Let me start with a confession: I’ve spent decades staring at climate data like it’s a horror movie script. The numbers don’t just tell a story—they scream. And yet, here we are, watching governments approve new coal mines while renewables race ahead. It’s a paradox that makes my skin crawl. Australia’s S-curve model suggests we could ditch coal by 2032, but what does that really mean for the planet? Let’s unpack this mess.
The Optimism of Progress (But at What Cost?)
Solar and wind energy in Australia are on a tear. They’ve climbed the steep part of the S-curve, leaving coal in the dust. By 2032, our grid could be nearly carbon-free. That’s not just good news—it’s revolutionary. But here’s the kicker: the climate clock ticks to 2030. If we’re still burning fossil fuels in 2031, we’ve missed the window to avoid runaway warming. The math is brutal. A near-miss isn’t a win; it’s a failure dressed in optimism.
What makes this so infuriating is the sheer audacity of governments approving new coal and gas projects up to 2070. Why? Because they’re not for us. These are export projects, feeding global markets while Australians pay the price for climate chaos. It’s like building a bridge to nowhere—except this time, the bridge leads to ecological collapse. The irony is delicious: we’re electrifying everything domestically but funding the very systems that will render that progress meaningless.
The Global Lag: A Systemic Failure
Australia’s rapid transition is a miracle, but it’s a miracle in a broken system. Globally, renewables are still stuck in the slow uptake phase of the S-curve. By 2050, the world might catch up—but that’s two decades too late. The Hothouse Earth research warned us: we need net zero by 2030, not 2050. The difference between these dates isn’t just a few years; it’s the difference between survival and extinction.
Here’s the thing: electricity is the fulcrum. Without a clean grid, electrifying transport or industry is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Australia’s progress is a beacon, but it’s shining in a dark room where the rest of the world is still fumbling for the light switch. How do we fix this? We need a global S-curve acceleration, not just a national one. But who’s going to fund that? Who’s going to hold governments accountable when their own policies contradict the science?
The Doomist vs. the Realist: A Personal Conflict
I’ve been called a doomist. My colleague Peter Newman calls me a pessimist. He’s right—most of the time. But when I look at the data, I see a terrifying truth: the technology is moving faster than our politics. Australia’s grid could be carbon-free by 2032, but that doesn’t mean the climate crisis is solved. It means we’ve bought ourselves a few more years to fix the rest of the world’s systems. And that’s a gamble I’m not sure I want to take.
What’s the real issue here? It’s not just about timing—it’s about priorities. Governments are choosing short-term economic gains over long-term survival. They’re betting on a future where fossil fuels remain relevant, even as the science screams otherwise. It’s a bet against reality, and reality doesn’t play favorites. When the stranding of fossil assets happens, it won’t be a quiet event. It’ll be a financial and ecological earthquake.
A Call to Action (or a Warning Shot)
So what’s the takeaway? The S-curve model shows we’re capable of rapid change—but only if we’re willing to stop digging. Australia’s success is a blueprint, but it’s not a solution. The world needs to follow, not just admire. Until then, we’re all just passengers on a ship heading toward a storm, with some of us still insisting the lifeboats are optional. The question isn’t whether we can transition fast enough. It’s whether we’re brave enough to act before it’s too late.
