Powerlines by Chris Uhlmann

The Energy Transition Debate: Unpacking Australia's Renewable Energy PolicyThe Current State of Energy Policy in AustraliaThe past few months have been pivotal for the energy sector in Australia. With rising taxation and the government's push for renewable energy sources, many are wondering about the efficacy and sustainability of these initiatives. The Australian Energy Producers Conference held recently highlighted various perspectives on these pressing issues.The Push for Renewable Energy ZonesIn recent years, the Australian government has aimed to establish Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) across the country. While the intent is clear—boost renewable energy generation—there's significant concern regarding the actual implementation. Many projects that were supposed to be connected to these zones have stalled, with local communities expressing skepticism about the viability of wind energy in their regions.Why are Projects Stalling?- Economic Viability: There is mounting evidence suggesting the business model for wind energy is collapsing, especially in areas like New England. Projects that were planned five years ago have failed to materialize, raising questions about the planning and execution of these initiatives.- Community Response: Local communities have voiced their frustration, with many feeling sidelined in the decision-making process. As Chris Uhlmann points out, the sentiment in regions such as Walker is one of “white-hot rage” against what they perceive as imposed policies from the government without proper consultation.### The Trade-offs of Energy TransitionTransitioning from traditional energy sources to renewable ones involves trade-offs, often leading to unforeseen consequences. As Chris Uhlmann notes, the shift from concentrated energy sources like coal to more dispersed and intermittent sources like wind and solar can lead to significant land use changes and environmental impacts.- Environmental Concerns: The push for renewables is often at odds with conservation efforts. For instance, the construction of wind farms can lead to the destruction of natural habitats, raising ethical questions about the overall impact on Australia’s biodiversity.- Economic Costs: The costs associated with building new transmission lines to support renewable energy can be passed onto consumers, resulting in increased electricity bills. The integration of these new energy sources into the existing grid poses significant logistical and financial challenges.The Future of Natural Gas in AustraliaDespite the emphasis on renewables, natural gas remains a critical component of Australia’s energy strategy. Chris Uhlmann discusses the growing recognition of gas as a necessary energy source, especially in light of recent global events affecting energy supply chains.The Shift Towards Gas- Government Policy Changes: There is a notable shift in government policy regarding natural gas, with recent discussions highlighting the need to retain gas as a viable energy source. The Australian Energy Market Operator has included gas in its Integrated System Plan as essential for meeting future energy demands.- Market Opportunities: With global markets in flux, there is a unique opportunity for Australia to capitalize on its natural gas resources. However, this requires overcoming significant regulatory and logistical hurdles.The Role of Government PolicyThe effectiveness of energy policy is often dictated by the extent of government intervention. The recent gas reservation policy has raised concerns among industry stakeholders about its potential to stifle production and innovation in the gas sector. Moreover, the perception of government policies often influences public sentiment regarding energy projects.ConclusionThe energy transition in Australia presents both challenges and opportunities. As stakeholders navigate the complexities of renewable energy policies, it’s crucial to strike a balance between environmental sustainability and economic viability. The ongoing debates and developments will significantly shape the future of energy in the region.Key Takeaways- The establishment of Renewable Energy Zones faces significant hurdles, including community opposition and stalled projects.- Transitioning to renewable energy involves trade-offs that impact both the environment and the economy.- Natural gas remains essential in Australia’s energy strategy, but government policies must adapt to ensure its viability. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

In 2017, I left the ABC and walked down the corridor in Parliament House to begin again as political editor for Nine News.This was the first story I filed for Nine. At the time, my new bosses were a little bemused by it, but they humoured me.I don’t claim credit for the insight. I was convinced by the power of an argument I had heard from a man I had come to know well, former fighter pilot and retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO.In 2014, Blackburn authored a report for the NRMA warning that Australia’s fuel reserves were running on empty. This fossil fuel–rich island nation had lost the capacity to produce and refine its own fuel. We were dangerously dependent on imports. Our reserves were wafer thin.So thin that we were in breach of our obligations to the International Energy Agency.We counted fuel on tankers at sea as part of our stockpile.Nearly 90 per cent of the liquid fuel that kept this nation running came from overseas.Even then, the picture was clear. We were dangerously exposed in a world that was becoming less stable.Now the echo from the past is all too real. Today, that vulnerability is no longer theoretical.The Third Gulf War has choked off the oil that feeds the Asian refineries supplying this nation with diesel, petrol and jet fuel. Prices have spiked. The threat of rationing is real. Parts of regional Australia are already running on empty.We are hostage to long and fragile supply lines in a world now gripped by an energy war. Our economy depends on more than two massive tankers arriving on our shores every single day.If that flow is disrupted, even briefly, the consequences will be dire. Oil and gas underpin the price of everything. When they rise, everything rises.If supply stalls, road transport stops, shelves empty, and the economy collapses. This is a crisis we were warned about.This is what a just-in-time nation looks like when time runs out.So the question arises: will we learn the right lessons from this crisis?The lesson is simple.Fuel security is national security. We need to be far more self-sufficient in the fuels that keep this country running. We need to tap our vast resources of coal, oil and gas. We need to explore the possibilities of converting coal to liquid fuel. We need to explore for oil. We need more gas.Otherwise, the next shock will not just test our economy. It will test our sovereignty. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

Dr Oleksandra Molloy is not a soldier. But war has defined her work, reshaped her life, and heightened her fears for the West.A native of Kyiv, now based at the University of New South Wales, Molloy’s research has focused on aviation, emerging technologies, and the changing face of modern warfare. Her early work was on developing the skills of pilots.“I’ve been interested in aviation for a long time from different perspectives,” she told Powerlines.That fascination led her to drones. And nowhere has the war-fighting edge of that technology moved faster than in her birthplace, Ukraine. She has seen firsthand how large and small uncrewed systems are changing the nature of war.“The battlefield is monitored 24/7. It’s very hard to hide anywhere.”In Russia’s war on Ukraine, drone combat is constantly evolving and has shifted from large platforms to smaller, more agile ones.“We are no longer talking about the payload of 200 kilograms, but we are talking about a small, cheap, expendable drone that may be delivering a precise strike. Any large systems, including these big and sophisticated ones, have become obsolete, because anything that is moving 100 kilometers away can be easily detected and destroyed.”Drones have moved from the skies to the land.“Uncrewed ground vehicles have been one of those important assets at the front line. Why? Particularly for logistics purpose, but also for saving wounded soldiers from the front line and also for mining and demining.”At sea, Ukrainian systems have taken a heavy toll on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. And on June 1, Ukraine launched “Operation Spider’s Web,” using 117 drones smuggled into Russia to strike multiple airbases, destroying or damaging over 40 aircraft—including bombers and surveillance planes—in one of the war’s most audacious attacks. The operation, which inflicted an estimated $7 billion in damage, marked a new level of sophistication in Ukraine’s asymmetric drone warfare.“They have become a relatively cheap option for destroying multi-million and multi-billion dollar assets.”European nations are paying close attention to the war on their doorstep and are stepping up their spending on uncrewed systems.“Now there is a sense of urgency on how to develop the systems at scale. How to find the right capabilities, how to keep up with the Ukrainian forces in their development, and also how can we learn and gain that experience so we are able to protect ourselves.”But there is little evidence the Australian Defence Force has got the memo.“We don't often hear about the experience of the ADF Ukraine. We just need to keep up and see what actually matters on the battlefield.”Molloy says there is much to learn, but Australia must also consider the kind of theatre in which it will be operating.“Context matters. And understand how these systems could be integrated within our geographical location, within our capabilities and providing that additional support to legacy systems. We are surrounded by water, so obviously naval drone capabilities are very important. There has to be a balance between large and powerful systems and small and expendable ones. And most importantly, we need to invest into electronic warfare and counter drone capabilities to be able to defend our assets, our people, and our country. We need to develop the systems indigenously in Australia and spend the effort to develop that manufacturing base.”Right now, Australia is in a grey zone where the threat from China is driving a step-up in military spending but it lacks any sense of urgency. We should not waste that most precious of gifts.“The difference between Australia and Ukraine is we have time. We have time, we have resources, we have many talented people who actually are doing the work in this space and we need to really think how to leverage those resources.”China is not wasting time. Molloy says it is not just supplying drones and watching what is happening from the Russian trenches.“I think some of their instructors are actually participating in some operations, in Kursk and so forth, together with North Korean. There are orders by 2027 or 2026 to develop millions of those drones. And I think we need to watch what our potential adversaries are doing. And they are investing in these systems. They are also getting the real world experience from the battlefield. And I think that's a little bit scary.”Australia’s isolation has fed complacency, but a more dangerous world is on our doorstep and we need to rise to meet the times.“There is no longer peace mentality, and we really need to be concerned and prepare now to defend ourselves.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

Joe Hockey says it is time for governments to get out of the way of energy producers to allow industry to drive Australian productivity and help keep the nation wealthy.Speaking at the Australian Energy Producers conference in Brisbane, the former Treasurer and Ambassador to the United States said the country is drowning in regulation.“The cry of energy producers in Australia should be certainty. Give us certainty and stability and we can do the job. We can give Australians cheaper energy. We can give people of the world greater opportunity to consume our product. We can make Australia richer.”In his current role as principal of the consultancy group, Bondi Partners, Hockey has a ringside seat on the brutal global geopolitics now shaping energy policy. He is crystal clear about the stakes for Australia.“We are a major global exporter of energy. And we’ve got to keep facilitating that. It’s not just in our interest to export energy. It is in the interest of our region, the fastest growing region in the world. And if we do not continue to supply energy to our region and to the rest of the world, at our capacity, then it comes back on us in the form of global conflict. So we have a duty to continue to grow the oil and gas industry in Australia, to grow it for global consumption.”Yet, while we have plenty of energy, Australian industry and consumers are being crushed by domestic failures. Hockey lays the blame squarely on both major parties.“For a single parent in a one-bedroom apartment in Sydney and facing a 10 percent increase in their electricity bills, there’s just something wrong about it, and it’s unfair. And so we need to get domestic policy right. It’s self-reflection on politics in Australia when we’re talking about energy shortages, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, particularly over the next couple of years. That is a complete policy failure.”Meanwhile, the rest of the world, and above all the United States, is on the move. President Donald Trump wants an energy dominant America.“The starting point is every business that has exposure to a global market must have an understanding of what’s happening in Washington, D.C. I think there is such a strong link now between government and capital markets that you can’t be divorced from what’s happening in the United States. Because, as we see with volatility in capital markets or even volatility in the share market, so much of it comes down to geopolitical decisions and decisions made in Washington. I don’t think that’s going to change. I think we are going to continue to go through a very volatile period.”Trump’s view of power is simple and transactional. He is not bound by process, nor by the usual constraints of diplomacy or institutional tradition. Outcomes are what matter. He enjoys being a disruptor.“Whatever the end is, he’ll justify the means.”He sees global and domestic politics as inseparable, and at the heart of both is energy and what Americans pay for it.“When Donald Trump talks about increasing energy supply in the United States, he’s focused on meeting demand. The massive demand associated with Artificial Intelligence infrastructure, which represents the most significant challenge to the world in our lifetimes, is the growth, the rapid growth of AI and what that’s going to mean for ourselves and our children.”Australia should beware of going out on a limb. While we chase ever more ambitious emissions targets, the rest of the world is pivoting hard toward cheap, abundant energy.“Front of mind is affordability of life for everyday citizens. Cost of living is the number one issue. Wherever I go, it is the number one issue.”And the cost of government is now unsustainable. Feckless Western governments have been spending too much, are running out of money, and are resorting to bad policy to plug the gaps by taxing more and regulating more, rather than doing the hard work of driving productivity and growth.“We need to get back to some basic principles that if you have less regulation, if you have less onerous taxes and less tax, then you are more likely to grow your economy and, importantly, be able to meet the needs of everyday citizens on a more regular basis.”Do not expect Trump to follow this advice. Hockey says the great big bill the President is driving will send US government spending soaring and push the deficit higher in the years ahead.“He doesn’t care about that deficit. Let’s be honest about it. He hasn’t throughout his career. He is focused on creating wealth, on generating wealth, rather than focusing on how to get there. And that’s so much a story of Donald Trump, which people do not understand. Focus on his outcomes rather than his process.”But the margins for error are narrow.I think it’s entirely feasible that the United States does go into recession, which can have a material impact right around the world.”Hockey sees the world as an increasingly dangerous place. And centre stage is the fraught relationship between Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping. On that front, Hockey is more optimistic.“Well, they both need each other. That’s the point. And they both know that they need each other. They’re also fully aware that their economies are intertwined. You cannot decouple China from the United States. In fact, in the last readout of data, China increased exports to the United States. And I think it will resolve itself, you know, the tariff issue between the US and China will resolve itself.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

From a ringside seat in Australian government departments, David Pearl watched the nation lurch from rational economic policymaking into what he calls “a moral panic.”Pearl’s experience is broad: he is a former senior Treasury official, economic adviser to a future Labor Prime Minister, and a diplomat posted to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at the dawn of global climate talks.In different roles, he saw governments wrestle with some of the greatest challenges of our time: the global financial crisis, COVID-19, and climate change. He learned that good intentions don’t always lead to good outcomes, that government can do as much harm as good, and that consensus can be a dangerous thing.Climate policy, he argues, has replaced religious faith. And those who dissent — even mildly — are cast as apostates.His message is deeply unfashionable in Canberra: Net Zero is failing, global coordination is a fantasy, and climate policy has reversed the moral order, “under the guise of morality.”“It’s beyond ironic that the modern-day climate policy agenda amounts to a massive transfer from the poor to the rich.”Australia’s early position in international climate negotiations, Pearl explains, was pragmatic. Because of our growing population and resource-intensive economy, we secured the right to increase emissions by 12 percent under the Kyoto Protocol.That pragmatism evaporated after the landmark 2006 report for the UK government penned by economist Nicholas Stern. It argued that the economic costs of inaction on climate change would far exceed the costs of taking early and aggressive action to reduce emissions. Pearl recalls the moment well:“It triggered a bizarre moral panic across the Western world where climate change ceased to be seen as an economic issue… and became a moral crusade.”Though the economics of the Stern Review were sharply criticised — most notably by Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus — its political effect was profound.Pearl even admits to writing the first line in the Labor Government’s incoming brief that climate change was “perhaps the most significant economic and political challenge of our time” — a flourish he added to attract attention. New Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seized on it, added the word “moral,” and made it central to his public platform.“It may have been the reason he ultimately fell.”Today, Pearl says, Net Zero is unattainable without enforceable global commitments — which do not exist. The United States, China, India, and Russia have no intention of hitting the target.“Absent that international regime, the only rational response is adaptation. We’re doing entirely the wrong thing, that will have absolutely no effect on the problem.”He draws a damning historical parallel: Net Zero is modern-day temperance. Like Prohibition, it’s driven by zealotry, cloaks public policy in moral absolutes, and fuels hypocrisy and corruption. And it was futile.“Everybody kept drinking. Everybody’s going to keep generating emissions.”Worse, he says, Net Zero is not merely ineffective — it has become an industry. A class of green grifters now profits from policies that don’t achieve their stated goals.Pearl sees parallels with the indulgence economy of the medieval Catholic Church. Offsets and emissions-neutral labels are bought like spiritual pardons. Being seen to be involved in “climate action” becomes an end in itself.“It’s the indulgence that matters, not the climate outcome.”As a career public servant, he’s scathing about how policy advice has been captured by ideology. He describes how Treasury — once a ‘debating society’ — has become an orthodoxy factory. Those who worked on climate programs a decade ago have been rewarded for their faith.“We have people in very senior positions in our bureaucracy who are passionate climate zealots and completely incapable of applying a rational cost-benefit lens.”Pearl sees the same pattern across the major crises he’s worked on — from the financial crisis to COVID: government positioning itself as the cure for all ills. The greatest danger in the bureaucracy, he warns, is rewarding people for thinking like everyone else. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

Jennifer Parker’s assessment of Australia’s strategic vulnerability is brutally simple: to defeat us, you don’t need to set foot on our soil; just cut our sea-based supply lines.Parker speaks from the experience of a naval officer who served in the South China Sea, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and at the heart of maritime operations.In a wide-ranging interview for Power Lines, Parker offered a blunt assessment of Australia’s maritime readiness in a world where the chance of war is rising.“Do people understand that Australia is an island nation? That it’s the fifth-largest user of international shipping? We’re wholly dependent on imports and exports. Ninety-nine percent of our international trade passes through the maritime domain. We import 91 percent of our fuel.”The idea that Australia could be isolated into submission is not new. But Parker is a powerful voice warning just how little we’ve done to prepare for it. When China’s navy recently circumnavigated Australia and conducted live-fire exercises off our coast—the first such act by a non-ally since World War II—Australia’s Navy couldn’t keep up because our supply ships were in dry dock. Even if they were seaworthy, it’s not enough. “The Australian Navy currently has two auxuliary replenishment vessels. To refuel, provide fuel and amunition to keep ships at sea longer, so they don’t need to go into a port. What that means is you will not have a tanker available 365 days a year.”The gaps go further. Mine warfare capability is outdated. Maritime patrols are stretched. And Australia has just 15 Australian-flagged merchant vessels—none large enough to carry much cargo.“In World War II, we requisitioned local ships to move fuel and supplies. We couldn’t do that now.”The 2020 Defence Strategic Update removed the assumption that Australia would have ten years of warning before a major conflict. But that urgent message met a complacent response.“We're five years in now. And we’ve barely progressed on most of the priorities the 2020 structure plan identified.”Part of the problem, Parker believes, is Australia’s comfortable isolation.“I don’t think Australians can truly contemplate what conflict in our region looks like. We still imagine it as something that happens far away, something we choose to join or not.”That complacency also extends to our political leaders, who are not acting with the urgency the circumstances demand.“I don’t think you can genuinely believe that we’re facing the most serious strategic circumstances since World War II and then fail to invest in defence the way we need to.”And everyone needs a change of mindset. Parker is calling for a fully integrated national maritime strategy. One that includes:* Submarines and surface combatants* Maritime-focused Army and Air Force roles* Fuel resilience and supply chain continuity* A strategic merchant fleet* A proper Coast Guard* Civil mobilisation plans and national stockpilesParker offers a measured response to the mecurial nature of US President Donald Trump and fears that he may damage our most significant alliance.“We can’t delegate our entire defence to a major power. We need a degree of self-reliance, even within the alliance. We need the capability to conduct certain missions on our own.”It’s a sobering message. But Parker is no alarmist. Her call is not to panic—but to plan. And that starts with honesty.“Number one is having a clearer conversation with the Australian people about the threat.”Above all, she argues, we must start thinking differently. Not like a nation that assumes it will be rescued. Not like a people who believe geography is defence. But like an island nation whose survival depends on what can sail in—and what can sail out.As Parker says:“I don’t think conflict is inevitable, but I think it’s increasingly likely…. The echidna needs to swim.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

The Albanese government’s failure to hold a Royal Commission into Australia’s response to COVID-19 will leave a historic stain on its record.We lost the opportunity to shine a bright light on the worst crisis the nation has faced this century. We lost the chance to test what worked and what didn’t. It is a betrayal of a future generation, in defence of today’s politicians, doctors, and bureaucrats.Instead, Labor opted for a limited, stage-managed inquiry that specifically excluded the actions of state governments—the very jurisdictions responsible for the longest and harshest lockdowns. There will be no public accounting for border closures. No scrutiny of the health bureaucrats who became, briefly and disastrously, unelected premiers. No spotlight shone on the world’s longest lockdowns, or on curfews that we now know were imposed on a political whim.Dr Nick Coatsworth was on the frontline and says one thing was always true:“In a pandemic where nobody is immune, the disease will come through the community. It is not a matter of if, it’s when.”He should know. As one of Australia’s most prominent medical figures during the pandemic—serving as Deputy Chief Medical Officer—Coatsworth was both inside the tent and, increasingly, outside the consensus. He supported the early national response, but what followed was a descent into risk-averse groupthink that lost all sense of balance.“COVID zero had a very, very long tail. And it was that tail that caused the harm.”He believes a key reason states like Victoria and Western Australia resorted to long lockdowns and border closures was because the premiers knew their health systems couldn’t cope with any kind of crisis.“The Western Australian health system will blow over in a sneeze… and I think Mark McGowan knew that, and that's why he tried to keep the virus out for so long.”Coatsworth reflects on healthcare through professional experience and a deeply personal lens. He believes modern medicine too often confuses care with cash.So I don't hold much truck with the clinicians who say, "Just give us more money." Not a solution. You've got to spend your money in a more wise and judicious fashion.His critique extends far beyond COVID. On health economics, Coatsworth is devastatingly frank:“Almost all new medical technology—the benefit to the patient is overstated.”He is not arguing for less investment in healthcare. He is arguing for smarter, focused spending. He says the National Preventive Health Strategy’s modest goal of adding two years of healthy lifespan by 2030 should be used to assess value.He is equally blunt on the political failure of the Coalition to counter Labor’s Medicare scare campaigns:“Labor has them on ground that they are uncomfortable with, and they're not even on the battlefield.”Other uncomfortable conversations are being avoided. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is collapsing under the weight of its own good intentions and mission creep—by covering too many children with learning and behavioural disorders.“How much leakage do you have from what's going to be a $68 billion program in order to get to the people you actually want to target?”Throughout our conversation, one theme keeps returning: the immaturity of our public debate. He paid the price for dissent when he challenged the COVID Zero orthodoxy.“Academics wrote to the Australian National University asking for my clinical academic title to be revoked… and that was all because I committed the mortal sin of calling people Zoom professors.”We now live in a time when an unorthodox truth is treated as dangerous heresy. But it is our refusal to have difficult conversations that is truly dangerous. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

In late October 2023, while filming the documentary Forged in Fire, I sat down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.Our director/producer/cameraman, Michael Fardell, had asked the president’s office if he could do as much of the interview as possible in English, as we wanted him to speak directly to an Australian audience. His office was reluctant. This was no small ask because English is the president’s third language. Giving a prepared speech in it is one thing; making himself clear in an interview is another. The decision was left up to the president.I decided to post this today because of the images that emerged overnight of Zelensky sitting down with US President Donald Trump at the Pope’s funeral in Rome. It is good to see and, hopefully, some good can come of it. In their last, disastrous, meeting in the White House, Trump told Zelensky he had “no cards to play” in his nation’s war against Russia.One of the reasons I found the White House confrontation so jarring was because I had seen Zelensky struggle to make himself plain in English. Imagine yourself in the same position when the stakes are so high. Imagine the frustration of trying to make yourself understood.And I wondered if Trump had ever asked Zelensky why he, and his people, continue to fight, given in Trump’s view the cause is hopeless.In the interview for Forged in Fire, Zelensky put it this way:“What is a life? What is a life without any freedom, any rights, any democracy? When you can’t say what you want. Can’t choose how to live. What is it? It’s nothing.”Freedom. That’s some card. Some might call it a trump.The day after the interview with Zelensky we travelled to Borodyanka, about 50 kilometers northwest of Kyiv, which was heavily damaged during the first phase of Russia’s invasion in early 2022 and became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance and suffering. It was here we saw the Banksy mural of a young gymnast performing a handstand on the rubble of a bombed-out building.So, hope hides in surprising places. We hope and pray for a just peace in Ukraine.You can see our documentary here:What follows was written in early 2024. Much has changed since then. Much stays the same.The trouble with television gear is that so much of it looks like a rocket launcher or a bomb when viewed through a security monitor.So getting 13 cases of it through presidential security is trying anywhere in the world, but in Ukraine the degree of difficulty stepped up a tier. There, for the first time, the tedious routine came with the overpowering sense that it was essential to bar the door to a mortal danger lurking outside.It was late October and our documentary crew had driven to the same government office in the heart of Kyiv for three days in a row to interview officials and the First Lady, Olena Zelenska.Inside was a shadow world. This once-grand building had life and light sucked out of it by war. The darkness built sandbag by sandbag, piled high against the windows. The second floor was almost pitch black, with only an essential few lights battling the gloom.On the top floor we set up in front of a sweeping staircase, guarded by two soldiers who had radiation alarms clipped to their belts. Radioactive poison, after all, is a hallmark of their enemy.When a light on the elevator indicated it had been locked off on the ground floor, it signalled our elusive interviewee was on his way.Volodymyr Zelensky stepped out of the lift alone, wearing a familiar black skivvy with a subtle touch of blue and gold on the collar, and green combat-style pants. He had agreed to speak in English as we wanted him to talk directly to an Australian audience, half a world away. His message was simple: our nations were united by common values.“You are closer than you think,” the Ukrainian president said. “During the war, there were a lot of countries who are closer than you to us but they didn't come to support our people.”Whether you believe Australia should support Ukraine depends on whether you think this is a regional conflict or a frontline in the battle between tyranny and democracy. If it is a local war, then who wins matters little here. But if it is the tip of the spear in a fight over which worldview will define the 21st century, then what happens to Ukraine is vital to us.In Vladimir Putin’s telling, Russia was provoked by the expansion of NATO towards his borders. It is a view that has traction here and in significant parts of the Republican Party in the United States. It is an argument I have heard directly from an adviser to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.In his words, Russia complied with every US demand in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, including abandoning its key listening post in Cuba, the “crown jewels” of its signals intelligence gathering. That, he said, was done on the understanding that NATO would keep its distance from Moscow — an agreement the US and Europe reneged on.Putin laid out his grievance in a 2007 speech in Munich where he described the expansion of NATO as “a serious provocation.” The adviser told me he was in a closed-door meeting at that conference where a furious Putin told EU leaders, “You are forcing me into the arms of China, which is unnatural to me.”But to accept this line means ignoring Putin’s 5,000-word pre-war essay, where he argued that Ukraine did not exist as a real nation. To buttress this, he rewound history to the 9th century and the shared heritage of Kievan Rus — an era that predates his grievance with NATO by a millennium. In it, Putin declared: “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.”Putin has described the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and is bent on rebuilding a Tsarist Empire. His imperial ambition is embedded in the ideology of Russkii Mir (“Russian World”), aimed at exerting influence over states Moscow deems fall within its remit.Speak to officials from the Baltic States and they have no doubt Moscow’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has accused Russia of waging a “shadow war” against the West.So far, Australia and a Western alliance have stood with Ukraine, while Iran, North Korea and China stand with Russia. Beijing’s closeness to Moscow was underlined with a recent rare hug between a Chinese leader and a Russian president. They are now, quite literally, in each other's arms.Putin and Xi Jinping share the same view of the West: that it is decadent, divided and in terminal decline. They believe their era is at hand and mean to take what they claim is rightfully theirs. That means reordering the world to make it a safe place for tyrants.Recall that the Chinese Communist Party claims Taiwan — a country the Party has never ruled. Its illegal annexation of the South China Sea is based on a false claim that dates back to “ancient times.” It also has a diaspora of 40 million, referred to as the “Overseas Chinese,” from whom it expects loyalty.Dictators can never rest until they gain a foothold in your mind. As Xi strives towards his “China Dream,” the first pain falls on his own people, who already live in a surveillance state. It will get worse as the demands from the rising Middle Kingdom ripple outward. Xi’s dream demands all criticism of him and the Party be silenced, at home and abroad. It demands that tribute states, like Australia, be separated from old alliances and live in the box that Beijing builds.There have been countless failures by the United States and its allies in the handling of world affairs since the end of the last Cold War. But the deepest failure with tyrants like Putin and Xi is a failure of imagination — a failure to understand that their ambitions for the world cannot be reconciled with the one we would like to live in. Europe could not imagine another war. And war came.I have been close enough to the frontline of that war to know what it looks like. It looks like Mordor. The loss of life is immaterial to someone like Putin because, in a dictatorship, only one life and one opinion count.We are closer than we think to that war. A Russian victory would be a body blow to anyone, anywhere, who craves freedom. It would encourage Beijing in its quest to take Taiwan.War has clarified what is essential to Zelensky.“What is life?” he told us. “Without any freedom. Any rights. Any democracy. When you can’t [say] what you want. Can’t choose how to live. What is it? It is nothing.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

Earlier this year, I spoke with Dr. Bjorn Peters—a physicist-turned-energy economist who once believed in the promise of Germany’s energy revolution. Back in 2008, as a senior adviser in Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, Peters helped direct billions of euros into wind and solar projects.But the deeper he looked, the more sceptical he became about the wisdom of building an electricity grid around weather-dependent generators.“It means decentralized energy production, but not decentralized energy supply. And that’s one of those very fundamental flaws in thinking that led us astray.”Wind and solar are intermittent and highly correlated. They flood the grid in fair weather, then vanish together in cloudy stillness. On their own, they will never deliver 24/7 power. And there is still no economical way to store electricity at the scale and duration needed to keep a modern industrial society running.🔗 IEA – Grid Stability and StorageIt’s why Germany has exported a new word: Dunkelflaute—“the dark doldrums”—describing periods when there is little sun and no wind across large regions, sometimes for days or even weeks.🔗 DunkelflauteAt such times, all of the vastly distributed energy gatherers need a 100 percent backup from gas, coal or energy imports. And what’s true in Germany is true always and everywhere. So what was sold as a bold vision has become a cautionary tale.The Anti-Nuclear CrusadePeters corrected me when I suggested the policy began with good intentions. He explained it started in the 1970s, driven by the anti-nuclear politics of the Green movement. The aim was not to decarbonise, but to dismantle powerful, state-run utilities—and that meant shutting down nuclear power. That exercise in national self-harm that is now complete.“The targets of the energy transition were much more about social change than climate policy. That’s why they phased out nuclear first—something you can’t explain to anyone nowadays.”What followed was predictable. And devastating.Germany has now spent more than €700 billion—over a trillion Australian dollars—trying to reinvent its power system.🔗 Germany's EnergiewendeThe outcome?* Electricity prices among the highest in Europe.🔗 Eurostat 2023* Industrial decline, with companies fleeing Germany.🔗 BASF and chemical sector cuts* Emissions per kilowatt-hour much higher than in nuclear-powered France.🔗 [IEA 2022 – France vs Germany power sector emissions]* And a shift from power exporter to net importer—buying nuclear energy from France after shutting down its own fleet.🔗 Germany becomes power importerGermany’s grid shopfront was green, but its industrial engine ran on Russian gas. When the invasion of Ukraine cut that supply, the facade cracked—and the fragility of the system was exposedPowerlines is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free subscriber or a donor..Industry Stayed SilentPeters sees this not just as a policy failure, but a failure of courage.“Because of this element of fear, the industry leaders didn’t dare to speak up—or did it in the wrong way. They communicated much more to their peers, but not to the broader public.”Politicians, meanwhile, remain wedded to illusions. But change might be coming.A study shows that several of Germany’s shuttered nuclear plants could be restarted—two with minimal effort, and seven more with moderate investment. The economics are compelling: a typical plant generates around €1 million a day in profit.🔗 Nuclear Restart Potential in GermanyPeters helped launch the “Nuclear Pride Coalition” in 2018 and believes public opinion is shifting. 🔗 YouGov Germany – Nuclear support polling, 2023Net Zero a Road to NowhereMost of Europe, the UK, and Australia continue to pursue decarbonisation at great cost. But the world’s biggest emitters—China, Russia, India, and the United States—have no intention of following the same timeline.So Peters believes this all points to one end.“These types of climate policies with their fallacies are not sustainable.”Dr. Bjorn Peters:🔗 linkedin.com/in/björn-peters-5996777b This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

“Hope is not a strategy.” With that one line, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo cuts to the heart of Australia’s strategic complacency. In a wide-ranging interview for Powerlines, Pezzullo lays out a devastating account of how successive governments have failed to prepare the nation for a far more perilous world.The warnings were there. In 2009, Pezzullo led the drafting of a Defence White Paper that recognised the accelerating militarisation of China — a build-up that “could only have one purpose... to give themselves the option to take on the Americans militarily.” That paper proposed a significant naval expansion, including a new class of 12 submarines. “By 2030,” Pezzullo says, “we would have had a force getting close to 12.” Instead, the plan was shelved after then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was toppled in 2010, and a decade of political churn followed. The result? A nation without a functioning deterrent. When three Chinese warships recently sailed around Australia and conducted a live-fire drill in the Tasman Sea — the first shots fired by a non-ally in that region since the Japanese in the 1940s — Pezzullo says the most likely explanation is chilling: “It probably was a rehearsal for a wartime combat operation.” And Australia was unable to track them with its own navy because, he notes, “our two floating petrol stations are both broken at the moment.”Worse, Pezzullo reveals that we now lack basic defensive capabilities. “We have no mine countermeasures capability.” If an adversary mined our ports, we’d have to “call someone... to clear out a channel into our harbour.” On missile defense, the story is just as bleak: “We have no interceptors.”Some weapons of war already lurk, invisibly, inside our borders. “Pre-positioned malware... designed to be animated, to be activated so that you take down critical infrastructure. Water, power, energy, air traffic control.” The next war, he warns, may start with a blackout.“And then ships start exploding off one of our ports.”Pezzullo does not believe war is imminent, but says it is prudent to plan for the “reasonable worst case scenario.” He calls for a complete reimagining of Australia’s strategic posture. We must be able to “hold out,” as Britain did in 1940 — with a population and a policy prepared to endure. We must be equipped to defend ourselves, on our own.“We should not expect anyone else to shed their blood in our direct defence… if we're not prepared to shed our own blood.”He urges investment in civil defense, energy resilience, cyber security, missile interception, and industrial self-reliance. Pointing to Sweden’s public campaign preparing citizens for conflict, he asks: “Could you imagine the government here... launching a pamphlet on civil defense called ‘If War Were to Come’?”It’s a warning from a man who’s spent a lifetime in the engine room of the state and who recognised threats before others did. Australia has been told. Whether it listens now is a test not just of government, but of national character. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

As Australians head toward a federal election, former Senate president and High Commissioner to Canada Scott Ryan offers a measured but clear-eyed assessment: the old certainties in Australian politics are breaking down — and the international order that once underpinned them may not return.In a wide-ranging interview, Ryan provided a granular, state-by-state breakdown of the electoral battleground. He sees Victoria as central to any hope the Coalition has of forming government — a state where the Labor government is deeply unpopular, but the Liberal Party remains at historic lows.New South Wales is just as complex. In outer-metropolitan seats and areas with significant Muslim populations, new dynamics are at play — including the rise of faith-aligned independent candidates whose preference flows could prove decisive. Ryan notes that the two-party preferred metric is becoming less useful in an election increasingly shaped by minor parties and independents.Queensland, once the Coalition’s power base, is now home to rising Greens strength in inner-Brisbane, volatile regional contests, and a landscape that looks more fractured than ever. He sees Tasmania, South Australia, and the Northern Territory as largely status quo contests, while warning that even a small national swing could push Labor into minority — though a Coalition majority would require a historically large shift.Ryan believes we are entering a long era of fragile governments. Major party loyalty is declining, electoral volatility is rising, and preference flows — especially from the Greens to Labor — are becoming kingmakers.“Winning primary votes is no longer enough,” he says.He ties this fracturing at home to a wider story abroad. Ryan reflects on his early political awakening during Victoria’s early-1990s recession, where his father’s job loss taught him how policy decisions shape real lives. That experience led him to embrace the potential of reform — and he credits Australia’s success in liberalising its economy during the 1980s and ’90s without widespread social breakdown to a balance of free-market reform and social equity mechanisms like HECS and Medicare.Ryan then shifts focus to the broader collapse of the postwar order, especially in light of Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. In Canada, where he served as High Commissioner, Trump’s return has completely overturned a 20-point Conservative lead and resurrected the Liberal Party, thanks to tariff threats and a new sense of vulnerability in U.S.-Canada relations.He warns that Trump’s economic nationalism has direct implications for Australia, with our major trading partners all subject to high U.S. tariffs (although, of course, this changes by the day). More broadly, Ryan sees the unravelling of the rules-based order as a turning point: if America can no longer be counted on, Asia’s middle powers — including Australia — may be forced to look elsewhere. And China, he notes, is already filling the vacuum.Still, he ends on a note of cautious national pride: Australia, he says, has absorbed mass migration, resolved sectarian divides, and built a strong, flexible political culture.But the test of that resilience — at home and abroad — may be just beginning. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au

“We're supposed to go along with shutting down our energy sector, shutting down our natural resources.”In February, I sat down with former Canadian Conservative leader Candice Bergen, who detailed the absurdity at the heart of Canada’s politics: a government scorning the very resources that made the nation wealthy. It’s a story that should resonate in Australia, because we’re following the same script.Bergen says that before 2015, Canada had a thriving oil and gas industry. Investment was strong, jobs were plentiful, and energy exports were a pillar of the economy. Then Justin Trudeau came to power. His government declared war on fossil fuels — imposing a federal carbon tax, cancelling major pipeline projects, and introducing legislation so hostile to development it became known as the “No More Pipelines Bill.” One partially built pipeline was nationalised using taxpayer money. Hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment fled to the United States.Between 2015 and last year, Canada’s per capita Gross Domestic Product grew at just 0.4% annually, productivity flatlined, business investment collapsed, and the nation’s income fell from 80% of U.S. levels to just 70% — a wealthy country shrinking itself and declaring it a virtue.And the energy industry bosses? They caved.“They almost immediately had Stockholm syndrome and started to go along with the government,” Bergen told me. “We had the CEOs of the five major oil companies stand up and say, ‘Yes, we think a carbon tax is a good thing, and you’re right — we are kind of dirty, aren’t we?’ Then they would come to [Conservative politicians] and say, ‘We can’t say it, but would you please stand up and defend us?’”So now, a country rich in resources imports oil on one coast, bans exports from the other, and penalises the very people who keep it running — farmers, truckers, miners, and energy workers.When this interview was filmed, the Conservatives had entered the election year riding high in the polls. Trudeau had been forced to stand down, and his Liberal Party was in the process of installing former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, Mark Carney, as leader. Carney is now Prime Minister and the election is afoot.I raised the prospect that President Donald Trump’s attacks on Canada might damage the Conservative cause, and Bergen agreed she was worried about it. So it proved to be.Despite Trudeau’s resignation — and the dumping of the consumer carbon tax — the Liberal Party is now resurgent. Fuelled by a backlash against threats and taunts from the U.S. President, the Liberals have turned the election into a referendum on “Canada vs Trump.” The Conservative surge has stalled.“The Liberals are quite happy to have this conflict with Donald Trump,” Bergen said. “When any country is threatened by anyone, the majority of its citizens don't like it.”The same dynamic is now playing into Australia’s federal election, as an aggressive and unpredictable ally takes aim at friends and foes alike.But Bergen’s central message — of a resource-rich country run by people who think resources are embarrassing — still stands. Canada and Australia are voluntarily surrendering prosperity and sovereignty to satisfy a global carbon-cutting agenda that major emitters like China and the U.S. are ignoring.Canada is not a warning to Australia. It’s a mirror. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.powerlines.au