Recently, the Coalition announced a plan to redefine methane gas as a “critical mineral” as a relatively shameless way of slotting the fossil fuel into a subsidy scheme designed to incentivise clean technology.
Despite Dutton having worked hard over the past week to distance himself from Trump, it turns out that the US government is on the verge of pushing for coal to be classified as a “critical mineral”.
A Reuters story found that:
“The orders will include efforts to save coal plants that were likely to be retired, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. They will also direct Energy Secretary Chris Wright to determine whether coal used in steel production is a “critical mineral”, the White House official said”
To be fair to Trump, coal is far closer to being a mineral than gas is, it being a solid and all. But because it has a biological origin, it still doesn’t count (someone should let the ‘minerals council of Australia’ know). At the same time, a US Republican Senator mimicked Scott Morrison’s globally recognised coal stunt in the Senate:
Dutton recently dropped a policy to force public servants back to the office and also sack 41,000 of them, presumably because it was too reminiscent of the Musk / Trump destructive and cruel policies cutting government jobs with happy abandon.
But Renew Economy’s Royce Kurmelovs reports on photographs of a candidate wearing a red Trump MAGA hat – “Multiple sources told Renew Economy that during his tenure in state parliament, Smith kept a large stuffed bear made in the image of Trump, and other paraphernalia”.
According to coverage of the first debate between Dutton and Albanese, Trump received little coverage – but energy was a dominant theme. “We increase the supply of gas into the market, because gas helps create electricity.
Gas helps create steel and bricks, and it will help with the construction sector”, Dutton claimed. Various media reports claim the Coalition has “released” modelling on the party’s gas policies, proving they’ll cut prices. But the document isn’t anywhere to be found on the Frontier Economics website, at the time of writing.
The battle lines seem locked in here – Albanese focusing on tax cuts, incentives and subsidies for clean tech, while Dutton goes all-in on gas (and tries to memory-hole their nuclear power advocacy) and uses his oversized combustion engine car subsidy as a backup cudgel.
Both leaders are reflective of two emergent trends in the global climate space: hyper-nationalist fossil fuel advocacy vs fragile, persistent but insufficient climate progress.
