The Hunter Valley Coal Decision Tests Australia’s Climate Policy - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

NSW has approved the HVO continuation project through 2045. [1] The Commission recognised 809 million tonnes of greenhouse gases linked to mining and overseas coal combustion. [1] HVO must publish greenhouse gas and Scope 3 management plans under the approval. [1] The mine employs about 1,550 people and supports a substantial regional supply chain. [2] Yancoal owns 51 per cent of HVO while Glencore owns 49 per cent. [3] The project still requires Commonwealth environmental approval before continuation. [4]

New South Wales has approved its largest coal mine continuation project despite recognising its substantial contribution to global warming.

The decision concerns Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) near Singleton. 

The Independent Planning Commission approved continuation at HVO North until 2045 and HVO South until 2042. ^[1]

The approval followed a three-day public hearing during July. The Commission received 10,576 written submissions and heard from 129 members of the public and subject-matter experts. ^[1]

A decision shaped by competing public interests

HVO occupies a long-established mining landscape between Singleton and Muswellbrook. The complex has operated since 1949 and remains a major employer and economic contributor. ^[3]

The Commission weighed those regional interests against environmental impacts identified during its assessment. Its reasons recognise consequences for the Hunter, NSW and the global climate system. ^[1]

The project therefore sits at the centre of a policy tension. NSW seeks an orderly transition from coal while permitting an established operation to continue for almost two decades. ^[5]

Environmental groups have strongly criticised the decision. Rising Tide described the approval as the largest climate policy failure in NSW history, a characterisation the organisation attributes to the scale of the extension. ^[6]

The climate arithmetic behind HVO

The Commission identified about 809 million tonnes of greenhouse gases associated with local mining operations and combustion of the exported coal overseas. ^[1]

That figure includes emissions generated beyond the mine itself. It therefore captures the wider climate consequence of selling coal for combustion in international markets. ^[1]

The Commission nevertheless concluded that the project could proceed within existing NSW and Commonwealth statutory and policy frameworks. Its conditions aim to manage the identified greenhouse impacts. ^[1]

That approach leaves a difficult policy question surrounding responsibility for exported fossil fuel emissions. The approval regulates the mine while the largest emissions occur when customers burn its coal overseas. ^[1]

Jobs and the economics of continuation

HVO currently employs about 1,550 employees and contractors. Glencore reports a 2025 economic contribution of $1.76 billion and more than $1.2 billion spent on goods and services. ^[3]

Those figures explain the strength of local support for continuation. Mining wages circulate through regional businesses while contractors depend upon the operation for sustained demand. ^[2]

The Commission considered employment, business and broader social benefits alongside environmental costs. Its decision therefore reflects a regional economy still heavily connected to coal production. ^[1]

Yet continuation also extends the period available for transition planning. The Commission has required a closure plan designed to support workers and communities as the region develops new economic opportunities. ^[1]

Conditions designed to reduce the damage

The approval requires HVO to prepare a greenhouse gas mitigation plan within six months. The plan must address Scope 1 emissions, including fugitive emissions from mining. ^[1]

The operator must also purchase additional carbon offsets beyond those required under the Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism. The condition adds a separate obligation to the federal scheme. ^[1]

Within three months, HVO must publish a Scope 3 Management Plan. It must explain how the operation will limit exports towards jurisdictions pursuing emissions policies consistent with the Paris Agreement. ^[1]

The project must also maximise renewable electricity use within four years and publish a comprehensive closure plan within 12 months. Those requirements create measurable obligations beyond ordinary operational controls. ^[1]

The unresolved federal climate test

State approval does not complete the regulatory process. HVO still requires Commonwealth environmental approval for continuation, with the federal decision required by the end of December 2026. ^[4]

That second decision carries particular significance because the state assessment has already quantified the project's global greenhouse consequences. The federal process therefore enters a debate already defined by extensive evidence. ^[1]

NSW has legislated a pathway towards net zero emissions while retaining an economy with major coal exports. HVO illustrates the practical difficulty of reconciling those objectives within existing planning frameworks. ^[5]

The approval also places greater weight on transition planning around the mine. Its closure condition acknowledges that regional economic resilience requires preparation before coal production eventually ends. ^[1]

The HVO decision exposes the competing obligations facing governments in coal regions. Jobs and regional investment carry immediate value while climate damage accumulates across borders and generations.

The Commission has imposed unusually detailed greenhouse and closure conditions. Their effectiveness will depend upon transparent reporting, regulatory enforcement and credible implementation throughout the mine's remaining life.

The federal assessment now becomes the next major accountability test. HVO demonstrates why Australia's transition debate increasingly concerns governance, responsibility and the practical limits of managing fossil fuel expansion.

References

1. Hunter Valley Operations coal mine approved with conditions. Independent Planning Commission NSW. Official determination summary, including emissions, economic impacts and approval conditions.

2. Hunter Valley coal mine wins approval to operate until 2045. Daily Telegraph. Reports employment, regional business impacts and economic arguments surrounding the approval.

3. Hunter Valley Operations. Glencore Australia. Provides ownership, employment, production and economic contribution information.

4. HVO Project: One step closer to certainty for 1,500 workers. Glencore Australia. Confirms the state approval and remaining Commonwealth environmental approval requirement.

5. Securing long-term jobs for the Hunter: HVO approval strikes right balance. NSW Government. Sets out the government's response and the approved operating periods.

6. Biggest climate failure: Major coal mine project approved despite laws to reduce emissions. Nature Conservation Council NSW media statement. Records environmental groups' response to the decision.

Back to top ↑

Counting the Cost: New Tool Ties Coal and Gas Projects to Measurable Harm - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

A new open tool converts the emissions of individual fossil fuel projects
into measurable harm to people and ecosystems

Key Points

The Carbon Impacts Tracer converts a project's emissions into estimated warming and harm across eight areas. 1 The tool applies a method developed by researchers from six universities in Australia and the United Kingdom. 2 Difficulty tracing emissions to specific harm has long made climate legal cases harder to launch. 3 Scarborough gas project emissions were linked to about 16 million coral deaths in each new mass bleaching. 4 Hunter Valley Operations emissions of 809 million tonnes would add about 0.00036°C of warming. 5 Climate Council analysis places the mine's lifetime pollution at more than seven times annual NSW emissions. 6

Near Singleton in the Upper Hunter, the open-cut pits of Hunter Valley Operations straddle the Hunter River.

This week the NSW Independent Planning Commission is expected to decide whether mining continues until 2045.

Joint owners Yancoal and Glencore seek that extension. ⁷

Fossil fuel backers have long argued that one project has a negligible effect and that harm defies tracking.

The Carbon Impacts Tracer, launched by Australian National University and UNSW researchers, tests that claim with numbers.

It links each tonne of carbon dioxide to extra warming and then to harm. ³

 Six Universities, One Public Tool

The tracer builds on a method developed by researchers from six universities in Australia and the United Kingdom.

That research appeared in the journal Climate Action in 2025. It first examined the newly approved Scarborough gas project in Western Australia. ²

The Australian National University developed the online tool, while UNSW researchers joined the launch. Research officer Claudia Stepin built it. Climate scientist Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick is part of the launch team. ^{1 2}

Its purpose is to translate a project's publicly documented emissions into estimated harm. Users can enter emissions for any project, company or country and generate a report describing the underlying science. The tool is open source, so anyone can inspect the method. ³

The tracer estimates impacts across eight areas. These include lost food production, labour hours lost to heat, glacier loss, coral death and heatwave deaths in Europe. It also tracks projected damage from 16 major fossil fuel companies between 2024 and 2050. ³

Tracing Tonnes to Harm

The method links three steps. Emissions produce extra warming, and extra warming produces damage to people and ecosystems. Each link draws on published scientific relationships rather than a single new model. ³

The bridge between emissions and warming is the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Emissions, known as TCRE. It describes the near-proportional rise in global temperature as total emissions grow. Scientists treat it as an established calculation. ¹

The tracer applies that relationship to a project's documented emissions. For Hunter Valley Operations, 809 million tonnes of emissions yield about 0.00036°C of extra warming. The plausible range runs from 0.00022 to 0.00050°C. ⁵

The tool excludes non-carbon dioxide gases, so its figures are approximate. Perkins-Kirkpatrick states that small changes in global temperature can produce severe consequences. Estimates from peer-reviewed climate studies then convert each increment of warming into human and ecological terms. ¹

Scarborough as the Test Case

Woodside's Scarborough liquefied natural gas project off Western Australia served as the case study for the underlying research. Its lifetime emissions were traced to warming and then to harm. UNSW summarised the findings under a headline linking the project to hundreds of deaths. ⁴

Unprecedented heat describes temperatures beyond any a population has previously experienced. Lifetime emissions from Scarborough would expose an extra 516,000 people to it. That figure exceeds half a million people. ²

Coral bleaching occurs when heat stress causes corals to expel the algae that sustain them. The researchers estimated that about 16 million Great Barrier Reef corals would die in each new mass bleaching. Each additional increment of warming raises pressure on a reef already exposed to repeated heat stress. ⁴

Carbon intensity measures emissions per unit of gas delivered, while the tracer measures warming from total lifetime emissions. Woodside states Scarborough is expected to be among the lowest-carbon-intensity LNG sources for north Asian markets. The company also notes the reservoir holds less than 0.1 per cent carbon dioxide. ⁴

The Economic Ledger

The tracer extends the accounting of fossil fuel costs beyond emissions tonnage. Stepin says added measures such as poverty, labour loss and food insecurity give a more comprehensive picture of consequences. Each measure converts an abstract carbon footprint into a quantity that economists can weigh. ²

Hunter Valley Operations offers a worked example. Its emissions would trim crop output each year by the equivalent of the minimum dietary needs of 276,129 people. Almost half a million people would also face unprecedented heat. ¹

The tool targets accountability for governments that approve projects and the companies that propose them. Litigants, economists and advocates can use the same outputs to test claims of negligible impact. Glencore, a joint owner of the mine, offered no response to the Guardian. ³

The tracer adds a climate cost to the ledger that planners weigh. Mine supporters have told the commission that the livelihoods of thousands of families depend on continued operations. Both sets of figures now sit before the same decision makers, who must weigh regional jobs against global harm. ⁷

Evidence for Courts and Regulators

UNSW researcher Wesley Morgan describes the tracer as a breakthrough tool. Until now, he says, proponents could argue that a single project has no measurable climate impact. The tracer supplies a number where that argument once stood, and the number can be tested by others. ⁵

The launch analysis covers five major Australian projects, including the Carmichael coal mine and the Narrabri Gas Project. Three Western Australian developments complete the set, among them the North West Shelf Extension. Emissions from Carmichael alone would expose an additional 2.8 million people to unprecedented heat. ²

Quantified estimates offer regulators a numerical link between a project and its harms. Decision makers will determine the weight given to them. For years, the difficulty of tracing that link made climate cases harder to launch. ³

Free public access places the tracer at the point of decision. The Climate Council states that the commission must weigh the full climate impacts of Hunter Valley Operations. That includes 793.8 million tonnes released when its coal is burned. ⁶

Conclusion

The Carbon Impacts Tracer converts an abstract emissions total into estimates of heat exposure, lost crops and dying coral. That conversion removes a long-standing defence that a single project has a negligible effect. Scarborough and Hunter Valley Operations now carry numbers alongside their approvals.

Governance questions remain. Approval authorities now hold quantified harm alongside jobs and revenue claims, yet every estimate carries uncertainty, and the tool excludes non-carbon dioxide gases. Transparent method and open access allow independent scrutiny of every figure.

Accountability depends on how decision makers use this evidence. Regulators who approve projects with quantified harms will need to justify that trade-off publicly and with reference to the science. Communities in the Hunter and beyond will judge the outcome against those numbers.

References

1. New tool directly links carbon emissions to amount of environmental and economic damage caused. Guardian Australia report on the Carbon Impacts Tracer, its eight impact measures and the Hunter Valley Operations example.

2. Counting the cost: tool estimates fossil fuel impacts. AAP report covering the launch by ANU and UNSW, the Climate Action method and figures for Scarborough and Carmichael.

3. We can finally measure the damage each new coal, gas or oil project will do to people and nature. Explainer by the tool's ANU and UNSW authors describing the emissions-to-warming-to-harm method and its accountability purpose.

4. For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here's the impact of Woodside's Scarborough gas project. UNSW account of the 2025 Scarborough research, including coral loss estimates and Woodside's stated position.

5. Australian researchers launch “breakthrough” online tool to track climate damage of new fossil fuel projects. Industry news report giving the warming range for Hunter Valley Operations and the tool's exclusion of non-carbon dioxide gases.

6. Hunter Valley Operations: Why NSW should reject its biggest-ever coal mine. Climate Council analysis of the mine's lifetime emissions and the planning commission's obligation to weigh climate impacts.

7. Coal miners, activists rally as IPC considers Hunter Valley Operations extension. ABC News coverage of the planning commission hearings, including evidence from workers and businesses that support the extension.

The official blinding of the people - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

How we are taught not to see what’s really going on…

AUTHOR

Julian Cribb AM is an Australian science writer and author of seven books on the human existential emergency. His latest book is How to Fix a Broken Planet (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

Climate heating and the global collapse of nature confront humanity with the greatest security challenge yet, the British Government has warned its closest allies.

In the wake of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, the UK privately briefed select European and African governments of the findings of a secret report by its intelligence services into the risks posed by accelerating climate change and collapsing ecosystems worldwide.

More wars, mass population movements, global price inflation and famines were among the key threats identified by UK foreign secretary Ed Miliband in his confidential briefing on reports compiled by the British Joint Intelligence Committee, the body that oversees the UK’s defence and security services.

A heavily redacted part of the report, focussing on the global collapse of nature, was released after a long delay by the UK Government in January 2026. The full report, especially details of climate impacts, has never been made public.

In his public remarks at the UN, Miliband said “climate and nature loss represent an urgent national security issue and demand action equal to the scale of the challenge…” He admitted that, previously, “climate change and the destruction of nature were treated as peripheral environmental issues” by government.

“I think you all know the picture, and it is gloomy, I warn you, but I’m just going to say some of it to you today because we need to be truth-telling about this:

• Over 150 million hectares burned globally in the first four months of 2026 alone.
• Record extreme heat causing widespread loss of life.
• Nepal’s devastating floods happening due to glacial collapse and the coming El Nino, as (Australian) Prime Minister Albanese said, is already forecast to be the strongest in living memory.
• And the nature loss crisis is just as acute, with ecosystems being degraded in every region of the world.

“That is the conclusion of the UK’s recent nature security assessment, which you can all read.”

Miliband was disingenuous. In saying “you all know the picture” he deliberately masked the efforts by governments worldwide, including his own, to obscure the real impacts of climate and ecosystem crisis from their citizens.

In citing Australian PM Albanese he inadvertently drew attention to another government hellbent on deceiving its citizens and increasing greenhouse emissions. In 2022, the Albanese Government ordered the Office of National Intelligence - Australia’s peak intelligence assessment agency - to urgently assess the national security implications of climate change. 

The report has never seen the light of day. However, former defence and intelligence commanders in the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group (ASLGC) have issued two papers highly condemnatory of their government for failing to alert its citizens to the building security crisis – Missing in Action (2021) and Too Hot to Handle (2024).

Meanwhile the US Trump Administration has committed itself wholeheartedly to destroying both the planet and the USA by accelerating the burning of fossil fuels, while pretending to not know what it is doing. According to Amnesty International, Trump has:

1. Withdrawn the US from global climate bodies
2. Promoted disinformation against established climate science
3. Used coercive measures to push pro-fossil fuel policies
4. Weakened domestic climate protections
5. Defunded climate science
6. Cracked down on citizens’ climate protests.

In 2023 the annual US National Security Threat Assessment stated that “Climate change will increasingly exacerbate risks to U.S. national security interests as the physical impacts increase and geopolitical tensions mount about the global response to the challenge.” By 2026 that chapter was completely gone from the report despite worsening global conditions. Also redacted was all reference to “climate”.

Even Canada, under Carney, was still deceptively trying to have a bet both ways – pledging to prepare for climate disaster while maintaining its rank as the world’s 4^th largest oil producer and a major producer of natural gas. Alas for Canada, there will be little it can do about 100 million climate refugees fleeing the US – a scenario increasingly likely in a world of 1.2 billion refugees.

Only China, among the world’s leading countries, appears to be serious about acting on climate. It is accelerating the switch to green energy and electric transport, is replanting its deserts, has started a national carbon market and is taking an active global role in helping other countries to adapt and prepare.

As Alvin Foo, a Chinese AI guru, wittily observed: “In the US, you can change the political party – but not the policy. In China you can change the policy, but not the political party.”

Not enough people are asking the hard questions about why this is so. The best explanation is that in the West, government is now controlled, not by the people, but by powerful, cashed-up supercorporations, such as the fossil fuels sector, tech giants, the military-industrial complex, AI, the banks and Big Pharma. Even if the government changes at election, the policies decreed by these commercial dictators do not. Democracy has been neutered, if not expunged.

This process, known as “state capture” or sometimes as “kleptocracy”, involves the reins of government being taken over by the few in order to exploit the environment and the many.

In China, by contrast, being a billionaire invites scrutiny from the state – and quite often, disappearance. As a result, the number of Chinese billionaire oligarchs has shrunk from 1058 in 2021 to 406 in 2026. Meanwhile wealth and private property have boomed for ordinary people. China’s poorest 50% have had a 500% income rise since 1978 – while the US’s poorest 50% have had a 1% decrease.

This is all by way of saying that most governments are today self-evidently more interested in serving global corporate capital than serving their people – and consequently are reluctant to truthfully inform the people of the harm that capital is doing to the planet and humanity. As a result they redact, dilute or withhold the findings of their own reports about the building global crisis lest the people discover the true causes and react accordingly.

Science takes a different perspective. Assessing the destruction as ‘ecological overshoot’ caused by human numbers and demand wilfully exceeding the Earth’s capacity, a group of eminent researchers has asserted that behind this ‘behavioural crisis’ lie three potent drivers: economic growth, marketing and pronatalism.

“These three drivers directly impact the three ‘levers’ of overshoot: consumption, waste and population. We demonstrate how the maladaptive behaviours of overshoot stemming from these three drivers have been catalysed and perpetuated by the intentional exploitation of previously adaptive human impulses,” they declared.

Neoliberal economic theory believes in an economy that is “untethered from nature”, consumer demand that is “insatiable” and human ingenuity that is “unbounded”. These three lead to the prevailing belief in economic growth that is unlimited, in a limited world.

At the same time marketing has mined consumers’ private online data to create demand for things the consumer neither wants nor needs, but can be induced to buy. By the time a child is 13 years old, the global marketing machine has already collected 72 million data points on its personal preferences, likes and dislikes.

Despite huge advances in reducing child mortality, there remains a strong pro-birth lobby worldwide, led mainly by businessmen and those unwilling to surrender their ancient patriarchy.

The scientists conclude that these three tools – economic growth, marketing and pronatalism – are being used to engineer human behaviour into overshooting the Earth’s ability to support us and “As the effects of overshoot worsen, the likelihood of societal breakdown increases.”

They call for an urgent worldwide effort to revise the values and beliefs that underpin this self-destructive system, especially the belief in endless growth.

This perspective makes it crystal clear why governments in general do not want their publics to know about the nature or extent of collapse – because they, themselves, are deeply implicated in driving it. And the public must be held in ignorance, at all costs.

Most likely, however, the Earth itself will engineer the revision of human values, by collapsing food, water, civilisation, numbers, countries, learning and health simultaneously. It will then be up to Earth citizens, not oligarchs or governments, to define how they wish to survive in future. Assuming they do…

Julian Cribb Articles

• Here comes the Human Tsunami
• Sounding the Earth Emergency
• 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

"Ideology and Idiocy": The Coalition's Plan to Repeal Australia's Climate Laws - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

The Coalition would introduce a bill within 30 days of winning government to repeal eight energy and climate measures.[1] Repealing the Climate Change Act 2022 would remove net zero targets, and the safeguard mechanism would also go.[2] Treasurer Jim Chalmers warned the plan delivers a smaller economy, lower wages and fewer jobs.[3] The Clean Energy Council called the plan economic nihilism because it promises abundant supply while cancelling new generation.[4] Acting Greens leader Mehreen Faruqi said both major parties would leave Australians paying for prolonged fossil fuel reliance.[5] Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said the plan defies economic evidence and will lift electricity prices.[6]

A Coalition pledge to repeal Australia's climate laws has drawn condemnation from industry and a former Liberal Prime Minister.

In 2023, Dan Tehan, the Liberal member for Wannon, stood alongside Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen to welcome a new Southern Ocean offshore wind zone in his Victorian electorate, praising its job potential and large-scale turbines. 

But in a major policy shift on 23 September 2026, Tehan — now serving as the Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction — said a Coalition Government would revoke the zone.[1]

This policy reversal forms part of a broader eight-point strategy titled “Scrap Net Zero (Cheaper Energy)”. 

Under this plan, Tehan and the Coalition leadership have pledged to introduce a dismantling bill within 30 days of winning government.

This investigation examines what the plan would repeal, who carries the risk, and what the evidence shows.^[1][7]

What the Eight Points Would Repeal

The plan would repeal the Climate Change Act 2022, the law that commits Australia to net zero emissions by 2050. It would also scrap the safeguard mechanism, which requires heavy industrial polluters to cut emissions or face penalties.^[1][2]

Vehicle rules face the same fate. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard requires car makers to import more efficient and electric models or face penalties. Tehan says the standard has affected vehicle choice and pricing.^[1][2]

Four of six offshore wind zones, the areas declared for developer feasibility studies, would be revoked. The Hunter, Illawarra, Southern Ocean and Bunbury regions would lose their status, leaving Gippsland and Bass Strait. About a dozen projects hold planning licences, though none is under construction.^[1]

Tehan argues the zones lack community acceptance, and the Coalition says the offshore wind push has stalled. Bowen has conceded that offshore wind costs are falling more slowly than forecast. A new renewable energy code of conduct would require developers to earn social licence, meaning community acceptance.^[1][2]

Nuclear Ambitions and the Senate Hurdle

The Coalition would seek to repeal every legislative prohibition on nuclear energy, which sits in both federal and state law. Any federal change requires Senate approval. Success would depend on Labor or the Greens shifting their positions.^[1]

Former leader Peter Dutton once proposed that the federal government fund and part-own nuclear plants. The current plan drops that model, offering only the support available to any other energy source. The earlier proposal proved unpopular ahead of the 2025 federal election.^[1][2]

The Capacity Investment Scheme, which underwrites new generation for the energy transition, would open to coal, gas and nuclear. The Coalition says the scheme should stop picking winners. Critics respond that propping up ageing coal plants would raise household bills.^[1][2]

The Coalition says nuclear power could supply energy-hungry data centres, and it has urged states to reconsider their bans. The CSIRO, Australia's national science agency, reports that solar and wind remain cheaper than coal after transmission costs.^[1]

Labor's Warning on Bills and Wages

Minister Bowen said the plan would take a chainsaw to household budgets. He warned that halting renewables and household batteries leaves families paying for global shocks. Coal plants, he said, would be run harder.^[1][2]

Treasurer Jim Chalmers called the package a One Nation policy with a Liberal Party sticker on it. He predicted a smaller economy, lower wages, poorer workers and fewer jobs.^[3]

Bowen also cited the Coalition's previous decade in office. Under it, 24 of 28 coal-fired power stations announced closures. Four gigawatts of dispatchable energy, meaning supply operators can call on at will, left the grid and four refineries closed.^[2]

The Coalition rejects that reading and says energy policy has prioritised targets over affordability. Tehan argues the safeguard mechanism has pushed industrial jobs offshore, while Opposition Leader Angus Taylor says Australia has done its bit. Bowen replies that Taylor's earlier underwriting scheme delivered no new energy.^[2][3]

Independents, Greens and a Gas Basin

Independent MP Monique Ryan called the plan “dumb, dangerous and desperate”, arguing it would make energy more expensive. Australians embraced rooftop solar, electric vehicles and household batteries, she said, because those technologies save money and cut emissions.^[1]

Ryan attributed the shift to Liberal efforts to appease the Nationals and woo One Nation voters. She said that course would drag the country backwards. Renew Economy reports that One Nation intends to demand a royal commission into the cost of the energy transition.^[1][2]

Acting Greens leader Mehreen Faruqi said the plan would lift household energy and transport costs. Weaker vehicle standards, the Greens argue, prolong reliance on petrol cars during a fuel crisis. She described the policy as written to prop up corporate profits.^[3][5]

Faruqi also targeted Labor. Resources Minister Madeleine King marked the opening of the Beetaloo Basin, a gas region in the Northern Territory, with smiles. The Greens also condemn Labor's capitulation to fossil fuel-powered data centres in the Northern Territory and Queensland.^[3][5]

Scientists, Farmers and a Former Prime Minister

Malcolm Turnbull, who led the Liberal Party as Prime Minister, described the plan as “ideology and idiocy”. He said it defies economic evidence and will lift electricity prices. His remarks targeted policy written by former colleagues.^[6]

Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie said the plan would “let climate change rip”. She warned that Australians would face more fires, floods and heatwaves. Propping up ageing coal plants, she added, would add hundreds of dollars to household bills.^[2][3]

Farmers for Climate Action, representing more than 8,000 farmers, expressed deep disappointment. Peter Holding, a Harden sheep and crop farmer, said axing pollution policies invites more fires, droughts and insurance costs. The Australian Conservation Foundation said slowing the transition abandons jobs and investment.^[2]

The Clean Energy Council called the plan economic nihilism that dismantles investor certainty. Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley said the 2028 federal election would test alignment with the Paris Agreement. The record El Niño building in the Pacific may bring drought and severe bushfires this summer.^[2][4]

The Coalition plan would dismantle the legislated architecture linking energy policy to emissions. Its authors promise affordability and reliability, though evidence that repeal lowers bills remains unpublished. Tehan has yet to outline the alternative mechanisms.

Accountability questions cross the party divide. Labor faces scrutiny over gas approvals and an offshore wind industry with no project under construction. The Coalition faces scrutiny for reversing measures introduced by its own governments, including the safeguard mechanism.

Voters, farmers and investors will weigh these records before the 2028 federal election. Policy certainty, tested against CSIRO cost evidence and a record El Niño summer, now defines the governance choice.

References

1. Coalition vows to 'take a chainsaw' to climate laws and offshore wind (ABC News, 23 September 2026). Sets out the eight-point plan, the four offshore wind zones, the nuclear ban and Senate hurdle, and responses from Bowen and Ryan.

2. Coalition panned after vowing to scrap renewable, EV and climate policies (Renew Economy report, republished by Pearls and Irritations, 25 September 2026). Details the Climate Change Act repeal, safeguard mechanism history, Bowen's coal closure figures and reactions from the ACF, Climate Council, Farmers for Climate Action and Climate Energy Finance.

3. Angus Taylor pledges to repeal swathe of climate policies, saying 'Australia has done its bit' (Guardian Australia, 23 September 2026, republished by inkl). Records Taylor's remarks and the responses of Chalmers, Ryan, Faruqi and McKenzie, including the Beetaloo Basin criticism of Labor.

4. Coalition pulls out the chainsaw in energy debate (AAP, The Canberra Times). Reports the Clean Energy Council's response and the plan's implications for renewable investment certainty.

5. Greens Warn Aussies of Costly Fossil Fuel Plans (Australian Greens media release via Mirage News). Presents the Greens' view that both major parties would raise household energy and transport costs.

6. Scrapping the NVES: Coalition goes from 'I don't hold a hose mate' to 'let's pour fuel on the fire' (EV Central opinion). Relays Malcolm Turnbull's criticism of the plan as ideology and idiocy and the Climate Council's response on vehicle standards.

7. Coalition to unveil climate priorities to pass first month after an election (Capital Brief, summarising The Australian). Confirms the proposed Scrap Net Zero (Cheaper Energy) Act and the 30-day legislative commitment.

Back to top ↑

Guterres's Swansong: Big Oil's Open Sewer and Clean Energy's Unstoppable Rise - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

António Guterres declares clean energy unstoppable
in his final major climate address

Key Points

Guterres accused Big Oil of treating the atmosphere as an "open sewer" while banking windfall profits.[1] He declared clean energy has moved from alternative to "unstoppable" almost everywhere.[2] Germany joined France and the Netherlands with a formal roadmap to quit fossil fuels by 2045.[3] More than 2,500 gigawatts of renewable projects remain stalled in grid queues worldwide.[4] Albanese pressed the economic case for transition while his energy minister sought fresh oil supplies abroad.[6] A Pacific-driven ICJ opinion now underpins growing legal pressure on polluting states.[8]

In western New South Wales, a First Nations-backed solar farm has waited two years for grid connection. 

Its panels sit idle behind a queue that outstrips most nations' entire power grids. 

Half a world away, the man who wants that queue gone made his final case to the United Nations.

Outgoing UN chief António Guterres accused fossil fuel firms of treating the atmosphere as an open sewer. 

He said five oil majors banked nearly half a trillion dollars since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 

That windfall dwarfed the $34 billion mobilised to help developing nations adapt.^[1]

Rhetoric and Accountability for "Big Oil"

Guterres compared fossil fuel conduct to the tobacco industry's decades of denial. The comparison shifts the debate from environmental harm toward public health and legal liability. Legal analysts say that framing strengthens future arguments for corporate negligence in open court.^[1]

Campaigners want windfall taxes and extended liability schemes imposed on fossil fuel majors. Australia's Safeguard Mechanism caps emissions at major facilities but stops well short of such a levy. Advocacy groups argue that persistent gap lets corporate profits keep outpacing genuine accountability.^[1]

Fossil fuel companies rarely issue formal rebuttals to individual UN addresses, industry analysts note. Guterres anticipated that silence, warning fossil fuel interests will avoid stepping aside voluntarily. His remarks frame continued inaction itself as a form of evidence.^[1]

Casting new fossil fuel expansion as economically irrational discourages fresh investment capital. Renewables already undercut fossil generation costs across most global markets.^[2] 

Investors now face mounting pressure from shareholders to treat new oil and gas projects as stranded-asset risks.

The "Unstoppable" Shift to Renewables

Guterres told the summit renewables are now the cheapest, fastest and most secure new power source almost everywhere. "Clean energy has gone from alternative to unstoppable," he said.^[2] 

Record renewable capacity additions across solar and wind last year underpin that bold claim.

Global electricity demand is projected to surge strongly through 2030 across advanced and developing economies.^[4] 

Renewables and nuclear together should supply half the world's electricity by then. That share sits near forty per cent today, with faster grid expansion still required.

Rising demand from artificial intelligence data centres and air conditioning threatens to outpace renewable growth.^[2] 

Guterres warned clean energy is expanding too slowly to fully displace fossil fuels. Matching that surging demand curve remains an unresolved structural challenge for policymakers everywhere.

Energy security is also reshaping the investment case for renewables over volatile fossil markets. Oil and gas prices remain exposed to conflict and supply shocks abroad. Locally generated renewable power offers governments a durable hedge against those repeated market swings.^[3]

National Roadmaps and the Fossil Fuel Phaseout

Germany published a roadmap hours before Guterres' address, pledging to quit coal, oil and gas by 2045.^[3] 

The plan targets electric vehicles for all new car sales by 2035. Coal power is due to end by 2038, with 2035 under active consideration.

Germany becomes the third nation after France and the Netherlands to publish such a national roadmap.^[3] 

European analysts say all three plans still fall short of what energy security genuinely requires. Heat pumps and carbon trading are expected to drive industrial decarbonisation.

Guterres used his farewell address to press every government toward its own timetabled exit plan.^[1] 

Fewer than a handful of nations have met that bar since the call first emerged from COP28. His farewell challenge effectively resets the working baseline for future climate diplomacy.

Australia has yet to publish any equivalent national fossil fuel exit roadmap of its own. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese instead framed the transition around economic argument rather than a firm exit date.^[6] 

That contrast exposes a genuine accountability gap sitting at the heart of Australian climate governance.

G20 Leadership, Legal Pressure and a Changing of the Guard

Guterres has long argued major economies carry the greatest responsibility for leading decarbonisation efforts. Wealthy, high-emitting nations hold the financial and technical capacity smaller states generally lack. That imbalance underpins his repeated calls for G20 countries to move first.

The 77-year-old secretary-general's tenure formally concludes on December 31, ending nine years of climate advocacy.^[2] 

His successor's willingness to confront polluting industries directly remains genuinely uncertain. Observers widely credit Guterres with elevating vulnerable nations' voices throughout his nine-year term.

A landmark International Court of Justice opinion now underpins fresh legal accountability efforts worldwide. The court unanimously found states carry binding obligations to prevent significant climate harm.^[8] 

Pacific Islander law students originally drove the campaign that produced that opinion.

Australia and Turkey will jointly convene COP31 climate talks in Antalya this November.^[7] 

Australia runs the negotiations while Turkey hosts and rallies voluntary pledges from other nations. That unusual arrangement places fresh scrutiny on Australia's own climate credentials ahead of the summit.

The Grid Bottleneck and the Global Access Gap

More than 2,500 gigawatts of renewable, storage and large-load projects remain stalled in grid queues worldwide.^[4] 

That figure exceeds the combined generating capacity of several major economies. Grid investment has consistently lagged well behind spending on new generation projects globally.

A new Global Grids Accelerator aims to unclog those stalled connection queues internationally.^[5] 

Backers say annual grid investment must rise roughly fifty per cent by 2030. Expanding reliable access across Africa and Southeast Asia remains a clearly stated priority.

Australia mirrors this global pattern, with renewable developers reporting lengthy connection delays nationally.^[9] 

One survey found one in five projects took over eighteen months longer than expected to connect. Those delays risk undermining Australia's own 2035 emissions targets.

Fixing grid bottlenecks matters as much as building new solar and wind capacity itself. Guterres frames faster connections as central to keeping the transition genuinely unstoppable.^[4] 

Without them, stalled projects risk becoming stranded ambition rather than delivered power.

Guterres leaves office having reframed fossil fuel conduct as a matter of accountability rather than mere policy failure. His open sewer metaphor, Germany's roadmap and the ICJ opinion together signal accelerating legal and diplomatic pressure. Yet the gap between rhetoric and delivery remains genuinely wide.

Australia's own record captures that gap clearly. Renewable ambition sits alongside stalled grid queues, an unpublished exit roadmap and continued fossil fuel diplomacy abroad. COP31 will test whether Canberra can close that distance.

Guterres called this generation the last that can avert climate catastrophe. Whether nations translate that warning into binding national plans will define the years immediately ahead for frontline communities everywhere.

References

1. UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines. Climate Home News reports on Guterres' "open sewer" accusation and his call for national fossil fuel exit plans.

2. Outgoing UN chief makes final climate push. AFP coverage of Guterres' "unstoppable" renewables declaration and Germany's roadmap announcement.

3. Germany to abandon fossil fuels by 2045. How does the rest of Europe compare?. Euronews details Germany's roadmap and expert assessments of its adequacy.

4. Grids. The International Energy Agency's Electricity 2026 report quantifies stalled global grid connection queues.

5. This Week in Electricity: Grids, Not Generators, Are the Story. Global Electricity reports on the launch of the UN's Global Grids Accelerator.

6. 'We can meet this challenge': PM pushes climate action. Australian Community Media covers Prime Minister Albanese's address to the UN climate summit.

7. Outgoing UN chief makes final climate push at New York summit. AFP reports on Australia and Turkey's COP31 co-hosting arrangement and Minister Bowen's overseas oil talks.

8. ICJ Delivers Unanimous Advisory Opinion on States' Climate Change Obligations. The American Society of International Law summarises the Court's binding climate obligations ruling.

9. Three year grid connection wait risks renewable energy targets: survey. PV Magazine Australia reports on Intium survey findings about Australian grid connection delays.

Back to top ↑

Climate and National Security: why is Albanese keeping the evidence secret? - Gregory Andrews

 Lyrebird Dreaming  –  Gregory Andrews

Author Gregory Andrews is: Founder and Managing Director of Lyrebird Dreaming A former Australian Ambassador and High Commissioner in West Africa Australia’s first Threatened Species Commissioner A leader in Indigenous policy

Something extraordinary happened in New York this week.

The UK Government briefed foreign ministers from around the world - including Australia - on the findings of a national security assessment warning about the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change and ecosystem collapse.

The report was prepared by Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee. It examined what could happen if systems such as the Amazon and Congo rainforests begin to collapse. 

Among the risks identified were food shortages, mass migration, conflict over scarce resources, pressure on infrastructure and supply chains, political instability and, in extreme scenarios, even an increased risk of nuclear conflict. 

Some impacts on Britain’s food security could emerge as early as 2030. Pretty serious stuff.

There was another disturbing part of the story. The report had been due for publication before COP30 last year, but Downing Street had intervened and stopped its release. A partial version was eventually released after Freedom of Information requests. Now, somewhat belatedly, Britain is taking the findings to the world.

Reading this, I had an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu. Because Australia has its own secret climate national security assessment. And ours has been sitting behind closed doors for nearly four years!

Soon after winning office in 2022, the Albanese Government commissioned the Office of National Intelligence - Australia’s peak intelligence assessment agency - to conduct an urgent assessment of the national security implications of climate change. 

It wasn't some peripheral exercise. Labor had promised the assessment before the election and, after taking office, publicly described it as an “urgent climate risk assessment” that would become an enduring part of Australia’s climate response.

The assessment was delivered to the government in December 2022. But here's the thing, almost four years later, we still haven't seen it. Not the classified document. Not a redacted document. Not even a sanitised public version setting out its principal findings.

Back in 2023 there was briefly some attention on this. Independent Senator David Pocock, Greens Senator David Shoebridge, independent MPs and former senior defence officials pushed for a declassified version. 

The government declined to release one, saying the assessment contained classified material and that other information about climate-related security threats was already publicly available.

Then, largely, the story disappeared. But the report didn't. In December 2024, the government and ONI privately briefed independent members of Parliament on its contents. In 2025, a Senate inquiry examined the continuing secrecy surrounding it and concluded that a declassified version should be released. The committee specifically recommended that it be tabled in Parliament.

But surprise, surprise - Labor senators disagreed. Their dissenting report argued that the government already reports extensively on climate-related national security threats and that ONI assessments of this kind are not normally released because of national security considerations. And as recently as February this year, the Albanese government confirmed that it still did not intend to release the ONI assessment.

That's what makes what happened in New York this week rather remarkable. Australia just sat in an international meeting and listened to Britain explain what its intelligence community thinks climate and ecosystem collapse could mean for national security.

Yet Australians remain unable to read even a declassified version of what our own intelligence community told our own government about precisely the same issue in 2022!

There's an irony here too. At Climate Week in New York this week, Anthony Albanese declared that “climate security is the new national security.”

So that raises an obvious question: how can Australians have an informed national conversation about climate security when one of the government's foundational intelligence assessments of that threat remains secret? Of course intelligence agencies possess information that cannot safely be made public. Nobody seriously argues that intelligence sources, methods or sensitive assessments should simply be dumped onto the internet.

But governments routinely produce public or declassified versions of national security assessments. Australia did precisely that with the Defence Strategic Review. 

The issue is not whether every page of the ONI assessment should be published. It is whether Australians can be told, in meaningful terms, what risks their intelligence agencies identified.

Albanese thought the assessment was important enough to make it an election commitment in 2022 and, once elected, described it as urgent. So why, nearly four years after receiving it, won’t his government release even a declassified version?  

Having spent three decades working in government, I find it hard not to wonder whether the answer lies in an uncomfortable contradiction: the findings of this serious and frank climate-security assessment would sit very uneasily alongside his government's continued coal and gas expansionism.

That distinction matters. Climate change is much more than an environmental problem. It affects food and water security, supply chains, disaster response, migration, regional stability, Defence capability and the resilience of our neighbours in the Pacific. 

These are impacts and decisions involving billions of dollars and choices that will shape Australia for centuries. And unlike a conventional military threat, climate risk is profoundly affected by decisions governments make today about emissions, energy, infrastructure, adaptation and resilience.

So the UK experience should remind us of something closer to home. Four years ago, Anthony Albanese told us that he would ask Australia's intelligence community a very important question: What does climate change mean for our national security?

He got the answer. The Australian people are still waiting to hear it.

Gregory Andrews Climate Change Articles

• Climate Warming Faster Than We Planned For?
• Weather Whiplash: Fasten Your Seatbelts
• Australia’s Flagship Climate Policy Is Failing to Cut Emissions
• Winter's Here, The Snowfields Are Open, But There's No Snow
• Worried About Climate Collapse? Here's Ten Things You Can Actually Do
• Fossil Fuel Fascism: When a Dying Industry Tries to Take Democracy With It
• Climate Policy Counts Dollars and Tonnes. What if We Counted the Dead?
• The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis
• The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
• While We Watch Iran, the Planet Keeps Burning
• Have your say on Canberra's next Climate Strategy: It will be make or break
• Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake
• Two Years to 1.7°C: the “Prediction Game” We Can't Afford to Lose
• Emergency Photo Ops Aren't Climate Leadership
• Why Fascists Reject Climate Science
• Don't Be Distracted: Earth's Life Support Systems Are Collapsing
• Diesel rebates for miners and a new EV tax? Australia's climate policy double-think
• What Gas is That? Get to Know Your Climate Pollutants