Joyce and Canavan call for new coal plants to replace renewable energy projects
As the former Nationals leader pushes a private member's bill to block net zero – sparking new divisions within the Liberals and Nationals this week – he said any long-term emissions reduction from renewables would not make a meaningful difference to the climate and would cost households too much.
'If you want net zero, then nuclear can give you net zero at a vastly more affordable rate than intermittents [renewable energy],' Joyce told Guardian Australia, arguing countries including China were not cutting emissions.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
'I absolutely disagree if the rest of the world's not doing it, if it has no global effect, then it's a self-written economic suicide note.'
China's emissions dipped for the first time in 2025, down 1% from their peak, amid huge government investments in renewables projects. The country is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but is also the world's biggest supplier and installer of clean energy technology.
The share of coal in China's power mix has dropped to the lowest level since 2016, to just over 50%.
Joyce's bill is scheduled for debate in August when parliament returns for another sitting fortnight.
Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan is leading the party's review of net zero policies in the wake of the 3 May election. He said Australia should build new coal-fired power stations, like developments happening in China, the US, India and Indonesia.
'I think we should put Australians first because nothing we do is going to change any temperature of the globe one iota by not building a coal-fired power station,' Canavan said.
'But if we do build some new cheap coal-fired power stations, we just may save manufacturing jobs in this country, bring down the cost of energy and bring down the cost of everyday goods for Australians.'
According to the CSIRO's 2024-25 GenCost report, renewables, firmed by gas and backed by transmission, remain the cheapest new form of electricity generation technology.
Nationals leader David Littleproud said on Thursday the party would have a settled position within 'a couple of months'.
Net zero underpins Australia's participation in the Paris climate agreement. Independent authorities, including the CSIRO, say failing to stem carbon emissions will lead to changes in weather including extreme heat, heavy rainfall, coastal inundation, bushfires and drought, while exacerbating health and wellbeing problems and causing destruction of ecosystems and species.
Joyce has teamed up with his former rival and another ex-Nationals leader, Michael McCormack. McCormack said emissions should not be curbed at the expense of manufacturing, farming or food supply.
'By constructing tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines across rural and regional Australia in pursuit of a false ideology, the government is industrialising fertile rural farmland on a massive scale,' he said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
During their 48-hour split with the Liberals in May, the Nationals included nuclear energy policy as a key demand for reuniting the Coalition. Many of the opponents of net zero are advocates for nuclear being included in Australia's energy supply.
The shadow energy and emissions reductions minister, Dan Tehan, confirmed this week his review for the Liberal party would take nine to 12 months.
'The key focus between now and Christmas is going to be on gas,' he said in a press conference with the opposition leader, Sussan Ley.
'We need to bring more gas on to the system, but also we need to explore carbon capture and storage.'
Coalition frontbencher Andrew Hastie helped win support for an anti-net zero motion at last weekend's Western Australia Liberal state conference.
He did not respond to requests for comment from the Guardian about alternatives to net zero, but said in an email to supporters his opposition 'reflects a growing concern from mainstream Australians about our expensive energy bills, unreliable supply, and the erosion of our national sovereignty'.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott is cheering on anti-net zero moves from outside parliament, including in an Institute of Public Affairs podcast this week.
'If we are in favour of net zero, all of these economy-damaging measures are justified. If we want to avoid the economy-damaging measures, perhaps we do need to make that very symbolic act of saying, 'well, actually, we're not committed to net zero,'' he said.
In an interview with former Canadian conservative politician Derek Fildebrandt in June, Abbott said Australia should continue to rely on fossil fuels. He said cutting emissions would cause 'us to live like the Amish, or worse'.
'If climate change is approached as a moral issue, the left wins. If climate change is approached as an economic issue, the right wins,' he said.
'Yes, I accept that climate does change, that mankind does make a difference, and that we should do what we can to reduce emissions, but I would always add this critical rider – but not if it costs you your job, costs us our industries, and puts up your cost of living.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
36 minutes ago
- Times
High taxes, a recession: my fears for young job hunters in Scotland
I started employing my latest assistant in March this year and for reliability, productivity, speed and all-round knowledge, he's hard to beat. Unfailingly polite and endlessly resourceful, he's settled into my small in-house team of seven with ease. Everyone loves him. Although he is only five months old and his background is unknown, he's already indispensable. He is, of course, one of the new autonomous artificial intelligence agents — otherwise known as agentic AI. This is one of the first publicly available AI agents capable of independent planning, decision-making and real-world task execution without requiring detailed human oversight. In beta mode and available by invitation only — codes were changing hands for $1,000 recently — it is a glimpse of a future that is awe-inspiring and terrifying in equal measure. For the time being, I'm ignoring the fact that I've had to hand over a lot of personal information to gain access (admittedly much of it already available online) and that very little is known about the Chinese start-up behind the technology. It is simply too valuable a tool and I'm already hooked. Agentic AI is turbocharging technical aspects of my business that other AI tools simply can't reach. I'm an optimist about the advent of AI. Or I should say, I'm an optimist about humanity. Such tools can, and are, being used for destructive purposes. But this is the best argument for not withdrawing from research. If the good guys slow down, they simply hand advantage to the bad actors. I understand the arguments against AI that end with humanity facing Armageddon. But mankind is perfectly capable of orchestrating its own destruction without the use of artificial intelligence. We just have to look at Gaza and Ukraine to be reminded of the depth of human depravity. Meanwhile AI is already saving lives. All progress has provoked moral panic. From the coming of the railways to Elvis wiggling his hips. And while my new AI assistant sometimes leaves me feeling like an 18th-century peasant contemplating the wonders of the internal combustion engine, I know that it is actual intelligence combined with AI that gives us the breakthroughs and competitive edge we need. While the AI assistant can code, I still need to employ my full-stack developer to implement, evaluate and interpret the results. But what is certainly true is that AI is contributing to an upcoming economic upheaval for which Scotland is wholly unprepared. A toxic combination of political decisions by the Labour government at Westminster and the SNP government in Scotland, a mental health crisis among millennials and Gen Zs and weak economic growth have the potential to tip the country into recession. This month, the accountancy firm EY reported that Scotland's high income tax rates were seen as the main barrier to expansion in Scotland's financial services industry, which contributes about 10 per cent of the Scottish economy by value. All Scottish workers earning more than £30,318 pay more income tax than their English counterparts and the highest band is set at 48 per cent for Scotland compared with 45 per cent for the rest of the UK. The job market is being squeezed from both ends. According to McKinsey & Co, the number of job vacancies online fell by 31 per cent in the three months to May, compared with the same period in 2022, the year that ChatGPT was launched. Research from KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation revealed that hiring fell in June at the fastest pace in almost two years. Sluggish growth and higher interest rates have been blamed but in occupations at entry level across all industries, including graduate traineeships and apprentices, jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate. The last apprentice I hired was unable to address an envelope and had no idea what a stamp was. She had a HNC in 'collective dance, specialising in hip-hop' and was about as prepared for the world of work as your average pigeon. She lasted three months. Somebody within the education system had let her down badly. Young people will be most seriously affected by the storm that is coming. They are also the group facing the biggest mental health crisis. In Scotland more than one million adults report that anxiety interferes with daily life. Gen Z and young millennials lose up to 60 days of productivity per year due to mental health issues compared with 36 days for older colleagues. The number of Scots out of work because of sickness and disability is at its highest level in 20 years and the number claiming disability payments in Scotland is set to almost double by 2030. Labour's plans under the Employment Rights Bill to remove the two-year qualifying period for key rights such as protection against unfair dismissal, parental leave and statutory sick pay, mean that many SMEs will not risk hiring staff without experience or a track record. That's if the SMEs stay in business. Confidence is at a low ebb. One in five small businesses believe they will be forced out of business if conditions don't improve. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, 27 per cent of business owners believe their company will downsize, be sold or close in the next 12 months. For the first time in 15 years, pessimism has outweighed optimism. Even profitable SMEs wonder if the juice is still worth the squeeze. The government is not protecting the jobs we do have. The closure of the Grangemouth refinery and the threat by bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis to move Scottish production to Scarborough could lead to 400 jobs lost in the Falkirk area. Add in jobs lost in the supply chain and the number rises to four figures. Both companies have foreign ownership, which rather dampens enthusiasm for the SNP government's boast that Scotland punches above its weight for inward investment. The Grangemouth closure and a sharp fall in manufacturing output drove a 0.4 per cent GDP decline in the three months up to May. About 80 per cent of leisure and hospitality businesses believe the Scottish economy will decline this year. John Swinney has mentioned a possible Scottish recession, blaming US tariffs. Even without a recession, growth is weak and Scottish economic activity is fragile. Even boom sectors such as renewables are facing cuts. At least one of the country's largest employers has just cut nearly all its graduate jobs for the present cohort reaching the end of their two-year training stint. Recent recessions have not brought the same level of job losses that the UK experienced in the 1990s and before. But that is set to change, and we are not prepared. This will affect a generation, already struggling post-pandemic, for most of their lives. The Scottish government has deliberately and negligently failed to promote the nation's economic wellbeing at the expense of ideology which a majority of voters do not share. As Harold Macmillan pointed out, it is 'events, dear boy' that bring down governments. But it is policy decisions that cripple countries.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Ed Miliband's dash for Net Zero could cost every UK household £389 a year by 2030, bombshell research warns
ED Miliband's Net Zero policies will cost every household £389 a year by 2030, Tory analysis today reveals. The Labour government has pledged to totally decarbonise Britain's energy grid within the next five years. 4 They plan to do this by splurging vast amounts on new wind and solar farms as well as banning new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. Brits have already spent £700 million this year to pay wind farms to STOP producing energy because the National Grid cannot cope with energy surges. The government's dash to go green will send the cost of bills rocketing to a whopping £22.8 billion by 2030, Tory number crunchers say. This will leave the government's pledge to cut £300 from energy bills in tatters, according to the research. Instead it will end up adding another £389 to the cost of household bills for 27 million UK Brits. Tory MP Nick Timothy - who carried out the research - said: 'Energy becomes more expensive with each day Ed Miliband remains in office. 4 'While Miliband blames fossil fuels for higher bills, he is pumping up prices by throwing more government-imposed costs onto energy bills. 'Wind and solar are being propped up by a complicated web of hidden cash to hoodwink you into thinking they are cheap. But they are not. 'Renewables will cost billions more. This is Ed Miliband's world – and you're paying for it.' Sir Keir Starmer is under massive pressure to act on UK energy costs - which are some of the highest in the world. In stark contrast the US - which uses more fossil fuels - has far lower prices. Donald Trump used a meeting with the PM in Scotland earlier this week to launch a blistering attack on wind farms for pushing up prices and scarring the countryside. In toe-curling scenes, the PM sat ashen-faced as the US President unleashed both barrels on his wind farm push - branding them a 'con job'. Speaking at his Turnberry golf course, Mr Trump fumed: 'Wind is the most expensive form of energy, and it destroys the beauty of your fields and your plains and your waterways.' Urging the PM to lift the ban on new oil and gas drilling, he added: 'You can take a thousand times more energy out of a hole in the ground this big - it's called oil and gas.' The analysis carried out by Mr Timothy's office looked at the hidden cost of renewable energy by trawling through official figures and research papers. 4 It found that Brits pay billions of pounds to subsidise the building of renewable energy plants, like wind and solar. But the National Grid - which carries electricity from power plants to peoples homes - is very old and cannot cope with large surges of energy. This results in a barmy situation which means the government actually PAYS wind farms to stop turning when it is too windy. Some £700m has already been paid this year to turn wind farms off. Wind farms are also paid more for their energy than fossil fuel providers, the analysis found. Offshore wind will cost £113 per MWh under the latest contracts. The average cost of electricity last year was £72 per MWh. These direct subsidies for renewables inflate the cost of energy bills. There are also extra costs known as 'Balancing Costs' - the name given to the process the National Grid has to pay to ensure balance and supply of power is maintained daily. These charges end up being passed onto consumers in higher bills, researchers said. The study found the hidden cost of renewables on our bills was £12.3BN in 2023/24. This is predicted to hit £22.8BN by 2030. This is just the estimated cost to Brits's bills over the next few years - and the overall cost of going green by 2050 is far higher. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated it will cost a massive £803 billion to hit Net Zero by 2050. 4 A spokesman for the department for Net Zero said: 'These claims are fundamentally misleading. 'They wilfully ignore the benefits of clean power and wrongly assume the required network infrastructure will not be built over the next five years. 'Only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from fossil fuel price spikes.' IT was the most excruciating television I have seen in years. Sitting next to the Prime Minister, Donald Trump said Labour's taxes on North Sea oil and gas 'make no sense' and he called Ed Miliband's wind farms a 'con job'. Keir Starmer looked like a rabbit in the headlights, because he knew what Trump said was true. The eco policies this Labour government is pursuing simply make no sense. They are spinning us a lie. The government tells us we must urgently hit Net Zero targets because the cost of fossil fuels are unaffordably high. But renewables cost more money and push up bills. They say Britain must build more wind and solar farms so we can wean ourselves of foreign gas and become energy sufficient. But at the same time No10 bans new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea - leaving us more dependent on imports. And the government tells us this dash to go green will create thousands and thousands of new jobs. Yet the trade unions who actually represent energy workers say Labour's zealous eco policies could cause tens of thousands of well-paid British workers to be laid off. It is a mad Alice in Wonderland world where down is up and up is down. Ed Miliband has gone through the Looking Glass. His policies are the stuff of the Mad Hatter. And today I can reveal that Labour's Net Zero drive will cost an estimated £23 billion a year by 2030. That is the equivalent of slapping another £389 a year onto the cost of living for households. It is a cost this country cannot afford. Let me give you a few examples to show you just how barmy our energy policy has become under 'Red Ed'. First- the oil and gas industry. Just weeks after winning the election, Labour banned new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea. Furious trade unions said that up to 30,000 UK jobs could be lost, but their dire warnings fell on deaf ears. But the most ridiculous thing is that Britain still imports oil and gas taken from the very same seabed from Norway. So, Norway gets to keep the taxes, profits and jobs, while the UK goes without. It is a grotesque example of self-harm. Second - the bizarre case of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire. It imports wood from halfway around the world to burn, yet the UK taxpayer has spent billions of pounds in green subsidies on the power station. This simply makes no sense. Third - the sky high cost of wind and solar energy. Labour has set the UK insane targets to quadruple offshore wind and double onshore wind in just five years. But energy produced by these wind farms is actually MORE expensive. Ed Miliband has promised wind farms a fixed price of £113 per MWh for the next 20 years. That is 50 per cent HIGHER than the average cost of electricity. The cost of building new wind and solar farms is also enormous. An estimated £40 billion a year will be spent upgrading the National Grid, and rolling out new pylons and battery storage sites. Worst of all, wind and solar are even paid NOT to produce energy. This is because our creaking National Grid cannot handle big surges of energy. So when it is particularly windy they have to pay wind farms to switch off. This year alone we have paid £700 million to wind farms to STOP generating power. It is bananas. Brits also have to pay for environmental levies. These are extra charges baked into energy bills to pay for the development of new greener energy supplies. Labour are sending environmental levies hurtling towards £14.8 billion in 2030. The PM promised he would cut energy bills by £300 by the next election. But the opposite is true. They are getting bigger and bigger. No wonder President Trump thinks we are mad. Our energy costs are twice those in America. As a result their economy is booming while ours is stagnating. The US President could see the truth and was unafraid to say it. Britain needs to completely change course. It's time to junk the clean power target and support energy policies that actually work. We should take the US President's advice and 'drill baby drill' in the North Sea. We should expand nuclear energy. And we should ditch our expensive green energy levies and subsidies. Otherwise we remain Ed Miliband's mad world – and we will all pay the price.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?
Now that Sir Keir Starmer has declared his intention to recognise the imaginary state of Palestine, perhaps he might want to consider affording similar status to one that does actually exist: Taiwan. Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine at the UN next month might have helped to appease his restless backbenchers, who champion the Palestinian cause without having the faintest notion what they are talking about. But recognising a state that does not exist, is incapable of holding democratic elections and where a decent proportion of the population are in thrall to Islamist-inspired terrorism is hardly a blueprint for success. Taiwan, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed independent territory that regularly holds free and fair democratic elections – despite the malign efforts of China's Communist rulers to disrupt the process – where the overwhelming majority continue to uphold their right of self-determination. Apart from being a fully functioning democracy, Taiwan is also a valued trading partner, with total trade between the UK and Taipei currently averaging around £9.3bn. And yet, despite his willingness to offer full recognition to Palestine, an area that has no formal borders, a non-functioning administration and meagre trading options, our prime minister appears strangely reticent on the subject of upgrading our diplomatic ties with a democratic and prosperous ally such as Taiwan. This aversion to addressing the issue is all the more remarkable given that the official policy is to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, a position that means the Royal Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region – including through the Taiwan Strait – to demonstrate Britain's solidarity. The extent of the UK's military support for Taiwan is evident from the participation of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy's new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, in the Talisman Sabre exercises currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. The British warship is part of a 35,000-strong multi-national force conducting military exercises aimed at deterring China from launching an attack against Taiwan. Indeed, Defence Secretary John Healey was at his most bullish when asked about the UK's commitment to defend the region from Chinese aggression, commenting, 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together, and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' It is unlikely that we would ever see Healey, or any other Labour minister, making such robust comments about defending a future Palestine state – assuming, that is, that one ever materialises. The Starmer Government's desire to steer clear of any serious military entanglements in the Middle East was evident during the recent confrontation between the US and Iran. While the US deployed its aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf in anticipation of war with Tehran, the Prince of Wales, which was sailing through the region at the time, continued on its passage to Australia, out of harm's way. If the Government is so determined to defend Taiwan's right to exist, even risking the prospect of war with China by doing so, then it begs the question: why, having recognised a non-state like Palestine, will it not make the same commitment to Taipei? Ever since the leadership of the original Republic of China fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, successive British governments have sought to adopt a neutral position in its dealing with the territory. While the UK is perfectly willing to maintain lucrative trade ties, as well as providing declarations of military support, ministers have been reluctant to upgrade Taiwan's diplomatic status for fear of causing offence to China, its more powerful and prosperous neighbour. Since 1972, when London eventually recognised the People's Republic as the sole government of China, the view in Whitehall has been that the future status of Taiwan should be a matter for the Chinese to decide. A number of recent factors have made this compromise appear less satisfactory, not least Chinese President Xi Jinping's pronounced determination to reclaim Taiwan as Chinese sovereign territory. Having declared that the ' reunification' of China with Taiwan is a cornerstone of his aim of achieving the Chinese dream of nation rejuvenation by 2049, Xi has authorised the Chinese military to engage in a massive build up, with some Western military analysts predicting a Chinese invasion could take place by 2027. The gathering storm clouds over China's territorial ambitions towards Taiwan have already resulted in significant changes to British policy to the region, most notably the 2021 Integrated Review that proposed an Indo-Pacific 'tilt' in our military and security outlook. Apart from sending an aircraft carrier to participate in joint naval exercises, the Royal Navy is also committed to upgrading its 'persistent presence' in the region to include the rotational deployment of nuclear submarines from 2027 as part of the recent Aukus agreement signed between the UK, US and Australia. If the UK is preparing to defend Taiwan's sovereignty, it makes sense for Starmer to give serious consideration to offering the Taiwanese people the same level of recognition that he is prepared to give to the Palestinians. Otherwise the UK could one day find itself in the invidious position of fighting for a people whose sovereignty it does not even acknowledge.
