On this page: Cairns News article | How did we get here? | The machinery that did it | The politician’s part | Lets export the over-priced renewable energy! |

First article source: Cairns News

REVELATIONS that the cost of the “transition to renewables” could cost Australia a trillion dollars has prompted Family First National Director and NSW Legislative Council candidate Lyle Shelton to call for an urgent parliamentary inquiry.

Veteran business journalist Terry McCrann says the Albanese government is trying to “force feed” renewables through the Capacity Investment Scheme announced by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen in 2023.

However Shelton is likely to be ignored, both by the political establishment and media, dominated by the warm and fuzzy sentiment that “clean, green energy is our future”.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce describes the projects being funded through the Capacity Investment Scheme as the “renewables swindle factories”.

Shelton is hoping to win an Upper House seat in the NSW Parliament next March, in which case he will move immediately to establish a full inquiry into what McCrann has described.

“Taxpayers and electricity bill payers were never told this transition would cost anywhere near $1 trillion,” Shelton says. “They were told renewables would be cheaper. That claim has now been completely exposed.”

Mr Shelton said the emerging figures showed a staggering escalation in costs — from early estimates of just billions for transmission infrastructure to hundreds of billions, with total system costs ballooning into the trillions once financing is included.

“This is not a minor miscalculation. This is a catastrophic failure of planning, transparency and honesty,” he said.

“Australians have been misled. The true cost has been hidden, and now families are paying the price through soaring electricity bills and a cost-of-living crisis that shows no sign of easing.”

Mr Shelton said the burden of financing the renewables rollout over decades would lock in high power prices for a generation.

“Unaffordable electricity is now baked in for the next 30 years under this model,” he said. “That makes Australia less competitive, drives up the cost of everything, and places enormous pressure on households already struggling to make ends meet.”

Mr Shelton says the inquiry, which would obviously require the support of One Nation and the Liberal-National Party, would examine how initial costings were so dramatically wrong, who knew about the risks, and why governments continued to press ahead.

“We need answers to some very serious questions,” he said. “Who signed off on these so-called ‘estimates’? What assumptions were made? And why were Australians not told the truth?”

Mr Shelton also raised concerns about the impact on regional communities and agricultural land, with thousands of kilometres of transmission lines and industrial-scale energy zones being rolled out.

“Our farmers are being asked to sacrifice productive land for a scheme that is fast becoming an economic disaster,” he said.

Mr Shelton believes there is still time to change course. “Only a fraction of the total projected spending has been locked in. This inquiry must be the first step in stopping a nation-crushing mistake before it is too late.

“Family First will fight to protect Australian families from being saddled with the cost of one of the worst public policy failures in our history.”

The article above, source: Cairns News.

And how did we get here?

Here is a verified, structured account of the international agreements and domestic instruments that have signed Australia up to the obligations driving the renewable energy transition described in the passage.

The International and Domestic Framework Behind Australia’s Renewable Energy Transition

1. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – 1992

This is the foundational treaty. Australia ratified the UNFCCC, which established the multilateral framework for all subsequent climate obligations. It has been the principal international treaty on climate change since its adoption in 1992 and is the parent agreement under which all subsequent instruments sit.

2. The Paris Agreement – ratified by Australia on 9 December 2016

This is the single most significant international driver. The Climate Change Act 2022 formalises Australia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, which Australia ratified on 9 December 2016.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action, carried out by countries. The overarching goal is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Under this agreement, Australia and all other parties must submit emissions reduction commitments through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the UNFCCC every five years. Australia’s latest NDC was submitted in September 2025, committing Australia to reduce emissions by 62-70% below 2005 levels by 2035.

Critically for the domestic pipeline of obligations: Australia’s new 2030 target is a significant increase in ambition – a 15 percentage point increase on the upper end of the previous 2030 target of 26-28% below 2005 levels.

3. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (including the SDGs) – adopted 2015

On 25 September 2015, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop joined 193 leaders and ministers at the United Nations in New York to welcome and endorse the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. While non-binding, the 2030 Agenda is highly influential, shaping development cooperation and finance flows from a range of sources, including nation states, multilateral organisations, the private sector and philanthropic entities.

Australia is committed to all 17 SDGs and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development as a universal, global undertaking. SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) are the most directly relevant to the energy transition.

Each of the 193 countries that signed on to the 2030 Agenda committed to producing a Voluntary National Review at least twice over the lifetime of the Agenda. Australia delivered its first Voluntary National Review at the UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development on 17 July 2018.

4. The Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) – the domestic instrument that locks it in

This is where international obligations became hard domestic law. The Climate Change Act 2022 enshrines Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets into law – reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030, with an overall goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

Critically for the Capacity Investment Scheme specifically: the Capacity Investment Scheme Program must be implemented to achieve at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity and at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity by the end of 2030.

Amendments to the Climate Change Act 2022 embed the Capacity Investment Scheme in legislation, requiring the Commonwealth to make arrangements resulting in those targets, and requiring any amendments to the CIS to be approved by a resolution of each house of Parliament.

That last point is legally significant: the CIS is now embedded such that any future Parliament seeking to wind it back must pass a resolution in both chambers.

The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Act 2022 makes consequential amendments to 14 Acts to incorporate Australia’s emissions reduction targets into legislation for relevant Commonwealth entities and schemes, including agencies such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

5. Renewable Energy Transformation Agreements (RETAs) – bilateral Commonwealth-State agreements from 2024

Building on the National Energy Transformation Partnership, the Commonwealth is negotiating and delivering Renewable Energy Transformation Agreements with state and territory governments to support additional ambition and help deliver new renewable generation and storage, aimed at achieving 82% renewable electricity by 2030.

These bind individual states into the scheme as well, creating a layered obligation structure extending from the UN down to state government.

Summary and Honest Assessment

The hierarchy is clear and verifiable:

  • UNFCCC (1992) – foundational treaty obligation
  • Paris Agreement (ratified 2016) – the key international driver, legally binding as to process (NDC submission), though NDC targets themselves are not directly enforceable as a matter of international law
  • UN 2030 Agenda / SDGs (2015) – non-binding but politically influential and shaping finance and reporting frameworks
  • Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) – the domestic instrument that converted international commitments into Australian statute, including embedding the CIS directly into the Act itself
  • RETAs (2024 onwards) – Commonwealth-State agreements furthering the 82% renewable electricity target

One point of accuracy worth noting: the Paris Agreement NDC obligations are binding as to the procedural requirement to submit and pursue them, but while parties are legally obligated to have an NDC and to pursue measures aimed at achieving it, achievement of the NDC itself is not a legally binding or enforceable commitment. The political and reputational pressure is real; the direct legal enforceability against Australia in international law is more limited. What is fully binding in domestic law is the Climate Change Act 2022 and the embedded CIS targets.

The concern raised by Shelton – that Australians were never told the full cost – is a matter of domestic political accountability, but the international framework driving the commitment is as set out above.

Veritas odit moras – Truth hates delay.

and what about the machinery?

Here is a brief but accurate summary of the UN machinery’s influence as it bears on the situation described in the passage.

The Unelected Global Drivers: How the UN Machine Shapes National Policy

The chain of influence runs from global bodies through treaty obligations down into domestic statute. The key actors are as follows.

The UNFCCC and the Conference of the Parties (COP)

The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992 and in force since 1994, is the central institution of global climate governance. Its main governing body is the Conference of the Parties, at which all member parties meet annually. Not one member of the COP is elected by Australian voters. The annual COP meetings – hosted in locations from Glasgow to Dubai – produce decisions and communiques that then flow into national NDC commitments. Each participating nation has a voice in the negotiation room, but voices are not equally weighted in decisions, and the process has been criticised for lack of accountability and reliance on technocratic systems over other knowledge frameworks.

The IPCC – the scientific arm

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its stated job is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information they can use to develop climate policies. It was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. The IPCC provides technical guidance directly to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. In practice, IPCC reports function as the scientific mandate that drives the ratcheting-up of NDC targets. International bodies have consistently identified the need for decisive policy interventions by governments around the world to drive the energy transition, and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report emphasised the need to substantially reduce fossil fuel consumption and shift investment from fossil fuels toward low-carbon technologies. That report was cited by Minister Bowen when introducing the Climate Change Bill to the Australian Parliament in 2022.

The ratchet mechanism – by design

This is the critical structural point. The Paris Agreement works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action – a ratcheting up – carried out by countries. Each successive NDC is meant to reflect an increasingly higher degree of ambition compared to the previous version. This mechanism is built into the agreement by design: it is structurally impossible to submit a less ambitious NDC than the previous one without political consequences, even though NDC targets are not, strictly speaking, directly enforceable in international law.

The democratic accountability gap

No Australian man or woman voted for the IPCC, the UNFCCC Secretariat, or the COP Presidency. The 450-strong UNFCCC Secretariat based in Bonn, the rotating COP Presidency, and the IPCC bureau of scientists collectively shape the targets that elected Australian governments then translate into domestic statute. Once translated into the Climate Change Act 2022, with the Capacity Investment Scheme embedded in legislation requiring both chambers of Parliament to approve any amendment, the policy becomes substantially insulated from future electoral correction. Intergovernmental organisations such as the IPCC translate research into guidelines that shape national and multilateral action, with boundary-spanning “interface scientists” brokering evidence and influencing the direction of policy – prompting ongoing debate about whether scientists should maintain neutrality or embrace advocacy roles.

In plain terms

The structure works like this: unelected UN bodies set the scientific framing and the ambition targets; elected governments sign NDCs at COP meetings; those NDCs are then legislated domestically, removing them from ordinary political reversibility; and the costs fall on the men and women who were never consulted about the original international commitments. The trillion-dollar figure Shelton raises is the downstream domestic cost of decisions made largely in international forums to which the Australian public has no direct democratic access.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – Who watches the watchmen?

The politician’s part

Foreign Allegiance by Another Name: How Unelected Global Bodies Captured Australian Energy Policy

When Australian politicians signed the Paris Agreement, submitted Nationally Determined Contributions to the United Nations, and endorsed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, they were not acting on a mandate from the Australian people. They were responding to the directions of unelected international bodies – the UNFCCC Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Conference of the Parties – none of whose members are elected by, or accountable to, a single Australian voter.

That is not a conspiracy theory. It is the documented structure of the system.

The IPCC, a body established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988, produces the scientific assessments that drive the target-setting. The COP, meeting annually, produces the communiques and decisions that translate those assessments into political pressure on member governments. The UNFCCC Secretariat, staffed by 450 officials based in Bonn, administers the framework. None of these institutions face an Australian electorate. None can be removed by Australian voters.

The resulting commitments were then handed to the Australian Parliament to be legislated. The Climate Change Act 2022 enshrined the NDC targets in domestic law. The Capacity Investment Scheme – the mechanism through which Minister Chris Bowen is force-feeding the renewables transition, in Terry McCrann’s phrase – was subsequently embedded in that Act in a form that requires both chambers of Parliament to approve any amendment. The door was, in effect, locked from the outside.

The cost of this process, now emerging in figures that range into the trillions when financing is included, was never put to the Australian people. They were told renewables would be cheaper. That claim has collapsed. What has not collapsed is the legislative architecture built to give effect to foreign-originated commitments – an architecture now insulated from ordinary democratic correction.

This is the nub of the matter. The Paris Agreement’s NDC mechanism is, by design, a ratchet. Each successive national commitment must be more ambitious than the last. A government that tried to submit a less ambitious NDC would face international condemnation and domestic legal challenge under the very Act it inherited. The electorate’s ability to change course through the ballot box has been structurally compromised.

Politicians who entered these commitments did so knowing – or ought to have known – that they were binding future parliaments and future generations to obligations originated by bodies answerable to no Australian. To describe that plainly is not alarmism. It is constitutional literacy. The Australian Constitution vests the executive power of the Commonwealth in the Crown and makes it exercisable by the Governor-General on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. It does not vest it in the UNFCCC Secretariat, the IPCC, or the COP Presidency.

When Lyle Shelton calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the trillion-dollar transition cost, he is raising something broader than a budget question. He is raising the question of whether the Australian people were ever genuinely consulted about surrendering the direction of their energy system to an international framework they cannot vote against, cannot exit without political cost, and were never honestly told the price of joining.

The Latin maxim is apt: salus populi suprema lex esto – the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law. In this case, the welfare of the people appears to have come a distant second to the obligations of the international conference circuit.

But wait! There’s more! Let’s export power that costs $billions and tax-payers can fund it!

2020 article (plans have changed since then)

2026 summary:

What the project actually is

The project (called the Australia–Asia Power Link) is:

  • A विशाल solar farm in the Northern Territory
  • A battery + transmission system to Darwin
  • A ~4,200–4,300 km undersea cable to Singapore
  • Designed to export Australian solar power overseas

This concept is well-documented and technically feasible using existing HVDC cable tech

🟢 What’s true (and still current)

  • It is a genuine, government-recognised project with major backing
  • It has:
    • Major Project Status (NT + Federal)
    • Environmental approvals (Australia, 2024)
    • Conditional approval from Singapore to import the power
  • The plan to send power via subsea cable is real engineering, not speculative fiction

It’s still not fully funded or built

  • Billions have been spent on development
  • But the full project (~$20–35+ billion) is not yet fully financed
  • It remains in planning + approvals phase

Current reality:

    • Final investment decision not expected until ~2027
    • Electricity exports likely early–mid 2030s

 

Last Updated 5 months ago

Views: 190

More share platforms

Posted by Jillian