this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
444 points (99.8% liked)
Futurology
3458 readers
49 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Australia is pretty much run by the coal and mining industries.
It's not an insult, just a fact.
The mining oligarchs (Rinehart, Palmer and such) bet big on the conservatives winning power and undoing the energy transition Trump-fashion at the last election, and lost spectacularly. The conservatives are out of power, and it appears to be for a long time, so the chickens are coming home to roost. The government is by no means a radical one (regardless of what some of the more unhinged propaganda from the fossil-funded right says), though as the markets themselves are leaning towards renewables on economic grounds alone, they’re trying to balance this transition with keeping the economy stable. Hence officially promoting the transition and funding decarbonisation of energy whilst still approving coal mines.
It's hard for Australia to quit those coal export dollars. We hardly use the stuff ourselves, too expensive to maintain the furnaces compared to solar and wind.
I note that although it was the conservative side that hobbled the mineral resource rent tax, neither side restored that (nor the similar tax on liquid and gas fossil fuels)
Uhhh what? Coal is is still like half of all our energy generation.
remember when scott morrison brought in some coal and told everyone not to fear it? Ah, good times /s
edit: to parliament, i meant
Maybe, and? Do you believe it can change and/or has the right to change?
The conference's page does not try to pretend that it's all shiny and perfect right now. Quoting:
You're talking aspirational, I'm talking the economic and political realities of Australia.
So to answer your question, no, I don't think it can change, but not because they don't want to, as I don't know what's in their hearts, but because their economy is structured around resource extraction.
So fine, talk all the aspirational talk, but just know that you're putting a fox in the hen house, which I'm pretty sure is exactly why they removed the petro-states.
I think I see the point you're trying to make. I'm not sure if my question is purely aspirational, though. When you say "political realities of Australia" for example, shouldn't the word "political" already imply that this is heavily influenced by people's thoughts and resolve? I think Australians should evaluate that, not me who is in Europe or you since you refer to Australia as "they".