Thanks for the thoughtful reply, AC.

To be clear, I don't dismiss cost-of-living pressures. In fact, reducing electricity bills has been one of the main justifications for the rooftop solar rollout. Those households aren’t doing it for ideology - they’re doing it because it works financially. (I'm about to buy a battery for my solar because the current rebate means the repayments for it will be covered by what I don't spend on power from the grid.)

This is just behavioural economics in action.

I also agree that we need to be cautious about unintended consequences, but that’s exactly why serious decarbonisation plans include targeted business energy support, not a blanket cost burden. The idea that "Net Zero" equals "higher costs for everyone forever" isn't an inevitability, it's a distortion - one that circulates endlessly within echo chambers, and is repeated ad nauseum by right-wing politicians and commentators.

Where we part ways is on the foreign influence angle.

Yes, international philanthropic funding flows into climate NGOs. It’s all disclosed and legal. And yes, those funders have goals: to accelerate climate action and reduce fossil fuel dependency. But comparing that to the Israel Lobby playbook is… quite a leap.

Your analogy breaks down fast:

- Fossil fuel lobbying in Australia and globally still outweighs green group funding by a wide margin - and often comes with direct policy access and campaign donations, not just media pressure.

- NGOs pushing for renewables aren’t asking for weapons or war - just faster infrastructure rollouts and stricter pollution standards.

- The Israeli lobbying comparison implies clandestine manipulation, but most climate philanthropy is channelled through tax-deductible environmental charities, many of them long-established. They fund research, litigation, and awareness - not regime change.

Your discomfort with perceived manipulation is understandable, but need you to distinguish between influence and corruption, and coordination and coercion. The mere fact that groups are funded to shift policy doesn’t make it a grift. That’s how most causes operate - from pro-gun to pro-wind.

If there’s deceit, then we need to see the evidence for it.

Blowhard Bowen’s Big Plan is falling apart.

The Eraring coal generator was meant to be closed down this year.

Now, with 3 of its 4 turbines going full bore last Friday, the fantasy closing date has been moved out to 2029.

Almost nothing has gone to plan since Bowen began stuffing up 3 years ago, sucked in as he was by the 2022 AEMO plan.

All that the foreign money is doing is enriching the very same foreigners and making Australians poorer.

China is the biggest beneficiary of Australia’s stupidity. That’s the mob that has just once again menaced one of our military aircraft in international air space.

Military ambitions has nothing to do with building sustainable power.
Wind and solar is going to plan, How can their plan be falling in bits. That is for right jargun, and nothing to the point.

Crying about nukes will never see the light of day. That sort of talk will see more of your dear law makers join the one nation.
Who is the biggest critic of one nation the far right supporters.
Tax cuts is the word from what is left of that mob in desperation.

That's not really saying much about the state of the plan, ttbn.

//The Eraring coal generator was meant to be closed down this year.//

More precisely, it was scheduled for closure in 2025 by Origin Energy - not Bowen, not AEMO - and this was always contingent on new capacity being in place first. The extension to 2029 was made precisely because the system operator and government are choosing reliability over ideology.

That’s not a collapse, it’s just prudent energy management.

//Sucked in as he was by the 2022 AEMO plan.//

You mean the Integrated System Plan, which projected the least-cost path to decarbonisation while maintaining reliability? That plan factored in different scenarios, and was never a rigid prophecy. It's updated every two years precisely to reflect changing realities.

//All that the foreign money is doing is enriching the very same foreigners and making Australians poorer.//

No. Foreign donations to climate NGOs don’t result in higher energy bills. The cause of high power prices in recent years has overwhelmingly been fossil fuel volatility - gas price spikes during the Ukraine war being a prime example.

Let’s not pretend coal is cheap just because it’s old.

//China is the biggest beneficiary of Australia’s stupidity.//

A neat deflection.

China is a major manufacturer of everything, including solar panels, but also most of the coal-fired power components we import. If we truly wanted to reduce our reliance on China, we’d invest in local renewables and storage manufacturing. Instead, the Coalition cancelled advanced battery funding and fought against renewable zones.

So, to recap:

- No, the Eraring delay doesn’t disprove Net Zero. It demonstrates built-in flexibility.
- No, foreign philanthropic funding doesn’t mean climate action is a grift.
- And no, invoking "China bad" doesn’t rescue a fossil fuel model in structural decline.

If you want to debate grid security or capacity investment specifics, let’s. But enough with the bumper-sticker bluster from the echo chambers.

Hi John Daysh,
The price of batteries have become quite cost effective, so long as you're generating enough excess during the day to say during peak hours.
I've seen 12kw batteries priced just over 4k.
Green Bank Solar LiFePO4 12.28 KWH Lithium Battery 48V 240AH GB48240 $4290
http://greenbanks.com.au/products/green-bank-solar-lifepo4-8-4-kwh-lithium-battery-24v-350ah-xmj24350

"The idea that 'Net Zero' equals 'higher costs for everyone forever' isn't an inevitability, it's a distortion - one that circulates endlessly within echo chambers, and is repeated ad nauseum by right-wing politicians and commentators."

Hmm, I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I think that just as in any business the costs are passed onto the consumers, and what consumers are paying for is a rushed transition.
My point about the cat, is that if rooftop solar wasn't economically viable, then someone might attempt to change the laws shut down a few coal stations, and with supply reductions you get increased prices and then viola, suddenly rooftop solar is cost effective.
But would it still be cost effective if we hadn't shut the other coal stations down, that's the question.
Seems more like a balancing act.

I understand we need to try and do best by the environment, but I can't help thinking that if foreign lobbyists drive up the cost of energy, not only are they stealing from Australians wallets, (and I oppose that, others shouldn't force me to pay for the changes they want) they also make our country less competitive when it comes to business and foreign trade, worst of all, is seeing people cut back on essentials.

I saw a woman in Woolies about a fortnight ago, she was having an anxiety attack at the checkouts, two little kids in the trolley trying to be good. As I stood there waiting to be served I overheard the situation, she'd bought $100 worth of stuff but only had $70.
When I saw her starting to unload essentials like home brand margarine, well I couldn't cop it anymore staff gathered around while the woman was clearly stressed, so I offered up the $30.

[Cont]

Yes maybe the Israel Lobby comparison was a big jump, sometimes I'll exaggerate things if there's an easy way to explain something and make a point, and well that's what I came up with at the time.
It expressed my thoughts.

There was a story I read a few weeks back.

Outback residents lose solar farm as Ergon battles push owner to close
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-03/normanton-solar-farm-turns-off-after-ergon-energy-negotiations/105843958

When you read stories like this, it just seems like greed on the part of the energy companies, maybe it's them that are getting the best deal from rooftop solar, buying peoples excess back into the grid cheaper than they can probably produce it.