ttbn

If you thought Australians were a laughing stock for falling for this scam, consider the people of Michigan whose Governor has signed them up for net zero by 2050. Their power bills have doubled in the past three years and recent modeling has suggested that the idiocy will increase their energy costs by $2500 US per person per year over the next ten years.

https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2025/what-whitmers-net-zero-mandate-is-hiding-from-you

Wind and solar net zero is a complete scam. Environmental destruction, vital food production lost and the economy ruined, all for the sake of lining the pockets of these carpetbaggers.

The prices look as though they are down because of the subsidies.
The difference is paid by the classic "Other Peoples Money".
It does not change one damn thing.

Fester,

You've linked to the Mackinac Center - a Koch-funded, fossil-industry-aligned think tank that has spent decades opposing everything from climate policy to basic air pollution rules. That doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but it does mean we should read their "modelling" with scrutiny.

The claim that Michigan's net zero plan will increase costs by $2,500 USD per person per year comes from a consultant the Mackinac Center hired - not an independent or peer-reviewed source. And even their consultant admits this is based on worst-case assumptions about grid buildout and energy inflation, not observed trends.

Meanwhile, actual data shows that most of the recent rise in US energy bills was driven by volatile gas prices and extreme weather events, not renewable mandates. Wholesale energy from new wind and solar is still cheaper per MWh than new gas or coal - in the US and Australia.

Australia's context is different anyway:

- We have vast solar and wind resources, which make renewables even more cost-effective here.
- Our grid-scale batteries are already saving millions by reducing reliance on expensive gas peakers.
- And most importantly: wholesale prices are falling here, because of increased wind and solar - as AEMO just reported.

You also repeat the "environmental destruction" and "lost food production" line - but wind and solar use far less land per unit of energy than fossil fuels when you account for mining, pipelines, and buffer zones. And solar panels on rooftops, car parks, degraded land, and agrivoltaics don't replace food production - they co-exist with it.

Net zero isn't a scam - but pretending that fossil fuels are cheap, clean, and risk-free is.

Bezza,

The prices don't just "look" down, they are down. AEMO reports a 27% year-on-year fall in wholesale prices, and their report explicitly attributes this to increased wind and solar generation and reduced market volatility. Not subsidies.

//The difference is paid by the classic 'Other People's Money'.//

There are subsidies across all forms of energy - always have been. Fossil fuels still receive billions globally in both direct and indirect subsidies. Yet I don't hear the same outrage when their profits come from "other people's money."

//It does not change one damn thing.//

It actually changes quite a lot:

- Wholesale prices are falling, and that will eventually lower retail prices as older contracts expire.
- Renewables are displacing expensive peaking gas, reducing price spikes.
- Our emissions intensity is declining, helping us avoid carbon border tariffs from major trading partners.
- Energy independence increases, reducing exposure to global fossil price shocks like we saw after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

So, it changes more than "one damn thing." It just doesn't happen overnight, and it doesn't conform to sound bites.

Marxist's create scarcity and call it growth. Renewables are more complex than hydrocarbons. It will be interesting to see the profit margin and the tax funded government subsidies as contributing factors in the renewables economy. Sounds like Russia in 1988 before their economy crashed and the mafia took over. There isn't enough lithium in the world to power renewables.

Canem Malum,

I'm not sure who the Marxists are in this scenario, but I suppose such uncertainty is inevitable when "Marxist" is a catch-all for anyone you don't like.

//Marxists create scarcity and call it growth.//

Who do you mean? AEMO? CSIRO? The International Energy Agency? Because those are the bodies reporting that renewables are driving down wholesale prices, not creating scarcity. If anything, we're seeing more supply and lower volatility - particularly in solar-rich states like Queensland.

//Renewables are more complex than hydrocarbons.//

Sure, modern power systems are inherently more complex than just burning stuff. But complexity isn't failure. Would you argue the internet was a mistake because it's more complex than the postal service? A smarter grid allows for diverse inputs, storage, and resilience, which fossil systems lack.

//It will be interesting to see the profit margin and the tax funded government subsidies…//

By all means, let's compare...

Fossil fuels have received decades of subsidies, infrastructure support, tax concessions, and externalised health and environmental costs. According to the IMF, global fossil subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022, largely hidden in underpriced pollution and health impacts.

Meanwhile, wind and solar subsidies are falling as tech improves - and in many places, they're outcompeting fossil fuels unsubsidised.

//Sounds like Russia in 1988…//

That's a stretch. Russia's collapse was due to a rigid command economy, corruption, and geopolitical overreach - not grid modernisation or lithium demand.

//There isn't enough lithium in the world to power renewables.//

Good news: lithium isn't used to power renewables. It's used in some battery types (mostly EVs), but grid storage can also use pumped hydro, compressed air, flow batteries, and sodium-based chemistries. Plus, lithium is highly recyclable - unlike burned gas or coal.

In short: not Marxist, not 1988 Russia, not running out of lithium. Just modern energy economics.