannot resolve. The emphasis on household responsibility can therefore function as a partial deflection from systemic accountability.

Pillars Without Enforcement

Earth Day 2026 outlines broad pillars centred on clean energy, climate education and community mobilisation. These themes align with global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals, yet they lack binding targets or enforcement mechanisms ³. Participation remains voluntary, and outcomes depend on diffuse commitments rather than coordinated policy.

The absence of measurable benchmarks complicates efforts to assess impact. Organisers highlight participation rates and campaign reach, but these metrics do not directly translate into emissions reductions or biodiversity gains. Without clear indicators, the distinction between symbolic engagement and substantive change becomes blurred.

This pattern is not unique to 2026. Previous Earth Day campaigns have raised awareness at scale but struggled to demonstrate sustained environmental outcomes. The challenge lies in converting momentary mobilisation into long-term structural change, a transition that requires institutional support beyond annual events.

Initiatives and the Optics of Action

Flagship initiatives for Earth Day 2026 range from renewable energy pledges to local clean-up campaigns and digital advocacy drives. Many are funded through partnerships between NGOs, governments and corporate sponsors, reflecting a hybrid model of climate governance. The diversity of initiatives creates visibility, but also fragmentation.

In Australia, community-led programs addressing extreme heat and bushfire resilience have gained traction. Local councils invest in urban cooling strategies, while grassroots organisations promote adaptation measures in vulnerable regions. These efforts demonstrate practical benefits, yet their scale remains limited relative to national emissions challenges ⁵.

The balance between mitigation and adaptation also reveals a shift in priorities. As climate impacts intensify, more initiatives focus on coping strategies rather than emissions reduction. This adaptation turn reflects necessity, but it also signals the consequences of delayed systemic action.

Corporate Participation and the Greenwashing Question

Corporate involvement in Earth Day has expanded significantly, with major companies aligning themselves with the “Our Power” narrative. Many promote sustainability commitments and net-zero targets, often supported by voluntary disclosure frameworks such as climate-related financial reporting. However, the credibility of these commitments varies widely ⁴.

Critics argue that Earth Day provides a platform for reputational enhancement without sufficient scrutiny. Companies with high emissions profiles can participate alongside genuine climate leaders, creating a blurred landscape of accountability. The absence of strict vetting mechanisms reinforces concerns about greenwashing.

Evidence of long-term operational change remains uneven. While some firms have reduced emissions and invested in renewable energy, others rely on offsets or distant targets that defer action. The coexistence of progress and inertia underscores the limits of voluntary corporate engagement.

Workers, Unions and the Politics of Transition

The “Our Power” narrative increasingly includes workers as agents of change, particularly in emissions-intensive sectors. Trade unions have begun to engage with just transition frameworks, advocating for job security and reskilling as industries decarbonise. This reflects a recognition that climate policy must address economic realities.

In Australia, sectors such as mining and construction face significant transformation. Renewable energy projects create new opportunities, but they do not always align geographically or skill-wise with existing jobs. The transition therefore requires coordinated planning and investment to avoid social disruption.

Worker-led initiatives have shown potential in driving sustainability within industries. However, their impact depends on institutional support and regulatory frameworks. Without these, the burden of transition risks falling disproportionately on those least able to absorb it.

Households, Inequality and the Limits of Agency

Earth Day campaigns often highlight household actions such as reducing energy use, adopting electric vehicles and changing consumption patterns. These measures contribute to emissions reduction, but their aggregate impact remains constrained by systemic factors. Household emissions represent only a portion of national totals, and many decisions depend on infrastructure and policy settings ⁵.

Accessibility is another critical issue. Energy-efficient technologies and renewable installations often require upfront investment, placing them out of reach for lower-income households. This creates a disparity in who can participate in the “Our Power” agenda, raising questions about equity.

Behavioural science suggests that collective action can influence social norms and political outcomes. However, it rarely substitutes for structural change. The effectiveness of individual action depends on its integration with broader policy frameworks.

First Nations Leadership and Climate Justice

First Nations communities in Australia offer a different perspective on climate power, grounded in long-standing relationships with land and ecosystems. Practices such as cultural burning demonstrate how traditional knowledge can reduce bushfire risk and enhance biodiversity. These approaches are increasingly recognised as essential components of climate strategy ⁶.

Despite this recognition, inclusion in decision-making processes remains uneven. Funding and authority often remain concentrated in government agencies and external organisations. This limits the capacity of Indigenous communities to lead climate initiatives on their own terms.

Earth Day 2026 gestures toward climate justice, but the extent of meaningful power transfer remains contested. The difference between symbolic inclusion and structural change is central to evaluating the campaign’s integrity.

Measuring Impact in a Culture of Awareness

Assessing the success of Earth Day has long been a challenge. Participation numbers and media reach provide indicators of engagement, but they do not capture tangible environmental outcomes. Independent evaluations of campaign impact remain limited ³.

Historical evidence suggests that awareness alone does not guarantee action. Behavioural change often requires sustained incentives, regulatory frameworks and cultural shifts. Without these, the effects of annual campaigns tend to dissipate.

The persistence of climate inaction despite widespread awareness underscores this gap. Bridging it requires aligning public engagement with policy and economic transformation, rather than treating them as separate domains.

Conclusion: Power, Responsibility and the Path Forward

Earth Day 2026 captures a paradox at the heart of climate politics. It calls for collective action at a moment when systemic change remains uneven and contested. The language of “our power” resonates because it offers agency in the face of crisis, yet it risks obscuring where decisive authority actually lies.

The evidence suggests that individual and community action can catalyse change, but cannot replace structural reform. Governments, industries and financial systems continue to shape the trajectory of emissions and adaptation. Without their transformation, grassroots efforts will struggle to achieve the scale required.

The challenge for Earth Day is not to abandon its message of empowerment, but to anchor it in accountability. Collective action must complement, not substitute, systemic change. Only then can the promise of “Our Power, Our Planet” move beyond symbolism toward measurable progress.

References

1. IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report
2. UNEP Emissions Gap Report
3. Earth Day Organisation Overview
4. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
5. Australian Climate Change Authority Reports
6. CSIRO Indigenous Fire Management
7. IEA World Energy Outlook
8. Australian Bureau of Statistics Environment Data
9. Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate
10. UN Sustainable Development Goals
11. Grattan Institute Net Zero Report
12. Australian Parliament Climate Policy Resources

Back to top