What Does the Australian Election Outcome Mean for Climate Policy in a Major Coal Economy?

Few voters can impact climate change as significantly as Australians.

In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, only the US and Canada closely approach Australia. The nation stands as one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels contributing to global warming, notably sending vast quantities of natural gas to Asian countries alongside some of the most polluting fossil fuels.

As the country prepares for national elections on Saturday, polls indicate that climate change is not a primary concern for many voters. However, the leading candidates from the Labour Party and the Free State Union present starkly different approaches to climate and energy policy.

Central to the discussion is the dependence on the aging coal plants that generate electricity for the country.

“We’ve witnessed a lot of global experiences,” noted Andrew McIntosh, professor of environmental law and policy at Australian National University. “One perspective emphasizes workforce requirements and the need for increasing renewables, while the alternative espouses a conservative coalition favoring nuclear energy.”

Both strategies could lead to reduced emissions, according to McIntosh, though many are puzzled by the nuclear program. Constructing nuclear power plants can take over a decade, whereas renewable energy sources can be implemented within months.

“We need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future,” he added.

In some ways, analysts reflect a polarized debate akin to that in the US, where former President Donald J. Trump dismissed climate science and branded efforts to clean energy as a hoax. Matt McDonald, a political scientist specializing in climate issues at the University of Queensland, stated:

“However, rather than making Australians more apprehensive about climate change, Trump’s rhetoric has not gained significant traction internationally, effectively cooling the debates on both sides,” remarked Dr. McDonald.

For Australians feeling the pressure, it largely stems from rising energy costs for households. Australian energy regulators report that average energy prices have surged by approximately 60% over the past decade.

Incumbent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who leads the Labour Party, has proposed an ambitious target for renewable energy, aiming for over 80% generation by 2030.

“But,” Dr. McDonald pointed out, “we have substantial coal reserves as well.”

Albanese’s main rival, Peter Dutton, at the helm of a liberal coalition, advocates for increased domestic gas production to support electricity generation. While gas is a fossil fuel, it is considerably less polluting than coal. Dutton proposes that gas producers be mandated to supply a portion of their output to Australian power grids, while also expediting the approval process for new drilling projects.

Generally, both parties are proponents of gas development, with Australia being the world’s second-largest gas exporter after the US.

With polls indicating a tight race, the Green Party and the so-called Teal Independents, both strong advocates for robust climate policies, could potentially influence Congress significantly. “If they retain their seats, they’ll be poised to push harder on climate initiatives—like decreasing coal exports,” Dr. McDonald noted.

An additional point of contention globally is whether Australia will be the host for the upcoming United Nations-sponsored Global Climate Conference next year, commonly referred to as COP. Currently, Australia is vying with Türkiye for the hosting rights, an opportunity carrying geopolitical significance and economic advantages by welcoming tens of thousands of representatives.

Hosting nations often establish the dialogue tone for consultation ambitions, and Prime Minister Albanese’s government has been actively lobbying other countries for over a year to support Australia’s bid. “If the coalition wins, this opportunity will certainly vanish,” Dr. McDonald asserted.