This is a common theme in climate alarmist and renewable opportunist talking points: that national governments ‘investing’ massive amounts of money in the short to medium term will lead to ‘cheaper’ energy for their populations at some point in the future, usually with no clear reference to baseline scenarios or comparisons to other pathways, one of which would be doing nothing other than ensuring a level playing field and letting the markets decide which energy sources are developed and utilized at any given place and point in time (another pathway where we ‘invest’ in fossil fuels instead involves a tropical paradise Earth filled with stronger, healthier and more educated humans from all continents living in green, fertile cities built on former icy wastelands and deserts and travelling around in flying cars). But we digress…

So, trying not to be too longwinded, the central ideas are:

  • individual governments should spend many billions of dollars of taxpayer money on new renewable energy projects that will one day in the not too distant future somehow deliver ‘lower’ energy prices to those same taxpayers (no further questions)
  • by spending this money, the government will somehow achieve a ‘better’ future climate than would otherwise be the case, even though no explanations (beyond the near mythical concept of ‘working towards net zero’ and ‘contributing to the Paris Agreement’), detailed calculations or feasible theories about how one country’s individual actions will alter the global climate in a positive way are ever provided

Notice the problem?

It’s a bit like being forced to commit an extra $100k you don’t have to upgrade your car to a highly fuel efficient BMW so you can one day have slightly lower fuel costs (alongside being able to feel good about your ‘contribution’ to a ‘better’ future global climate…)

So, what if you just don’t spend the many billions in the first place, what might happen then?

Well, there wouldn’t be that illusory feelgood factor, I must admit, but then again I can also assure you that the world won’t end in some hellish mega-hurricane-fuelled wildfire…

Beyond that it’s mostly as simple as it seems: taxpayers (including many currently in energy poverty) would not have spent all (well almost all) of that money on taxes (of all types) and would instead have been able to use it for other dalliances, including their ongoing energy bills – you know, the kinds of things that ensure that kids have enough food, access to educational aids, light globes, etc. etc.

Yes yes some will say “oh but private investment will be matching government spending” and to that we simply say:

1- “no matter how much private investment comes in, there will still be a major proportion coming from taxpayers, plus all the bureaucracy and opportunities for corruption that come with it

2- why doesn’t private investment just fund it entirely in the first place, if the ideas are so good, given the future “cheaper” energy will clearly win all the market share and be a fantastic success?…

Others will say “but but but fossil fuels already get sooo many subsidies as well” and, without getting into an argument about subsidies, to that we say “this site (and most proponents of traditional energy sources) has never encouraged subsidising fossil fuels so please just go ahead and remove them for all players in the market, level the playing field, and we’ll all see what is the best mix for humanity’s growing energy requirements.”

In the article referenced below the amount that Australian renewables zealots want is a cool $165 billion over eight years, which for a population of roughly 25 million works out at $6600/person, so perhaps $20,000 to $30,000 per household.

OK, so what if they just forget about recklessly distorting the energy market in an unscientific, unhinged and un-effing-believable bid to save future humanity and instead left all of that money to, you know, the people, AKA present humanity?…

I don’t know about you, but a $20-30k tax saving for my household over eight years would take many decades to be offset by ‘cheaper’ (which is highly unlikely) future energy bills… And what do they sat about a bird in the hand?… But maybe that’s just me.

At the end of the day voters, taxpayers and governments are gonna do what they’re gonna do, and we just hope (and are doing out best to ensure) that doesn’t involve using squillions of dollars of taxpayer money to distort markets in a bid to try to somehow positively alter the future global climate without any guarantees, successful models to follow or any semblance of a good track record… And, ultimately, with a high probability of complete failure, not to mention the very real potential to make matters considerably worse for the majority of people.

It’s just a hunch, but when it comes to dealing with the global climate we feel that people should be able to put their own money to use as they see fit, according to their own interests, and not those of government bureaucrats, politicians and the global elite…

You know, like buying a new heater to get through a cold winter, a new air conditioner to get through a warm summer, or a new generator to keep the power on when the wind stops blowing and the sun ain’t shining…

But, alas, such economic freedoms will likely remain a far off dream for most in the face of globalist and socialist-inspired central planning that has clearly been just so, so effective and efficient throughout history, while government-mandated investments with almost no financial accountability are too tempting a chance to pass up…

And don’t even get us started on the usefulness of central planning’s little sister, global climate agreements


Australia needs to spend $165bn to rapidly decarbonise grid, but we’ll be better for it – Renew Economy


“For Australia, Arcadis has estimated that $165 billion would need to be spent on new clean energy projects over the next eight years if Australia is to put itself on a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. This capital expenditure would include $110 billion in new investment on new solar, wind and hydroelectricity projects, with an additional $55 billion in new transmission and distribution network infrastructure.”