The Teal Independents, once hailed as the fresh face of Australian politics, have increasingly shown themselves to be more concerned with appeasing a small, privileged group than with addressing the nation’s pressing energy issues.
While they present themselves as champions of environmental sustainability and social equity, their policies increasingly reveal a troubling contradiction, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, ignoring the true ecological cost of their renewable-only agenda, and burdening taxpayers without providing lasting solutions to Australia’s energy crisis.
Take Allegra Spender’s $3.7 billion battery subsidy plan. On the surface, this proposal sounds like a progressive step forward – subsidising home battery systems for Australian households to reduce electricity costs and combat climate change. But when you dig deeper, it becomes clear that the beneficiaries of this scheme will not be struggling families or low-income Australians; rather, it will be affluent homeowners in wealthy areas who already have the means to install solar panels and energy storage systems.
The premise behind Spender’s plan is that taxpayers will fund zero-interest loans for homeowners to install batteries, with the idea that this will lower electricity costs for everyday Australians. But in practice, the reality is far from equitable. How many lower-income homeowners, renters or people living in strata buildings can afford to invest in solar panels or battery systems? And will the millions of Australians in rural and regional areas who face sky-high energy bills, have access to the same renewable energy upgrades?
In effect, this policy may force everyday taxpayers to foot the bill for the energy upgrades of the privileged few.
We need only look to other countries for evidence that home batteries alone are insufficient to solve the energy crisis. In California, for example, taxpayers have poured substantial subsidies into home battery systems in the hopes of avoiding power outages, only to face rolling blackouts during heatwaves when renewable energy generation fell short. Similarly, in Germany, where home battery storage has been heavily subsidised, the country remains reliant on coal and imported energy when renewable energy generation dips.
Other Teals like Monique Ryan, Member for Kooyong, and Zoe Daniel, Member for Goldstein, have also championed ‘simplistic policies’ that seem to promise equity and sustainability but ultimately miss the mark. They call for greater investment in renewables and electric vehicles, but their approach largely ignores the fact that these technologies alone cannot yet provide the reliable, affordable energy needed to support the country’s industries and families and fails to address the gaps in renewable energy infrastructure that threaten grid stability.
Unfortunately, their stance will force state governments to extend the life of coal plants even further as they scramble to maintain reliable power and keep industries running. While they claim to be progressive, they ignore the position of major data centres and AI companies like Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, which have been clear that nuclear is essential to meeting the rapidly growing demand for secure, abundant energy. Without nuclear, Australia risks deterring investment, undermining its energy security, and falling behind in global competitiveness.
But the inequity of the Teals energy policies is just the tip of the iceberg. The environmental claims underpinning the Teals’ entire renewable-only vision are equally flawed. The Teals, who claim to be committed to environmental sustainability, turn a blind eye to the destruction of our landscape and forests in Northern Queensland.
They also turn their back on clean, globally proven technologies like nuclear power: they have uniformly adopted the tired and overused argument that nuclear energy takes too long to develop, a line that has long been favoured by the anti-nuclear movement.
This raises the question: do all of the Teals genuinely share the same ideological stance on energy as their unelected leader, or is there more to their position? Their stance on nuclear energy seems to be more of a ‘party line’ than a matter of personal conviction. Deep down, they must recognise that the renewables-only ideology they advocate is unsustainable, a fragile structure poised to collapse under scrutiny.
In France, nuclear energy has played a key role in creating one of the world’s lowest-carbon electricity grids while simultaneously ensuring energy security and affordability. Similarly, the United Kingdom has recognised the limitations of relying solely on renewable energy and is actively revising its energy strategy to incorporate nuclear power. Nuclear is not only a clean, reliable power source, but it can also complement intermittent renewable generation, ensuring that energy is available when it’s needed most. But the Teals refuse to consider nuclear as part of their energy mix, despite its proven success in countries like France and the UK.
The truth is Australians are tired of virtue signalling. They want leaders who take bold, pragmatic action on energy security, cost of living, and climate change. The Teals’ renewable-only vision may sound appealing, but in reality, it is expensive, inequitable, economically regressive and environmentally flawed. By backing technologies that fail to achieve meaningful emissions reductions while opposing those that can, the Teals are actively prolonging higher emissions and worsening the climate situation. This will be their legacy.
Australia needs a balanced energy strategy – one that includes nuclear as a reliable, low-emission source to ensure stable, affordable power. It’s time for a new approach – one that embraces all energy options, including nuclear, to build a system that works for everyone.
Cristina Talacko CEO – Coalition for Conservation
www.coalitionforconservation.com.au
president@coalitionforconservation.com.au