07/08/2025

Q&A: How is Australia tracking against its Paris Agreement targets and 2030 net-zero commitments? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA


Key Points Summary
  • Australia’s emissions targets remain off-track
  • Paris pledges cut emissions 43% by 2030
  • Fossil fuel exports and subsidies undermine progress
  • Climate policies face legal and scientific scrutiny
  • Renewable energy ramp-up shows potential
  • Net-zero credibility depends on faster cuts now

Australia is not on track to meet the Paris Agreement or 2030 net-zero targets.

Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 are projected to fall only 7% below 2005 levels.

This leaves a massive gap to the 43% reduction target by 2030 set under the Paris Agreement. [1]

Despite new policies, emissions from key sectors, especially transport, agriculture, and fossil fuel production, continue to rise. [2]

Meanwhile, Australia remains one of the world's largest exporters of coal and liquefied natural gas. [3]

This contradiction between export growth and domestic reduction undermines climate leadership. [4]

The Policy Problem

The federal government has introduced a Climate Change Act, a National Reconstruction Fund, and modest reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism. [5]

But these changes are not yet sufficient to drive the rapid emissions reductions needed this decade. [6]

Critics point out the $11 billion still given in fossil fuel subsidies each year as a key policy failure. [7]

Climate scientists warn that delay now will require steeper cuts later, and blow Australia’s carbon budget. [8]

Legal and International Pressure

The UN has called out Australia’s continued fossil fuel expansion as inconsistent with its climate obligations. [9]

Legal challenges by First Nations communities and environmental groups are mounting against major gas projects. [10]

Australia’s reputation at global climate summits is being tested by this growing scrutiny. [11]

Glimmers of Progress

Renewables now generate around 40% of electricity nationally, up from 17% in 2017. [12]

Major solar, wind, and battery storage investments are transforming the power grid. [13]

States like South Australia and Tasmania are already close to 100% renewable generation. [14]

But electrification alone will not be enough without deep cuts to fossil fuel use in all sectors. [15]

Conclusion

Australia’s 2030 target is still technically achievable, but only with urgent and systemic policy acceleration. [16]

That means ending fossil fuel subsidies, halting new coal and gas approvals, and investing in decarbonising transport, industry, and agriculture. [17]

Without this shift, Australia risks breaching both its climate commitments and its global credibility. [18]

Footnotes

[1] Climate Change Authority Progress Report 2023

[2] Clean Energy Regulator Emissions Data

[3] IEA: Australia Energy Profile

[4] Climate Council: Credibility Gap Report

[5] Department of Climate Change: Climate Policy Overview

[6] The Conversation: Australia’s Climate Policy Gaps

[7] The Australia Institute: Fossil Fuel Subsidies 2023

[8] IPCC Sixth Synthesis Report

[9] UN Environment Warning on Fossil Expansion

[10] EDO Challenge to Barossa Gas Project

[11] The Guardian: Australia’s COP Scrutiny

[12] OpenNEM: Live Electricity Data

[13] CSIRO Renewable Energy Tracker

[14] ARENA: State-by-State Renewable Stats

[15] Climate Council: Electrify Everything

[16] Nature: Still Time to Act

[17] Grattan: Decarbonising Australian Industry

[18] The Guardian: Is Australia Doing Enough?

Back to top

06/08/2025

Q&A: What are the economic and employment effects of phasing out fossil fuels in Australia? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points Summary
  • Fossil fuel phaseout risks job losses in coal-heavy regions
  • Net economic benefits possible with strong renewable investment
  • Clean energy jobs can outnumber fossil jobs with proper planning
  • Government support essential for fair transition
  • Exports and royalties likely to decline without new industries

Phasing out fossil fuels in Australia is economically inevitable. Whether it brings ruin or renewal depends on what replaces them.

Australia’s economic identity has long been tied to coal, gas, and oil.

But the urgent need to reduce greenhouse emissions means these industries will shrink, and with them some jobs, royalties, and export earnings.

The question is whether Australia can manage this transition fairly and intelligently.

Jobs at Risk and Jobs on the Rise

Roughly 50,000 people work directly in fossil fuel extraction in Australia, especially in Queensland, Western Australia, and New South Wales.1

When related supply chains are included, the number doubles, but it’s still less than 1% of total national employment.

Meanwhile, the clean energy sector is growing rapidly, with wind and solar projects employing over 30,000 people, expected to triple by 2030.2

With appropriate investment, renewable jobs, especially in construction, maintenance, and manufacturing, could far outstrip losses in fossil fuels.

Economic Impacts: Risks and Rebalancing

Fossil fuel exports earned over $150 billion in 2022–23, led by coal and LNG.3

These exports support Australia’s trade balance and fund state budgets via royalties and corporate taxes.

But global demand is shifting. Japan and South Korea, both major customers, are committing to net zero and reducing coal imports.

Without investment in green exports, like renewable hydrogen, critical minerals, and green steel, Australia risks a sharp economic downturn.

The Just Transition: Who Bears the Cost?

The burden of transition won’t fall evenly. Regions like the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland face significant disruption.

Experts call for a “just transition” approach, including retraining, regional investment, income support, and infrastructure spending.4

Victoria’s Latrobe Valley Authority and Germany’s coal-exit model show how public planning can ease change.5

Without this support, job losses could drive social dislocation, political backlash, and economic harm.

Looking Ahead: Transformation or Decline?

Australia stands at a crossroads.

Managed wisely, the fossil phaseout could bring new industries, cleaner air, and long-term prosperity.

Mismanaged, it could leave workers stranded, regions impoverished, and the climate crisis worsened.

The outcome depends on political will.

And how urgently we act to replace the old economy with the new.

Footnotes

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics – Mining Employment

2. Clean Energy Council – 2024 Clean Energy Report

3. Australian Energy Update 2023 – Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water

4. Climate Council – Just Transition Explainer

5. International Trade Union Confederation – Just Transition Centre

Back to top

05/08/2025

Q&A: What is the status and climate impact of Australia’s planned coal and gas expansion projects? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points
  • Australia ranks 3rd globally for new coal projects
  • North West Shelf gas extended to 2070
  • Expansion equals 200+ new coal plants
  • Projects threaten net-zero 2050 targets
  • Critics say emissions cuts are being undone
  • Legal and international pressure intensifies

Australia is powering ahead with fossil fuel expansion despite climate warnings, public protest, and emissions targets.

In the past year, Australia has approved seven major new coal projects and extended key gas facilities, fuelling a fresh wave of domestic and international concern.

The approved coal expansions include extensions to mines in the Hunter Valley and Bowen Basin, while nearly 30 more coal proposals remain under review.

Meanwhile, the North West Shelf LNG project has been green-lit to operate until 2070—locking in long-term emissions that conflict directly with Australia’s net-zero by 2050 commitment.

Coal and Gas: Expanding, Not Contracting

Australia now ranks third globally for new coal mine development, behind China and India.[1]

The Australia Institute warns that the combined output of proposed fossil fuel projects would emit more than 4.8 billion tonnes of CO₂e by 2030.[2]

Gas expansion is no less aggressive. Woodside has announced further developments in the Gippsland Basin and major processing plants in Queensland.

Climate Math Doesn't Add Up

The scale of planned expansion is staggering—equal to building more than 200 new coal-fired power stations.[3]

Experts say these emissions will dwarf reductions achieved through renewable energy and emissions trading schemes.

Australia’s official emissions are down 27% since 2005, but that figure excludes exported emissions and may undercount fugitive emissions from coal mines.[4]

Policy Schism and UN Warning

Critics argue that expanding fossil fuels while claiming emissions progress amounts to a policy contradiction.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell recently called on Australia to halt fossil fuel expansion and strengthen its 2035 emissions targets.[5]

At home, environmental groups and First Nations communities are challenging new coal approvals on legal and moral grounds.

The Australian Conservation Foundation says the emissions from new projects outpace climate cuts by 7 to 1.[6]

                                           Summary Table
Category Status (as of Aug 2025) Climate/Emissions Impact
Coal expansions

7 approved major projects;
~30 pending

Adds billions of tonnes CO₂e;
undermines Paris ambitions

Gas expansions

North West Shelf extended
to 2070; new LNG plans

Long-term emissions lock-in;
export scope boosts global impact

Overall footprint

Equivalent to 200+ new
coal plants globally

Projects will dwarf domestic
climate mitigation efforts

Emissions reporting

Underestimates due to
outdated fugitive models

Real emissions may be
higher than reported

Policy tension

Mixed signals:
mitigation vs expansion

Internal and international criticism,
legal challenges ongoing

What's at Stake?

While global pressure mounts and the UN eyes more aggressive action, Australia’s fossil fuel future is on a collision course with its climate pledges.

The choice now is stark: decarbonise or double down. Each new approval sets the country’s climate ambition further back.

Footnotes

  1. RenewEconomy – Australia ranks third for new coal projects
  2. Australia Institute – New fossil fuel projects emissions report
  3. Australia Institute – 200 new coal plants equivalent
  4. Ember – Underreporting coal mine emissions
  5. Reuters – UN urges Australia to step up climate action
  6. ACF – Emissions cuts outweighed 7 to 1

Back to top

04/08/2025

Q&A: How Well-Informed Is the Australian Public About Climate Change Science? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA




Key Points
  • ~80–84% of Australians believe climate change is happening
  • ~66–72% attribute it to human activity
  • Trust in science remains high at ~90%
  • Only ~25–30% are “very concerned”
  • Firsthand climate events increase awareness
  • Disengagement and uncertainty persist among some groups

Australians overwhelmingly believe in climate change. 

However, not all are fully informed or engaged with the science behind it.

Awareness and Belief

Surveys show that around 80–84 % of Australians acknowledge that climate change is happening, and 70–75 % express concern about its impacts1.

About 66–72 % believe climate change is mainly caused by human activities. However, roughly 20 % see it as a natural phenomenon, about 5 % deny it entirely, and about 11 % remain uncertain2.

One global poll even found only ~60 % of Australians believe in human-caused climate disruption, below the global average of 73 %3.

Knowledge vs. Perceived Urgency

While many accept the climate threat, only a minority consider it an “extremely serious” issue right now. Around 71–83 % say they are fairly or very concerned, but fewer translate that into felt urgency4.

Ipsos 2025 found 56 % believe urgent action is necessary to avoid failing future generations, a figure slightly below the global average and down from previous years5.

Gaps and Variation in Understanding

Knowledge of climate science terms and mechanisms does correlate with acceptance, but is unevenly distributed across demographic and political groups6.

Survey segmentations reveal a spectrum:

  • Alarmed (about 25 %): highly concerned and scientifically literate
  • Dismissive (about 7 %): actively sceptical
  • The remainder (66 %) fall into Concerned, Cautious, Doubtful, or Disengaged, showing varying belief levels and openness to persuasion 7.

Trust and Information Sources

Australians have high trust in scientists, CSIRO, and the Bureau of Meteorology, and around 90 % trust in science overall8.

People relying on commercial TV/radio were more likely to think climate change is natural, compared to those getting news from ABC or SBS9.

Firsthand Experience & Behaviour

Individuals who have directly experienced extreme weather (e.g. floods, bushfires) report greater understanding, concern, and willingness to act, including adopting pro-environmental behaviours10.

Private actions like switching to green products or solar uptake are increasing: about 45 % already switched, 29 % planning, and just 11 % resistant11.

Overall Assessment

Overall, Australians are broadly informed about the reality of climate change, its causes, and impacts.

However, misunderstanding remains for a significant minority, especially regarding attribution, urgency, and personal responsibility.

Trust in science is solid, but many people remain uncertain or disengaged, especially those without lived experiences or exposure to high-quality information.

Effective communication with trusted messengers, clearer plain-English evidence, and visible action, still holds the key to shifting more Australians toward informed climate engagement.

At-a-Glance Summary

Key Metric Value
Believe climate change is happening ~80–84%
Believe it's human-caused ~66–72%
“Very concerned” about climate ~25–30%
“Fairly/ Very concerned” ~71–83%
Openly dismissive/sceptical ~7–10%
Trust in science and scientists ~90%
Support urgent action ~56%

Footnotes

  1. NCLS Research – What do Australians think about climate change?
  2. AuSSA 2025 Climate Insights
  3. Guardian Climate Belief Survey 2024
  4. Griffith University – 2023 Climate Concern Report
  5. Ipsos Climate Change Study 2025
  6. SAGE Journal – Climate Science Understanding
  7. SAGE – Australian Climate Attitude Segmentation
  8. Science & Technology Australia – Science Trust Survey
  9. Guardian – Monash Media Influence Study 2025
  10. Griffith 2024 – Climate Events and Action
  11. Monash Behaviour and Climate Change Report

Back to top

03/08/2025

Australia’s Emissions Are Falling But Not Fast Enough - Lethal Heating Editor BDA


Key Points
  • Australia emitted 434.9 Mt CO₂-e to Sept 2024
  • Electricity, transport and agriculture dominate
  • Emissions fell 0.7% from previous year
  • NSW, QLD and VIC emit the most
  • WA, SA, NT driven by oil and gas
  • Transport emissions are rising fastest
  • Australia is ~27–29% below 2005 levels
  • 43% cut by 2030 target remains at risk

Australia’s emissions have declined slightly over the past year, but the path to its 2030 climate target remains uncertain.

National emissions in the 12 months to September 2024 reached approximately 434.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO₂-e). [1]

This represents a 0.5% decline from the previous year, continuing a modest downward trend. [1]

Yet key sectors like transport and fossil fuel extraction continue to offset more significant gains made in electricity decarbonisation. [2]

Australia’s Sector Emissions Breakdown

The country’s emissions come from six primary sources tracked by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. [2]

As of June 2024, emissions across these sectors totalled 440.6 Mt CO₂-e: [2]

  • Electricity generation: ~30% of national emissions; falling due to renewables
  • Transport: rising 1.9% year-on-year due to diesel and aviation demand [6]
  • Agriculture: stable to slightly falling; methane remains a major component
  • Stationary energy (non-electricity): e.g., manufacturing and mining fuel use
  • Fugitive emissions: methane leaks from coal and gas operations
  • Industrial processes: emissions from materials like cement and steel

Electricity emissions have declined due to solar and wind uptake, particularly in the National Electricity Market. [2]

In contrast, transport emissions remain stubbornly high, with road freight and domestic air travel responsible for most increases. [6]

State and Territory Emissions Profiles

Emissions vary dramatically by jurisdiction, shaped by each state’s energy mix and dominant industries. [3]

According to the State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventories for FY2022–23, the largest emitters by volume are: [4]

  • New South Wales (NSW): dominated by coal-fired electricity and road transport
  • Queensland (QLD): large coal and gas extraction; high fugitive emissions
  • Victoria (VIC): brown coal electricity remains a major contributor

Smaller states and territories reveal other trends:

  • Tasmania: lowest per capita emissions; high hydro reliance; manufacturing is top sector
  • Western Australia (WA):  oil and gas dominate
  • Northern Territory (NT) and South Australia (SA): heavy emissions from LNG and mining

Progress and Gaps

National emissions are now around 27–29% below 2005 levels, depending on whether land-use changes are included. [1]

This positions Australia close, but not comfortably, on track for its legislated 43% reduction by 2030. [5]

The federal government’s Climate Change Authority warns more ambitious action is needed to decarbonise transport, manufacturing, and gas exports. [5]

Without sharper cuts, especially in fossil fuel projects and diesel use, Australia risks missing its 2030 target. [6]

Conclusion

Australia’s climate progress is real, but fragile.

Gains in electricity are at risk of being undermined by growth in fossil-heavy sectors like transport and extraction.

State-by-state variations reveal where new efforts are most urgently needed, from cleaner freight systems in NSW to reducing gas dependence in WA and NT.

The clock to 2030 is ticking

Deeper, more systemic changes are essential.

Footnotes

  1. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2024 Update – DCCEEW
  2. Quarterly Update June 2024 – DCCEEW
  3. State and Territory Emissions Profile 2021–22 – Clean Energy Regulator
  4. State Inventories 2023 – DCCEEW
  5. Guardian: Tracking Australia’s Climate Progress
  6. The Australian: Emissions Rise, Hydro Drops

Back to top

Climate fatalism is just as wrong as climate denial — it’s never ‘too late’ for change


Environmental activist David Suzuki (Image: Kris Krug)



Author
Ketan Joshi is a writer, analyst, and communications consultant focusing on clean energy and climate change.
He previously worked in climate and energy for private companies and government agencies, and now writes journalism and commentary from the front lines of climate and energy battles around the world.
He is based in Oslo and consults to organisations addressing the climate crisis.

Veteran environmentalist David Suzuki believes the time has passed us to stop climate change. He’s wrong.

As I recently wrote, “tactical” fatalism is used by fossil-friendly governments (or the fossil fuel industry itself) to culturally enforce a broad sense of helplessness.

Performative fatalism is different. This is where big-name figures and big social media accounts (often specialising in a self-described “doomer” mentality) make a habit of loudly announcing the inevitability of climate change and the pointlessness of mitigation.

These messages go ultra-viral, while their authors claim to be maligned truth-tellers issuing unpopular nuggets of reality. These people are not in league with the fossil fuel industry, but the reward mechanisms of corporate social media sites have resulted in a convergent evolution between their messages and those of coal, oil and gas companies.

A recent statement from a very significant name in the environmental movement has given them new energy.

According to veteran environmentalist David Suzuki, it is “too late” to stop climate change. In an interview with Canadian outlet iPolitics, Suzuki said: “Now, it is too late. I’ve never said this before to the media, but it’s too late … the focus on politics, economics, and law are all destined to fail because they are based around humans.”

While he says he’s not giving up over the “immediate years” and vaguely calls for “revolution”, the core message is clear in the article’s headline: “David Suzuki says the fight against climate change is lost”. 

The hyperactive “climate.apocalypse” Instagram account, boasting several hundred thousand followers, describes it this way: “At 89 years old, David Suzuki says it’s too late to stop climate change. The fight is lost. It’s time to hunker down and prepare for what’s coming.” More than 100,000 likes. 

These moments of popular helplessness flare up during collective instability and stress. Michael Moore released the profoundly shitty documentary Planet of the Humans right in the middle of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It packaged the worst tropes of performative fatalism, packed with eco-fascist population-control ideas and reams of disinformation, but it was perfectly timed and had millions of viewers. 

The message of climate fatalism is just as wrong as the worst climate deniers. It is absurd to claim that it’s “too late” to stop climate change. We know for sure that it is possible to prevent the release of greenhouse gases. The atmosphere heats in response to the volume of greenhouse gases we pump into it. The less we add, the less the heating.

If you accept the basic science explaining how we make things worse, you must accept the basic science of how we stop making things worse. It is an almost weirdly linear relationship: 

Source: Figure SPM.10 in IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



We also know that the collective policy, technology and activism efforts of our entire species since the 1990s have resulted in a noticeable reduction in reliance on burning fossil fuels, compared to the parallel universe in which we did nothing at all. 

You can see this when you view the world’s carbon emissions compared to the spaghetti spread of scenarios published many years ago. We have avoided both the worst- and best-case scenarios, and have ended up somewhere in the middle:

Source: Robbie Andrews, Global Carbon Budget 2024



This recent study found implemented policies to date likely reduced global emissions by “several billion tons of [carbon dioxide equivalent] per year compared to a world without mitigation policies”, equivalent to between 4% and 15% of 2020’s total global emissions. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Working Group Three report dedicates several pages to this, saying, “There is robust evidence with a high level of agreement that mitigation policies have had a discernible impact on emissions.”

A good chunk of this relates specifically to the surprisingly rapid growth of wind and solar, which you can see nicely reflected in the shifting assumptions in the IPCC’s own scenarios, leaning more heavily on renewable energy and electrification and less on fossil fuels, carbon capture and nuclear. 

In the electricity sector in particular, supply and demand are precisely matched. If new wind power or solar power is generating something, something else is generating less. In regions of the world with growing demand, renewables are taking the edge off fossil fuel growth, and in areas with stagnant or falling demand, renewables are accelerating the demise of fossil fuels.

Either way, wind and solar are pushing out fossil fuels, and the core task at hand is switching from insufficient progress to sufficient progress. Australia’s power sector is a nice illustration of the simple fact that renewable energy actively reduces the combustion of coal and gas:



Donald Trump’s election feels reminiscent of the first year of COVID-19. A deep blanket of anxiety and instability is impacting the US and countries with close ties. In this haze, fatalists find new purchase. Whatever Suzuki’s intentions, his comments fuel real and serious feelings of helplessness and despair. 

There is danger in fatalism that goes well beyond creating dejection and justifying inaction. The broad feelings of helplessness and hopelessness are a boon to both authoritarian, fascist governments and the fossil fuel industry, both of which rely on few realising how brittle their grip on power is.

There are direct links between “doomer” communities and increasingly explicit agreement with eco-fascist elements. 

One prominent self-described “doomer” recently described themselves as an “eco-Nazi”: “The one and only solution to the problem — the FINAL solution — is to make Planet Earth a human-free zone.” Gaming social media algorithms to loudly reinforce the physical terror of climate impacts and then insisting there’s nothing we can do to stop those impacts feels pretty sinister to me.

The times are bad. Suzuki’s statement seems inspired more by a gut reaction to Trump than any desire for social fame. But bad times should trigger new strength in understanding our agency. Declaring climate mitigation a dead end does nothing but help those working to make that false statement true. 

There is nothing mandatory about coal, oil or gas. We know that the fossil fuel economy bleeds, and it can only survive if we collectively succumb to its constantly repeated message of inevitability. 

Yes, there are debates about the deeper systemic, transformational changes required in human societies to accelerate the elimination of dangerous fuels. None of that is relevant to the simple truth that it is not too late to stop fossil fuels, no matter what the doomer-boomer nexus insists.

Links

02/08/2025

Q&A: How much renewable energy does Australia generate, and how fast is the transition progressing? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA


Key Points
  • Renewables generated ~40% of electricity in 2024
  • Record 7.5 GW of new clean energy capacity added
  • Rooftop solar leads growth with 4M+ installations
  • Government invested $12.7B in 2024 in renewables
  • Australia aims for 82% renewables by 2030
  • Wind investment stalling—target at risk
  • New support schemes aim to close the gap

Australia now generates about 40% of its electricity from renewable energy sources, up from just 7% in 2008.

This massive shift has been led by wind farms, hydro dams, and especially rooftop solar panels, which now crown more than 4 million Australian homes.

According to the Clean Energy Council, 2024 was a record-breaking year: 7.5 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity were added, including 4.3 GW of large-scale projects and 3.2 GW of rooftop solar.1

But behind this remarkable growth is a high-stakes race against time and infrastructure bottlenecks.

Strong Progress But Is It Enough?

The Australian government has committed to reaching 82% renewable electricity by 2030.2

To hit that target, the country needs to install about 5 GW of clean energy capacity every year, every year until the end of the decade.

At the end of 2024, renewable energy contributed roughly 92,700 gigawatt hours (GWh) to the grid, about 40% of total electricity production.3

Most of that came from wind (13.4%), rooftop solar (11.2%), and hydroelectricity (7.5%).

The National Electricity Market (NEM) is already seeing major shifts. Wind and solar together reached a quarterly record of 46% share by late 2024.4

Investment Surges, Led by Public and Private Sectors

The clean energy sector in 2024 saw a major financial boost: $12.7 billion poured into the industry through rooftop solar, battery storage, and large-scale wind and solar farms.5

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), Australia’s government-backed green bank, invested $3.5 billion alone, double its previous year’s total.6

Transmission projects and grid upgrades received $2.8 billion of this to ease the path for new generation projects to plug in.

Warning Signs: Wind Power Stalls in 2025

Despite these gains, early 2025 brought troubling news: no new wind farms began construction in the first half of the year.7

Developers cite high turbine costs, global supply shortages, and transmission grid delays as reasons.

Without acceleration, analysts say Australia is on track to reach just 60–68% renewable electricity by 2030, not the full 82% goal.

To turn things around, the government has now expanded its Capacity Investment Scheme to cover up to 40 GW of new firmed renewable energy, providing financial certainty for investors.8

Solar Keeps Soaring, But Broader Mix Needed

Rooftop solar continues to be the star performer. Over 3.2 GW were added in 2024 alone, about 40% of all new capacity.

However, experts stress the importance of balancing solar with dispatchable sources like batteries and pumped hydro to maintain grid stability.

The next five years will be decisive. Will Australia sustain its current momentum or fall short as system constraints tighten?

For now, the sun still shines brightly on the renewable transition, but the winds of political will and economic coordination must also blow strong.

Footnotes

1. Clean Energy Australia Report 2025 – Clean Energy Council

2. Australia boosts underwriting scheme for renewables – Reuters

3. Australia hits record renewable generation – Energy Today

4. Open Electricity – Q1 2025 NEM analysis

5. Clean Energy Australia 2025 Report – Renewable Energy Magazine

6. CEFC record investment 2025 – Reuters

7. Turbine construction slump – The Australian

8. Government expands Capacity Investment Scheme – Reuters

Back to top

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative