Joyce and Canavan call for new coal plants to replace renewable energy projects

In a fresh escalation of Australia’s energy debate, Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan have urged a pivot back to coal, calling for new power stations to take the place of large-scale wind and solar developments. Their position revives a long‑running fault line in national climate policy: whether to double down on fossil fuels for grid stability or accelerate the shift to cleaner power alongside storage and efficiency.

The push lands as the Nationals weigh their broader climate platform. Party leadership has indicated a decision on its stance is due within months, setting up a contest between internal pressure for fossil fuel expansion and the policy course set by Australia’s net‑zero commitment. That commitment is central to the nation’s participation in the global climate framework forged in Paris, shaping how governments, investors and trading partners assess Australia’s credibility.

What the proposal means for energy and climate

Replacing approved or proposed renewable projects with coal would upend state and federal planning trajectories. New coal stations are capital‑intensive, slow to permit and build, and increasingly challenging to finance as lenders price in climate and regulatory risk. By contrast, renewables backed by batteries, pumped hydro, demand response and upgraded transmission can be deployed in stages, reducing exposure to single‑site failures and fuel price shocks.

Advocates for coal argue it provides dispatchable power and jobs in regions built around mining and heavy industry. But modern grid reliability can be delivered through a mix of firmed renewables, flexible gas used sparingly during peaks, and smarter demand management. International experience shows that diversified clean portfolios can meet reliability standards while cutting emissions and health burdens linked to air pollution.

Science warns of escalating risks

Australia’s national science community and other independent experts have been unequivocal: delaying emissions cuts heightens the risks of more intense heat, heavier downpours, coastal flooding, dangerous bushfire weather and prolonged drought. These climate shifts amplify health impacts—from heat stress to respiratory illness—while damaging infrastructure, agriculture and ecosystems already under strain. Biodiversity loss accelerates as species and habitats struggle to adapt to rapid change.

Every decision that locks in higher emissions makes these hazards harder and costlier to manage. Conversely, accelerating clean energy deployment reduces climate risk over time and can temper the rising costs of disaster recovery, insurance and adaptation borne by households, businesses and governments.

Political timeline and investor uncertainty

The Nationals’ internal timetable matters beyond party rooms. Energy developers, grid operators and state planners need predictable policy signals to manage multi‑year projects. Calls to substitute new coal for utility‑scale renewables may deter investment, elevate financing costs and slow the build‑out needed to replace aging coal units already scheduled to retire. Policy zigzags translate into higher consumer bills and more fragile supply, especially during extreme weather when demand and outage risks peak.

There are also trade and finance implications. Many of Australia’s key markets and capital providers are tightening emissions thresholds and scrutinizing exposure to carbon‑intensive assets. A shift away from net‑zero‑aligned planning could complicate access to global capital and invite penalties or barriers as decarbonisation accelerates abroad.

Communities, jobs and transition

Coal communities deserve credible pathways for secure employment, training and regional investment. A managed transition can channel new manufacturing, grid services, mine rehabilitation and clean‑tech supply chains into these regions. The alternative—prolonging uncertainty with promises that may not survive market realities—risks deeper disruption when closures eventually arrive. Durable strategies prioritize worker support and local infrastructure alongside energy system reliability.

The bigger picture

Australia stands at a familiar crossroads. One path extends reliance on a fuel whose economics and climate impacts are increasingly difficult to defend; the other leans into a system built around abundant wind and sun, firmed by storage and flexible resources. The second path is not without challenges—community engagement, transmission routes and supply chains require careful stewardship—but it aligns with the scientific evidence on climate risk and with the nation’s international commitments.

As the Nationals formalize their position, the stakes are clear. Decisions taken in the coming months will influence electricity prices, regional livelihoods, environmental security and Australia’s standing in a decarbonising world. The choice is between short‑term political theatre and a pragmatic plan that safeguards health, ecosystems and the economy in a warming climate.