November 28, 2025 • 20 mins
Australia has suffered a major climate setback, losing its bid to host next year’s COP summit in Adelaide. At the same time, the Coalition has reignited Australia’s climate wars by abandoning its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 – a reversal that resets the political debate just as the world pushes for faster decarbonisation.
In this episode, Rebecca Jones asks Bloomberg’s David Stringer to unpack what the failed COP bid means for Australia’s international standing, how the Coalition’s shift could shape the next election and what renewed climate volatility means for investment, energy transition plans and ultimately your power bill.
Find more from the Bloomberg Australia Podcast here: https://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/series/bloomberg-australia
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi, it's ukshot. Among the many fights that happened at
COP thirty, there was an unusual one between Turkey and
Australia to host COP thirty one. In this bonus episode
from Bloomberg Australia, managing editors Rebecca Jones and David Stringer
tell you how the fight played out and what it
means for next YEAR'SCOP zero. Will be back with a
(00:23):
fresh episode soon.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
There's been some big climate news and a bit of
a plot twist.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
That's sane and disappointed. That's the premiers reaction to Australia's
fouls bited hosting next year is COP Climate summat hero
in Adelaide. It's a major blow to the state and
its budget.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
The Liberal Shadow Ministry has agreed to dump net zero
by twenty fifty from the party's platform. The group agreed
to scrap net zero from the Climate Change Acts and
repeal Labour's twenty thirty emissions reduction target. The Liberal Party
has just taken a huge gamble in a weekenned political position,
and under pressure from the Nationals, the net zero target
(01:08):
is now gone.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Hello. I'm Rebecca Jones and this is the Bloomberg Australia podcast,
where each week we go behind the biggest stories shaping
Australia's place in global business. Well, there was a time
not too long ago in Australia that climate was a
hot button topic, dominating both politics and business. Not so
(01:30):
much lately. So you would be forgiven for thinking the
climate question had been somehow quietly resolved. But you would
be wrong, and for two reasons. Last week we saw
the Coalition opposition finally making up its mind about net zero,
and as that was happening, the Australian government made a
bid to host the next big Climate cop summit and
(01:54):
failed to lassu in these two news events from the
headlines and explained to us what they mean for the
future of Australia's position on climate and what it might
mean for our energy bills. This week, I'm delighted to
welcome David Stringer to the podcast. David is the managing
editor of ESG and Climate Coverage in Asia for Bloomberg News. David,
(02:16):
Welcome to the pod.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Thanks for having me again, appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
So where do we even start? You know, politicians meet
all the livelong day to discuss stuff, right, what was
so important to Australia about being the host of this
COP summit next year.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, first of all, we start with lots and lots
of acronyms in the climate space, and the chief among
them COP. You know what even is COP. Yeah, it's
the Conference of the Parties, or essentially the decision making
body of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. And
so what does that mean? Well, in short, it's the
process through which almost two hundred countries try and make
(02:53):
progress in tackling climate change. And it's perhaps best known
for these two week long summits each Novem, but certainly
in the at the end of the year, the most
famous example of which was in Paris ten years ago
this year when nations actually agreed to the Paris Accord,
that legally binding treaty to take action to limit global warming. So,
(03:14):
as you mentioned, we just saw the most recent conference
wrap up in the Amazonian city of bellm in Brazil,
you know, and there were lots of big ticket items
on the agenda, pushing nations on more ambitious emissions reduction
and various other things. But there was this major and
somewhat unexpected subplot. Who would host the talks this time
(03:36):
next year in November twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
And right, and that's not us because we bid, but
we failed.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
What happened quite I mean, it's important to stress this
has been really unusual. This is usually a very dare
i say, dull, orderly process, but for next year, in
for Australia's case, it simply wasn't.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
We saw shortly after the Labour part government was elected
in twenty twenty two, they signaled they wanted Australia and
the Pacific Island Nations to bid for COP thirty one,
the thirty first edition of COP the twenty twenty six meeting.
Why did they do that, Well, the Labor government was
trying to reprioritize climate action, to sort of reassert Australia
(04:18):
as a positive force in climate diplomacy. You know, this
was seen as a big opportunity not only for Australia
but for the Pacific, you know. And two reasons. They're
really one to highlight the experience of Pacific nations who
are really at the front end, you know, they're at
the front line of experiencing climate change. They also want
much more funding to help them mitigate those impacts and
(04:41):
to build their resilience, and of course the Pacific is
also a real political battleground.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
For Australia, this was an opportunity to win favor with
the Pacific at a time when China is seeking to
build its alliances there. So the process should have been simple.
Within cop Within the UN convention process, there are regional groupings.
Typically one country puts themselves forward, they're rubber stamped, and
they become the host of whatever year's meeting. Very unusually
(05:12):
this time around, Australia and Turkey, both members of here's
another acronym, WEOG, the Western European and Others group, both
put themselves forward and they wouldn't compromise. Really, this is
dragged on, not for months, but years, you know, since
roughly twenty twenty two. We've even seen Australia's Prime Minister Albanesi,
(05:33):
Turkey's President Urdigan. They've exchanged letters. Every effort made essentially
to us one side to back down has failed. Why
is that important because this needs to be a unanimous decision.
And so it dragged on even into Brazil, even into
those two weeks in Belem, we even saw Australia and
Turkey they had rival national pavilions. Imagine a giant trade fair,
(05:57):
huge trade show, and would you know it, Australia and
Turkey virtually facing each other, both handing out coffee, Australia
with you know, a barista handing out latised Turkey with
with with good strong Turkish coffee, trying to woo delegates.
They needed essentially one of the countries to pull out,
to withdraw because the compromise option was going to default
(06:19):
to bond where the un F Triple C, the decision
making body is based. Germany said, no way, We're not hosting.
We don't want to have that burden, and essentially it
was left in the in the final hours really of
this most recent cop for Australia to back down and
to put forward a pretty unusual arrangement to UH to
(06:42):
settle this issue, which leaves Turkey and in fact the
Turkish resort town of Antalia, as the host, and it
leaves Adelaide, which would have hosted it here, as the loser.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I have so many questions, not least of which is
how the heck does Australia and Turkey, geographically not close
to one another, end up in the same bracket. But
maybe that's more to be filed away with my why
is Australia a participant in the Eurovision song contest one
for another day. Australia's Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris
(07:14):
Bow and at least another of the Pacific nations is
going to be taking roles in these upcoming climate talks
next to you, under this deal that's been struck with Turkey,
can you tell us how they will be involved in
this very unusual situation.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And it really is unprecedented, And we had this curious
sight in these sort of early hours on Sunday here
in Australia, sort of in the afternoon on Saturday in
belm of Chris Bow and the Australian minister is Turkish counterpart,
and then three Pacific ministers from there's a whole crowd
of people on stage, all of whom are supposed to
(07:52):
have a role here. And you know, to any observer
you couldn't help thinking, well, goodness me, how on earth
is this going to work? Well, here's how it's going to.
Turkey will host the event. It will you know, physically
have not only a meeting of world leaders, which to
you know this year took place slightly in advance of
the negotiations themselves. It will then host the two weeks
(08:13):
of actual technical negotiations. Chris Bowen, as Australia's representative, will
essentially be in charge of those negotiations. He will be
the appointee, the person trying to corral nations to decide
on text, to work out what are they going to
commit to in terms of achieving the objectives they've outlined
(08:34):
on climate action. You know, the very difficult task of
wrangling these incredibly long winded, detailed texts that nations eventually adopt,
really difficult, never goes to plan. It always ends up
in negotiations that last into the very early hours of
the final day. Happened again last week in Brazil. So
(08:56):
Chris Bowen Australia will be in charge of the actual
substance of the meeting. Turkey will host the event. It'll
get all of the benefit in terms of potential more investment, tourism,
a focus on Turkey and its own plans for the
Pacific region as an still to be decided Pacific nation
will host an additional meeting. Essentially, they'll host an event
(09:20):
ahead of cop in November where the issues the experience
of the Pacific will be brought to the fore and
it may well end up being some kind of vehicle
through which other nations can pledge additional funding. Anthony Albanesi
has insisted he'll invite other world leaders to attend that event,
so it raises the prospect that it could be quite
high profile. That seems unlikely, but clearly there's a desire
(09:44):
within Australia to make this a really serious, a serious
mechanism to highlight the experience of the Pacific.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And do we have any idea what Pacific nations would
be in the running for that? And it sounds to
me like some sort of rehearsal dinner of sorts to
the main event.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Absolutely, absolutely a great analogy. No we don't. I mean,
what we do know is the Solomon Islands, Palau, Vanuatu,
you know, they're all they've all been nations that have
been very involved in this process in the past. You know,
we've seen Fiji not physically host a cop event but
actors in a way, as Bowen's going to do, act
(10:21):
as a kind of president of negotiations. But at this
point we don't know where that will take place.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
And you know, even with these concessions. I'm interested in,
you know, digging a little deeper into what extent this
is seen as a missed opportunity for Australia, you know,
both for the efforts to accelerate climate action, but also
for the great state of South Australia.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
No quite, and I think South Australia will be you know,
bitterly disappointed. You know, they had done their own calculations
and forecast that at a minimum they expected to receive
about another five hundred million Australian dollars of investment in
the state. That's through increased trade, through tourism. Having the spotlight,
having the global attention for that two week period on
(11:05):
South Australia would almost inevitably have helped catalyze more investment
and more investment into the state and into Australia's energy transition.
And so that is clearly a downside now that opportunity
has been lost, you know, and there were lots of
ambitions to help use the event in Australia to push
(11:27):
for things like a global solar rooftop initiative where the
experience of Australia and as we've talked about on this
podcast before, one in three rooftops has solar panels in Australia,
you know, to try and push that and to see
some benefit from there. There was also going to be
a focus probably on things like greener supply chains for
(11:49):
critical minerals, something of course Australia could have taken advantage of,
so for South Australia, for Australia more broadly, it will
definitely be seen as a missed opportunity.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And one of the other things I imagined that it
would have brought into focused is, you know, a renewal
of this political divide that we have here as it
relates to climate. I want to ask you how the
Albanese government has really been going on its own zero ambitions, because,
as you mentioned earlier, this was the horse they rode
in on in twenty twenty two. It was touted by
(12:22):
some as the climate election for their party. How have
they performed so far.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
In terms of making commitments. They've done what they said
they would do. You know, they led very soon after
taking office, the Albanese government legislated and at zero target.
As recently as September. You know, we've seen Australia pledge
additional action. This was the year when under the cop process,
all of those countries that were signatory to the Paris
(12:49):
Agreement were supposed to come forward with more ambitious plans
to cut their emissions by twenty thirty five. Australia's pledged
to do that, to cut green ascasm between sixty two
percent and seventy percent by twenty thirty five. It's certainly
kind of ambitious, you know, probably better than we might
(13:11):
have seen before, and almost there are thereabout sort of
in line with what you'd expect to put Australia on
a path to meet its net zero target by mid century. However,
I think, you know, lots of opponents of the actions
of this government would point to other factors. The Australian
government is one that has continued to approve coal mining projects,
(13:33):
It's approved extensions to fossil fuel projects, you know, and
most notably a big decision that was made just a
couple of months ago on the Northwest Shelf, the country's
biggest gas export projects, its life was extended to potentially
as long as twenty seventy. That was a huge disappointment
(13:53):
for advocates of climate action, for campaigners who have been
looking to government to limit the future role of fossil
fuels rather than, as they see it, extend the life
of Australia's fossil fuel export industries.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
So, just as Albanese's officials were trying to woo the UN,
the Liberal Party has dropped its commitment to hit net
zero emissions by twenty fifty David, Why do they think
that is a vote winner?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
As you said, the main opposition Liberal parties sort of
ditched that commitment to hit net zero. And really the
fact that we went into the last election in Australia
with both the two major parties both agree great yeah
on climate policy, was that was the That was the aberration, right,
(14:54):
you know, rather than this. You know, we've been so
used to climate, climate policy, energy policy being a point
of distinction. You know, it's almost unsurprising that we're back
in the situation where now the main opposition Liberal Party
you know, don't support net zero. Now why is that
they do think that this will resonate with voters. The
(15:16):
argument that they will mounta and I'm sure we'll see
this argument taken into the next national election, is that
the commitments to decarbonize involve enormous investment, not only in
replacing coal fire power punts with solar and wind farms,
but huge commitment to upgrade Australia's energy infrastructure, transmission lines,
(15:40):
power grids, adding giant battery storage farms that can help
you know, maintain you know, the flow of electricity and
to mitigate some of the intermittency issues with renewables. So
their argument is that will show up on household bills
and this will add to existing cost of living pressures
(16:03):
and that you know, their policy is by not being
wedded to meet at zero by twenty fifty, by not
having these very firm targets, they'll give themselves, you know,
more ability to be flexible and to try and conduct
the energy transition in a way that keeps costs lower.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
And does that necessarily translate out to a longer timeline, right,
because we're almost in twenty twenty six, so that's twenty
four years to get those things done. Surely, over that
kind of length of time it's enough to absorb some
of these financial shocks that will come with the transition
quite and.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I think you know what we've seen from from Susan Lay,
from the opposition leader and the Liberal Party is you know,
they said they don't want to be tied to our
specific target, specific year. You know, they have said, you know,
it's perfectly conceivable that they achieve net zero within that
time frame. It's just they think the straight jacket of
(17:02):
meeting a particular target doesn't give them the flexibility to
carry that out in a way that they would argue
is cheapest. Now, I'm sure yet again, and we will
go into another election where this is a political football
because on one side, you know, we will have the
argument put forward that keeping inefficient aging coal and you know,
(17:26):
to lesser degree gas infrastructure running is the thing that's
adding to our energy bills. They are less reliable, particularly
the cult plants, and that's the thing that's pressuring prices,
you know, along with the spikes in natural gas and
coal that we saw that have nothing to do with
Australia but you know, all to do with the impact
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, we'll
(17:47):
have proponents of a looser climate policy who will argue
that shifting quickly to solar wind batteries an upgraded grid
that's too expensive to voters will be which they you know,
whether climate or energy bills, you know, are their priority,
and whether they argue whether they believe an argument that
(18:11):
the cost of faster climate action really will show up
on their bill.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
And just on that, David, let's bring it closer to home.
What do these renewed climate wars and you know, potential
investment uncertainty that Australia is facing ultimately mean for your
power bill.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
I mean it's a difficult one to answer, you know,
in truth you mentioned investment. You know what we have
seen and what investors tell us and big offshore global
investors who put money to work in you know, whether
it is renewable energy, whether it's grid infrastructure. They want
policy certainty and we've seen that reflect in the numbers.
(18:52):
You know, since the current Labor government have taken office
and of course subsequently one another election, there has been
a degree of potaty that has seen a rebound in
investment into Australia's energy transition. Now it's arguable whether that
is something that has translated through to power bills. Of course,
advocates would say you have to invest now to reap
(19:16):
the benefits in the medium and longer term. What I
think we can say with some degree of certainty is
if you delay that investment. If that investment declines because
of policy tensions arising again, the impact isn't going to
be positive. We're not. It's not going to bring our
power bills down any faster by having less investment rather
(19:37):
than more in Australia's energy transition.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
If you found today's conversation insightful, be sure to follow
the Bloomberg Australia Podcast wherever you listen, and check for
more reading on Australia's journey to net zero, including the
latest from David Stringer and his team at Bloomberg dot Com.
This episode was recorded on the traditional lands of the
will Wondery People. It was produced by Marafool Hussain and
(20:02):
edited by Chris Burke and Ainsley Champer. I'm Rebecca Jones
and we'll see you next week.
Hi, it's ukshot. Among the many fights that happened at
COP thirty, there was an unusual one between Turkey and
Australia to host COP thirty one. In this bonus episode
from Bloomberg Australia, managing editors Rebecca Jones and David Stringer
tell you how the fight played out and what it
means for next YEAR'SCOP zero. Will be back with a
(00:23):
fresh episode soon.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
There's been some big climate news and a bit of
a plot twist.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
That's sane and disappointed. That's the premiers reaction to Australia's
fouls bited hosting next year is COP Climate summat hero
in Adelaide. It's a major blow to the state and
its budget.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
The Liberal Shadow Ministry has agreed to dump net zero
by twenty fifty from the party's platform. The group agreed
to scrap net zero from the Climate Change Acts and
repeal Labour's twenty thirty emissions reduction target. The Liberal Party
has just taken a huge gamble in a weekenned political position,
and under pressure from the Nationals, the net zero target
(01:08):
is now gone.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Hello. I'm Rebecca Jones and this is the Bloomberg Australia podcast,
where each week we go behind the biggest stories shaping
Australia's place in global business. Well, there was a time
not too long ago in Australia that climate was a
hot button topic, dominating both politics and business. Not so
(01:30):
much lately. So you would be forgiven for thinking the
climate question had been somehow quietly resolved. But you would
be wrong, and for two reasons. Last week we saw
the Coalition opposition finally making up its mind about net zero,
and as that was happening, the Australian government made a
bid to host the next big Climate cop summit and
(01:54):
failed to lassu in these two news events from the
headlines and explained to us what they mean for the
future of Australia's position on climate and what it might
mean for our energy bills. This week, I'm delighted to
welcome David Stringer to the podcast. David is the managing
editor of ESG and Climate Coverage in Asia for Bloomberg News. David,
(02:16):
Welcome to the pod.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Thanks for having me again, appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
So where do we even start? You know, politicians meet
all the livelong day to discuss stuff, right, what was
so important to Australia about being the host of this
COP summit next year.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, first of all, we start with lots and lots
of acronyms in the climate space, and the chief among
them COP. You know what even is COP. Yeah, it's
the Conference of the Parties, or essentially the decision making
body of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. And
so what does that mean? Well, in short, it's the
process through which almost two hundred countries try and make
(02:53):
progress in tackling climate change. And it's perhaps best known
for these two week long summits each Novem, but certainly
in the at the end of the year, the most
famous example of which was in Paris ten years ago
this year when nations actually agreed to the Paris Accord,
that legally binding treaty to take action to limit global warming. So,
(03:14):
as you mentioned, we just saw the most recent conference
wrap up in the Amazonian city of bellm in Brazil,
you know, and there were lots of big ticket items
on the agenda, pushing nations on more ambitious emissions reduction
and various other things. But there was this major and
somewhat unexpected subplot. Who would host the talks this time
(03:36):
next year in November twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
And right, and that's not us because we bid, but
we failed.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
What happened quite I mean, it's important to stress this
has been really unusual. This is usually a very dare
i say, dull, orderly process, but for next year, in
for Australia's case, it simply wasn't.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
We saw shortly after the Labour part government was elected
in twenty twenty two, they signaled they wanted Australia and
the Pacific Island Nations to bid for COP thirty one,
the thirty first edition of COP the twenty twenty six meeting.
Why did they do that, Well, the Labor government was
trying to reprioritize climate action, to sort of reassert Australia
(04:18):
as a positive force in climate diplomacy. You know, this
was seen as a big opportunity not only for Australia
but for the Pacific, you know. And two reasons. They're
really one to highlight the experience of Pacific nations who
are really at the front end, you know, they're at
the front line of experiencing climate change. They also want
much more funding to help them mitigate those impacts and
(04:41):
to build their resilience, and of course the Pacific is
also a real political battleground.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
For Australia, this was an opportunity to win favor with
the Pacific at a time when China is seeking to
build its alliances there. So the process should have been simple.
Within cop Within the UN convention process, there are regional groupings.
Typically one country puts themselves forward, they're rubber stamped, and
they become the host of whatever year's meeting. Very unusually
(05:12):
this time around, Australia and Turkey, both members of here's
another acronym, WEOG, the Western European and Others group, both
put themselves forward and they wouldn't compromise. Really, this is
dragged on, not for months, but years, you know, since
roughly twenty twenty two. We've even seen Australia's Prime Minister Albanesi,
(05:33):
Turkey's President Urdigan. They've exchanged letters. Every effort made essentially
to us one side to back down has failed. Why
is that important because this needs to be a unanimous decision.
And so it dragged on even into Brazil, even into
those two weeks in Belem, we even saw Australia and
Turkey they had rival national pavilions. Imagine a giant trade fair,
(05:57):
huge trade show, and would you know it, Australia and
Turkey virtually facing each other, both handing out coffee, Australia
with you know, a barista handing out latised Turkey with
with with good strong Turkish coffee, trying to woo delegates.
They needed essentially one of the countries to pull out,
to withdraw because the compromise option was going to default
(06:19):
to bond where the un F Triple C, the decision
making body is based. Germany said, no way, We're not hosting.
We don't want to have that burden, and essentially it
was left in the in the final hours really of
this most recent cop for Australia to back down and
to put forward a pretty unusual arrangement to UH to
(06:42):
settle this issue, which leaves Turkey and in fact the
Turkish resort town of Antalia, as the host, and it
leaves Adelaide, which would have hosted it here, as the loser.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I have so many questions, not least of which is
how the heck does Australia and Turkey, geographically not close
to one another, end up in the same bracket. But
maybe that's more to be filed away with my why
is Australia a participant in the Eurovision song contest one
for another day. Australia's Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris
(07:14):
Bow and at least another of the Pacific nations is
going to be taking roles in these upcoming climate talks
next to you, under this deal that's been struck with Turkey,
can you tell us how they will be involved in
this very unusual situation.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And it really is unprecedented, And we had this curious
sight in these sort of early hours on Sunday here
in Australia, sort of in the afternoon on Saturday in
belm of Chris Bow and the Australian minister is Turkish counterpart,
and then three Pacific ministers from there's a whole crowd
of people on stage, all of whom are supposed to
(07:52):
have a role here. And you know, to any observer
you couldn't help thinking, well, goodness me, how on earth
is this going to work? Well, here's how it's going to.
Turkey will host the event. It will you know, physically
have not only a meeting of world leaders, which to
you know this year took place slightly in advance of
the negotiations themselves. It will then host the two weeks
(08:13):
of actual technical negotiations. Chris Bowen, as Australia's representative, will
essentially be in charge of those negotiations. He will be
the appointee, the person trying to corral nations to decide
on text, to work out what are they going to
commit to in terms of achieving the objectives they've outlined
(08:34):
on climate action. You know, the very difficult task of
wrangling these incredibly long winded, detailed texts that nations eventually adopt,
really difficult, never goes to plan. It always ends up
in negotiations that last into the very early hours of
the final day. Happened again last week in Brazil. So
(08:56):
Chris Bowen Australia will be in charge of the actual
substance of the meeting. Turkey will host the event. It'll
get all of the benefit in terms of potential more investment, tourism,
a focus on Turkey and its own plans for the
Pacific region as an still to be decided Pacific nation
will host an additional meeting. Essentially, they'll host an event
(09:20):
ahead of cop in November where the issues the experience
of the Pacific will be brought to the fore and
it may well end up being some kind of vehicle
through which other nations can pledge additional funding. Anthony Albanesi
has insisted he'll invite other world leaders to attend that event,
so it raises the prospect that it could be quite
high profile. That seems unlikely, but clearly there's a desire
(09:44):
within Australia to make this a really serious, a serious
mechanism to highlight the experience of the Pacific.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And do we have any idea what Pacific nations would
be in the running for that? And it sounds to
me like some sort of rehearsal dinner of sorts to
the main event.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Absolutely, absolutely a great analogy. No we don't. I mean,
what we do know is the Solomon Islands, Palau, Vanuatu,
you know, they're all they've all been nations that have
been very involved in this process in the past. You know,
we've seen Fiji not physically host a cop event but
actors in a way, as Bowen's going to do, act
(10:21):
as a kind of president of negotiations. But at this
point we don't know where that will take place.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
And you know, even with these concessions. I'm interested in,
you know, digging a little deeper into what extent this
is seen as a missed opportunity for Australia, you know,
both for the efforts to accelerate climate action, but also
for the great state of South Australia.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
No quite, and I think South Australia will be you know,
bitterly disappointed. You know, they had done their own calculations
and forecast that at a minimum they expected to receive
about another five hundred million Australian dollars of investment in
the state. That's through increased trade, through tourism. Having the spotlight,
having the global attention for that two week period on
(11:05):
South Australia would almost inevitably have helped catalyze more investment
and more investment into the state and into Australia's energy transition.
And so that is clearly a downside now that opportunity
has been lost, you know, and there were lots of
ambitions to help use the event in Australia to push
(11:27):
for things like a global solar rooftop initiative where the
experience of Australia and as we've talked about on this
podcast before, one in three rooftops has solar panels in Australia,
you know, to try and push that and to see
some benefit from there. There was also going to be
a focus probably on things like greener supply chains for
(11:49):
critical minerals, something of course Australia could have taken advantage of,
so for South Australia, for Australia more broadly, it will
definitely be seen as a missed opportunity.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And one of the other things I imagined that it
would have brought into focused is, you know, a renewal
of this political divide that we have here as it
relates to climate. I want to ask you how the
Albanese government has really been going on its own zero ambitions, because,
as you mentioned earlier, this was the horse they rode
in on in twenty twenty two. It was touted by
(12:22):
some as the climate election for their party. How have
they performed so far.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
In terms of making commitments. They've done what they said
they would do. You know, they led very soon after
taking office, the Albanese government legislated and at zero target.
As recently as September. You know, we've seen Australia pledge
additional action. This was the year when under the cop process,
all of those countries that were signatory to the Paris
(12:49):
Agreement were supposed to come forward with more ambitious plans
to cut their emissions by twenty thirty five. Australia's pledged
to do that, to cut green ascasm between sixty two
percent and seventy percent by twenty thirty five. It's certainly
kind of ambitious, you know, probably better than we might
(13:11):
have seen before, and almost there are thereabout sort of
in line with what you'd expect to put Australia on
a path to meet its net zero target by mid century. However,
I think, you know, lots of opponents of the actions
of this government would point to other factors. The Australian
government is one that has continued to approve coal mining projects,
(13:33):
It's approved extensions to fossil fuel projects, you know, and
most notably a big decision that was made just a
couple of months ago on the Northwest Shelf, the country's
biggest gas export projects, its life was extended to potentially
as long as twenty seventy. That was a huge disappointment
(13:53):
for advocates of climate action, for campaigners who have been
looking to government to limit the future role of fossil
fuels rather than, as they see it, extend the life
of Australia's fossil fuel export industries.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
So, just as Albanese's officials were trying to woo the UN,
the Liberal Party has dropped its commitment to hit net
zero emissions by twenty fifty David, Why do they think
that is a vote winner?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
As you said, the main opposition Liberal parties sort of
ditched that commitment to hit net zero. And really the
fact that we went into the last election in Australia
with both the two major parties both agree great yeah
on climate policy, was that was the That was the aberration, right,
(14:54):
you know, rather than this. You know, we've been so
used to climate, climate policy, energy policy being a point
of distinction. You know, it's almost unsurprising that we're back
in the situation where now the main opposition Liberal Party
you know, don't support net zero. Now why is that
they do think that this will resonate with voters. The
(15:16):
argument that they will mounta and I'm sure we'll see
this argument taken into the next national election, is that
the commitments to decarbonize involve enormous investment, not only in
replacing coal fire power punts with solar and wind farms,
but huge commitment to upgrade Australia's energy infrastructure, transmission lines,
(15:40):
power grids, adding giant battery storage farms that can help
you know, maintain you know, the flow of electricity and
to mitigate some of the intermittency issues with renewables. So
their argument is that will show up on household bills
and this will add to existing cost of living pressures
(16:03):
and that you know, their policy is by not being
wedded to meet at zero by twenty fifty, by not
having these very firm targets, they'll give themselves, you know,
more ability to be flexible and to try and conduct
the energy transition in a way that keeps costs lower.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
And does that necessarily translate out to a longer timeline, right,
because we're almost in twenty twenty six, so that's twenty
four years to get those things done. Surely, over that
kind of length of time it's enough to absorb some
of these financial shocks that will come with the transition
quite and.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I think you know what we've seen from from Susan Lay,
from the opposition leader and the Liberal Party is you know,
they said they don't want to be tied to our
specific target, specific year. You know, they have said, you know,
it's perfectly conceivable that they achieve net zero within that
time frame. It's just they think the straight jacket of
(17:02):
meeting a particular target doesn't give them the flexibility to
carry that out in a way that they would argue
is cheapest. Now, I'm sure yet again, and we will
go into another election where this is a political football
because on one side, you know, we will have the
argument put forward that keeping inefficient aging coal and you know,
(17:26):
to lesser degree gas infrastructure running is the thing that's
adding to our energy bills. They are less reliable, particularly
the cult plants, and that's the thing that's pressuring prices,
you know, along with the spikes in natural gas and
coal that we saw that have nothing to do with
Australia but you know, all to do with the impact
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, we'll
(17:47):
have proponents of a looser climate policy who will argue
that shifting quickly to solar wind batteries an upgraded grid
that's too expensive to voters will be which they you know,
whether climate or energy bills, you know, are their priority,
and whether they argue whether they believe an argument that
(18:11):
the cost of faster climate action really will show up
on their bill.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
And just on that, David, let's bring it closer to home.
What do these renewed climate wars and you know, potential
investment uncertainty that Australia is facing ultimately mean for your
power bill.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
I mean it's a difficult one to answer, you know,
in truth you mentioned investment. You know what we have
seen and what investors tell us and big offshore global
investors who put money to work in you know, whether
it is renewable energy, whether it's grid infrastructure. They want
policy certainty and we've seen that reflect in the numbers.
(18:52):
You know, since the current Labor government have taken office
and of course subsequently one another election, there has been
a degree of potaty that has seen a rebound in
investment into Australia's energy transition. Now it's arguable whether that
is something that has translated through to power bills. Of course,
advocates would say you have to invest now to reap
(19:16):
the benefits in the medium and longer term. What I
think we can say with some degree of certainty is
if you delay that investment. If that investment declines because
of policy tensions arising again, the impact isn't going to
be positive. We're not. It's not going to bring our
power bills down any faster by having less investment rather
(19:37):
than more in Australia's energy transition.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
If you found today's conversation insightful, be sure to follow
the Bloomberg Australia Podcast wherever you listen, and check for
more reading on Australia's journey to net zero, including the
latest from David Stringer and his team at Bloomberg dot Com.
This episode was recorded on the traditional lands of the
will Wondery People. It was produced by Marafool Hussain and
(20:02):
edited by Chris Burke and Ainsley Champer. I'm Rebecca Jones
and we'll see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.