Essay by Eric Worrall

“… If there’s no common framework, there can be no consensus commitments. …”

Parts of Australia are suffering another devastating drought, but you wouldn’t know it in the cities

Van Badham
Wed 11 Jun 2025 17.09 AEST

It’s not so much that rural and metro communities hold different opinions about climate change but rather they are holding completely different conversations

…

There’s been a record-breaking drought that’s been afflicting the states of Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and parts of New South Wales for over a year, but depending where you live – and how you get your news – you may not know much about it.

This represents a problem Australia desperately needs to confront.

…

Australian farmers have adapted their agricultural methods and listened to science to prepare for unpredictable conditions, but no one was prepared for this. Now, 18 months after farmers began trucking water and hand-feeding their animals, stockpiled feed is running out. Shipping in more pressures the farmer to front the capital for its purchase – a burden that’s pushed many to sell off animals and sell off land. The bush telegraph in rural communities like mine has been relaying stories of abattoirs so full with the unsustainable stock that some farmers are left with animals that will simply – pointlessly – have to die.

…

When it comes to environmental policy, gaining “social licence” is an omnidirectional struggle – not because rural communities are climate deniers or that climate activists are self-appointed moralisers or even that governments steamroll communities into policy decisions. An overwhelming majority of Australians believe in climate change, but evidence suggests communities are no longer holding different opinions so much as they are holding completely different conversations, and I suspect the pick-and-mix, choose-your-news nature of modern media may be contributing to a terrifying problem at the worst possible time.

If there’s no common framework, there can be no consensus commitments.

…

Where and how that honest community conversation takes place is now the challenge. It demands a cultural humility the internet is unlikely to encourage. Overcoming the silos between rural experience, urban attention and the policy bunkers of government is hard, but it has to happen.

We once valued the ABC as the instrument for this kind of national discussion, but as the broadcaster sheds shared forums like The Drum and Q+A, we’re staring down the reality of environmental disaster understood as niche programming.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/11/parts-of-australia-are-suffering-another-devastating-drought-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-in-the-cities

Clearly the real problem is a lack of water where it is needed, not climate change.

Think about what is happening on the ground – farmers in Victoria, South Australia and parts of New South Wales are being forced to truck water in and hand feed what is left of their cattle herds.

But it isn’t dry all over Australia – in Queensland, a thousand miles North of Victoria, much of the state was inundated by dozens of inches of water which fell over four weeks from the end of January to the end of February this year. In my home in South East Queensland, it was raining on and off since the floods right up to a few weeks ago.

It wasn’t just this year – New South Wales also endured major floods in 2023 (see the picture at the top of the page).

Why do farmers need trucks to move that water from reservoirs in the North to their parched southern pastures?

Because government after government squandered billions of dollars of tax money on renewables, and never invested sufficient resources in large capacity long distance water pipelines. Government water budgets are in the 10s and hundreds of millions of dollars, not the 10s of billions of dollars which could have made a real difference. There are not enough large pipelines, in many cases no large water pipelines, which can transport the water from where it falls to where it is needed. And there are not enough dams and reservoirs to capture the water which falls, even if there was sufficient pipeline capacity.

For a fraction of the money which has been wasted on wind turbines and solar projects, we could have had a large capacity pipeline running from Queensland to Victoria. Science Direct estimates the Gulf of America oil and gas pipeline network cost around $3 million per mile to construct. A 1200 mile water pipeline of that capacity, using Science Direct figures for oil and gas pipelines, would have cost US $3.6 billion, which is a lot of money until you compare it to the 10s of billions of dollars which have been wasted on renewables and renewable electricity infrastructure.

Major investment in pipeline infrastructure would have saved a lot of water truck miles.

But you would never learn from the Guardian we need dams, reservoirs and long distance pipelines more than we need wind turbines. Aussie governments, urged on by legacy media, have squandered 10s of billions of dollars on failed renewable schemes, yet despite Australia’s growing population flood mitigation and water security continues to be woefully underfunded.

It is not just the lack of water infrastructure. Australian roads are falling to pieces through neglect. If you ever visit Australia and plan to driver more than 20 miles from the coast, you should seriously consider hiring an off-road vehicle, because there are a lot of places just off the main motorways which are a disaster for normal road vehicles. The stretch of road in the video below is the Wide Bay Highway, an important connecting road between Australia’s main coastal highway and our main secondary road travelling north from Brisbane.

Perhaps it is just as well the town square nowadays has a plurality of voices, when legacy media outlets like The Guardian are getting it so wrong. True freedom, truly open forums where people can speak freely, might lead to us making some progress on solving real issues, instead of returning to the days when big media moguls controlled the public conversation, the days when an artificial “common framework” consensus based on silencing independent voices could rule unchecked, driving the squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars on public foolishness.

As for the demand for broader, more inclusive conversations, I find this call less than credible given how vigorously Guardian moderators seem to delete any climate skeptic comments posted to their articles. Perhaps Guardian contributor Van Badham means she wants more inclusive conversations with people who agree with her, while continuing to censor anyone she thinks doesn’t conform to her vision of a “common framework”.

By Vijay Jayaraj

Renewable has been the buzzword in the pop language of the energy sector. Two decades have passed since we were first told that weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels would eclipse long-dependable and readily available coal, oil and natural gas as primary energy sources.

But the global market tells a different story. Successful economies are realizing that “transitioning” to faddish technologies to address a fabricated climate emergency does nothing to meet real-world energy demand. Japan’s liquified natural gas (LNG) market is an example.

Japan’s biggest challenge is its population decline. However, improvements in labor productivity and structural reforms are expected to maintain economic growth, although modest compared to other Asian countries.

Despite relatively slow growth, reports suggest that the manufacture of transportation equipment, semiconductors and other products will remain a key contributor, with manufacturing sales projected to increase a healthy 2–3% annually through 2030.

A Wood Mackenzie analysis notes that Japanese electricity demand is forecast to be between 1,100 and 1,200 terawatt-hours in 2040, up from less than 1,000 in 2023. AI data centers and a general increase in electrification will drive this demand.

Ever since a 2011 earthquake and tsunami induced radiation releases at a Fukushima nuclear power plant, Japan has been heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Japan knows that fossil fuels are the only practical alternatives to nuclear fission – unlike wind and solar – for meeting the country’s baseload power requirements.

Coal and LNG currently contribute around 60% of all electricity generated in the country. Despite projections of a nuclear expansion, LNG and coal are set to dominate the energy mix for the time being.

“With slower-than-expected growth in renewables, thermal power will remain in the generation mix for longer,” says Wood Mackenzie. “Japan’s new energy plan now expects coal and gas to contribute as much as 40% of the generation mix by 2040.”

Japan’s LNG market is thriving and set to register a compound annual growth rate of more than 4% between 2025 and 2032. This robust trajectory translates into an estimated market value of more than $63 billion by 2032.

Japan’s efforts to consolidate LNG supply since 2020 is no secret. As an import-dependent nation with limited indigenous hydrocarbons, securing stable energy supplies is paramount for economic stability and growth. Japanese corporations have been extending investments in LNG facilities across Asia-Pacific with the aim of increasing energy security.

In April, Japan’s leading power generator, JERA, announced that it was considering Alaska as a source for LNG. This move aims to enhance energy security and diversify supply options, coinciding with tariff negotiations between Japan and the United States.

The Alaska LNG project, championed by President Donald Trump, is a linchpin in this partnership. The $44 billion initiative would transport natural gas from the state’s North Slope fields through an 800-mile pipeline for domestic consumption and for conversion to LNG and export to Asian markets, avoiding the Panama Canal.

With a projected capacity of 20 million tons of LNG per year – roughly 30% of Japan’s annual imports – the project could transform the U.S. into a top supplier, rivaling Australia and Qatar. In 2024, the U.S. accounted for 10% of Japan’s LNG imports, or nearly 6 million metric tons, a figure set to grow with Alaskan product.

Japan’s approach can be seen as “energy realpolitik,” where national interests of economic stability and energy security favor technologically achievable pathways over impractical climate mandates.

The Japanese approach may be more subtle than India’s and China’s open defiance of the climate industrial complex’s rulebook, yet it is establishing a similar hydrocarbon supremacy.

This commentary was first published at RealClearMarkets on June 11, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna

From the EPA

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin issued the following statement after President Donald J. Trump signed into law three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions disapproving California’s vehicle emission waivers. Congressional disapproval of California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandates is another step toward ending the EV mandate on all Americans pursuant to President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” Executive Order.

“President Trump’s actions delivered a decisive blow to California’s Electric Vehicle Mandate. The Biden EPA rules granting California’s waivers allowed one coast to set national policy while imposing significant costs and limiting consumer choice for Americans in every state. We are working to end the EV mandate because, in part, doing so will usher in a new era of prosperity for American auto workers, providing the economic liberty needed to restore this quintessential industry. Thank you to all the members of Congress who did their part to get these resolutions on President Trump’s desk. The President campaigned on this, the American people voted for it, and this Administration is proudly delivering on this mandate. Today is a great day for consumer freedom,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin.

In February, Administrator Zeldin announced alongside President Trump and the newly created National Energy Dominance Council, that the EPA would transmit to Congress three waiver rules granted by the Biden EPA – California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Engine Omnibus NO_x in order to comply with the agency’s duties under the CRA.