Meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets is proving to be a formidable challenge, and the Queensland Liberal National government has introduced measures that critics say complicate the task further. The state’s newly released energy roadmap, unveiled on Friday, is being criticized as a politically motivated document, aimed at appeasing climate change skeptics within the party’s ranks.
The roadmap marks a significant departure from previous commitments. Queensland’s Treasurer and Energy Minister, David Janetzki, announced the government’s intention to repeal the former state Labor government’s target of sourcing 80% of electricity from renewable energy by 2035. This target had included a commitment to shut down state-owned coal power plants by that date. Instead, Janetzki stated that coal would continue to play a “critical role” in the energy system until at least 2046, with a pledge of $1.6 billion to extend the life of coal plants.
Shift in Energy Strategy
The government also plans to significantly increase gas-fired power, proposing the construction of a new 400-megawatt gas plant in central Queensland, backed by $479 million in funding. While Janetzki assured that renewable energy expansion would still occur, with $400 million allocated for the transition, the state’s plans for large-scale solar and wind projects have been notably curtailed.
Queensland aims to add up to 6.8 gigawatts of new renewable capacity by 2030, largely reflecting existing plans by private investors and projects supported by the federal government’s capacity investment scheme. Beyond 2030, however, the growth of clean energy is expected to decelerate, with only 4.4 gigawatts anticipated between 2030 and 2035.
Environmental and Economic Implications
The roadmap’s implications are significant. If implemented, the plan could result in substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than currently projected over the next decade. Notably, the document avoids mentioning “climate change” or “fossil fuels,” signaling a stark shift from previous environmental commitments.
This departure not only represents a retreat from Labor’s promises—some of which were seen as overly ambitious—but also contradicts the Australian Energy Market Operator’s vision for an optimal future power grid. Janetzki defended the plan as “pragmatic and realistic,” grounded in economics and engineering rather than ideology. However, this rationale has been met with skepticism from experts.
“The view among experts is this seems wildly optimistic. It is at odds with other analyses.”
Expert Opinions and Market Reactions
Many analysts argue that delaying the transition away from coal could ultimately prove more costly. They suggest that a clear exit strategy for fossil fuels would allow energy investors, predominantly focused on solar, wind, and battery storage, to better prepare for the necessary infrastructure replacements. The current approach, they warn, risks deterring investment in Queensland, potentially driving projects to other regions.
Queensland, Australia’s largest polluting state, has abundant solar resources and land but lags in renewable energy adoption. Last year, only 32% of the state’s power came from renewables, compared to the national average of 42%. The global trend is shifting towards renewables, with solar generation notably increasing.
“The sunshine state could choose to be a leader in this shift but is instead opting to crawl while others sprint.”
Future Outlook and National Implications
The state’s coal plants are increasingly unreliable, experiencing 78 failures last summer alone, according to Renew Economy. Despite this, Premier David Crisafulli maintains that Queensland remains committed to reducing state emissions by 75% by 2035, relative to 2005 levels, and achieving net-zero emissions. However, without coal plant closures and a significant boost in renewable energy, critics argue that these targets lack a concrete plan.
On a national level, Queensland’s stance poses challenges for the Albanese government’s recently announced emissions target range of 62-70% by 2035. The state’s reluctance to transition swiftly to cleaner energy sources may necessitate more aggressive federal initiatives to curb pollution.
As the debate continues, the spotlight remains on Queensland’s energy policies and their broader implications for Australia’s climate goals. The coming years will be crucial in determining whether the state can reconcile its economic and environmental priorities.
