The Year of Climate Backsliding, Part One: Australia

For the briefest of moments in November last year, it was almost as if Australia was on the edge of doing something good in the world. All the pre-conditions were there at COP30 in Belém, Brazil: Australia had been in competition with Turkey to host COP31. Turkey would end up with the hosting rights, but Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris Bowen would take on the role of COP President for Negotiations. Bowen, who had been quietly courted by previous COP presidents for the role, would be overseeing the complex dance of international negotiations right as the push for a managed phaseout of oil, gas and coal was gaining importance, and demands from the developing world for climate finance were becoming existential.

But there was something else.

Where countries like the UK and Canada balked, Australia actually signed the Colombia Declaration, an initiative external to the COP process intended to allow nations to meet and plan what this phaseout would look like. The announcement by Colombia upstaged the Brazilians at COP, a highlight of the meeting. The press conference was packed. When it was over, it ended in a standing ovation and rapturous applause. Instantly, the effect was to force the question of plans for a phaseout back onto the agenda, right at the end of the process. By the time it was over, the emergence of a new bloc external to the COP process forced the Brazilian Presidency to announce it would develop a voluntary phase-out plan in what was read as a face-saving measure.

Australia’s decision to sign the Colombia declaration made it a founding member of the 24-member bloc and one of the largest fossil fuel producers to join, alongside oil producer Mexico and historical fossil fuel producer, the Netherlands. The first meeting will take place in Santa Marta, a port city and a critical node for Colombian coal exports, later this month. Bowen was notably absent from the stage when the coalition was announced. In his place stood David Higgins, Australian head of delegation to COP. No Australian official made a formal statement.

It has not been made clear why Australia signed onto the statement when its counterparts in the UK declined. One theory is that whoever hosted COP31, Australia was always going to be involved. Signing up to the Colombia Initiative ensured the country had a seat at the table and earned its officials clout in future climate negotiations. Another theory is that domestic politics were at play, or that there was a miscommunication. Whatever the case, what is clear is that there appeared to be a disconnect among the Australian political leadership. When Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was asked at a press conference held during the G20 meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa whether the Colombia Declaration might be in conflict with the country’s plan to massively expand gas production, he insisted there was no issue.

“[Gas] is part of the transition which is occurring,” he said. “What you need to back up renewables is firming capacity, that’s what’s enabling the investment to occur. And all of the energy experts say the cheapest form of transition is renewables backed by gas, backed by hydro, backed by batteries. That’s Australia’s position.”

Pressed on the issue, Albanese stuck to his talking points: “Our position is the same today as it was yesterday. The cheapest form of new energy is renewables. That needs to be backed up by gas as firming capacity, by batteries, and by hydro.”

Five months on, the Australian government has not confirmed even basic details of its participation in the meeting in Santa Marta, let alone discussed the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on climate change (ICJAO) or any plans for a managed phase out of oil, gas and coal at a time of rising oil prices and crashing supplies. In late March, Colombia released a list of participating countries attending the inaugural conference. Australia was not on it. An updated list exists but has yet to be released. Over the last two weeks, Drilled has repeatedly sought to clarify with the Australian government who it was sending as a representative. We have received no response. One government official disclosed that Drilled’s request had been “triaged” in light of the fuel crisis created by the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran. It is understood that David Higgins, head of International Climate and Energy within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) will be on the ground in Santa Marta, but media representatives for the department and minister have refused to confirm this basic fact.

What this suggests is a serious effort by the Australian government to fly well-under the radar on climate change, so as to avoid being attacked by either the climate movement or fossil fuel producers. Timing is important in these announcements, and there is a bit going on in the world at the moment, but the refusal to even discuss basic details of the matter, one way or another, is an indicator of just how fearful its current government remains. After two decades of what is commonly known within Australia as the “climate wars”, the only question that keeps being asked is: how much action will the Australian public authorize on climate change? Where the conservative side of politics has concluded ‘none’, those in the current centre-left Labor government have consistently replied ‘very little.'

The clearest statement on this from the government-side, comes from DCCEEW departmental secretary Mike Kaiser, himself a storied figure within the Australian Labor party. During a panel discussion at COP30 in Belém, Kaiser sought to emphasize the “complexity” of the politics on these issues.

“Whether it’s fossil fuel subsidies or any other topic that we might wish, from a public sector perspective that government takes more rapid action on, you know, they’ve got an interest in being returned to office,” Kaiser said. “And if it was so blindingly obvious that that was a path to more votes, then they would take that path. These issues, when seen from the perspective of a national government that has to balance considerations, are always more complex.

“If it was blindingly obvious, if it was blindingly beneficial to a government, politically, it would do it tomorrow. Common sense makes sense.”

In fairness it has been several months since those comments were made, and in that time it feels like decades have passed. Still, Kaiser's words remain revealing about how the country’s decision makers read the political landscape at that time, one that will have now shifted following the U.S. and Israel’s war of aggression against Iran. Australia, it is worth remembering, is a vast, import-dependent island-continent with limited refining capacity that is heavily reliant on trucking and aviation to function. This reality does not appear to have been front of mind as Albanese became one of the first world leaders to declare immediate support for the U.S. bombing campaign, an attack that killed 170 Iranian schoolgirls in the opening minutes, even as he stopped short of committing Australia to offensive action.

The driver of this announcement appears to have been domestic Australian politics—the war broke out after the Bondi shootings in which Jewish Australians were targeted, and Australia has sunk billions of dollars into securing nuclear submarines from the U.S.—but the country, and its prime minister, now has to live with the consequences of a war it has endorsed in principle, if not by action.

Where countries like France have so far responded by announcing it will invest 10bn euros (USD$12bn) a year to electrify its economy, Australia has been silent. The country is still expected to oversee negotiations at COP in Turkey this year, and the second-term government will deliver its latest budget in a matter of weeks. That will reveal much. So far, no one with any authority has offered any detail about what action will be taken, let alone what it will do to rapidly electrify the country. Faced with fuel shortages in regional and rural areas, the focus has all been on the short-term: stopping panic buying, dropping fuel excise taxes to lower the cost of fuel and raiding the spot market to sure-up supply.

During a press conference last week, Australian climate minister Chris Bowen told those present that “energy must be secure” before adding that “renewable energy is a secure form of energy”. In an apparent homage to Bill McKibben, Bowen continued: “The Australian sun cannot be interrupted by a war or anything else. The solar energy has to travel 150 million kilometres from the sun. It doesn't have to travel the 150 kilometres of the Strait of Hormuz. While we're building that secure renewable energy, obviously we continue to ensure that our most immediate task is energy security.”

It was a rare rhetorical flourish from the Australian climate minister who has largely cultivated a personal brand defined by a relentless pragmatism, fair-minded personal courtesy and a stubborn refusal to back down in a fight. These are qualities that offer hope that Bowen might actually make a significant contribution to global affairs on climate change—were he allowed to show up. Timing matters in politics, but the price of silence, inevitability, will be the credibility of Australian global leadership, right when it is needed most.

A plug for a pal

Our friend Elise Hu, journalist, author, host-at-large for many NPR shows, co-host of The Epstein Files Book Club and many other shows, has been working on a documentary called Windswept, a coming-of-age doc about growing up after your world burns down. The film follows four teens from different communities who were displaced by LA's wildfires in January 2025, as they cope with extraordinary loss, all while navigating the ordinary challenges of adolescence. They're currently crowdfunding for post-production and are nearly there! If you can spare a donation or know someone who can, please give it a look.

Must-read climate stories

• Electric Bills in Coal Country West Virginia Now Top Mortgage Payments, by Margie Mason for Insurance Journal (h/t Akshat Rathi) - West Virginians are experiencing higher power bills than ever and they can't blame it on nebulous "climate policy" or a "war on coal." Instead, it's a whole host of factors, including extreme weather and rising natural gas prices that are sending bills through the roof.
• [Report] Global fossil power generation fell after the Hormuz closure due to solar and wind growth, from the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air. So far the energy gap created by the fall in available gas supplies is being filled not by coal, as in the past, but by solar and wind, according to new research.
• Bombs and Porn Are Bad Reasons to Build More Data Centers, by Kate Aronoff for The New Republic. We already know that data centers are a massive energy suck and emissions generator, that they are displacing the energy needs of communities, and generally wreaking havoc. In this great story, Kate asks...to what end?
• What to Expect at the Santa Marta Climate Conference, by Nina Lakhani for Drilled. A handy primer on who's headed to Santa Marta, what the focus of the conference is, and how it intersects with the annual COP conferences.
• Searching for a ‘technofix’ to climate change has many dangers. Could radical humility save the planet? by Nanda Jarosz for The Conversation. A counter to the wave of "abundance" and "climate realism" pieces, Jarosz argues for...dare we say an actually more pragmatic approach here: pulling our heads out of our collective asses.