The Federal Government is pledging more than half a billion dollars for new energy projects in an attempt to create jobs and cut Australia’s carbon emissions. The money will go towards so-called ‘clean hydrogen’ projects and investing in carbon capture and storage technology for existing coal-fired power plants.

In part 3 of our climate change series, Andy Park reports it is still far from the ambitious action that many are calling for and which business leaders say offers Australia a massive economic opportunity.

For Part 1, click here:
For Part 2, click here:
For Part 4, click here:

For more from ABC News, click here:
You can watch more ABC News content ad-free on iview:

Subscribe to ABC News In-depth:
For breaking and trending news, subscribe to ABC News on YouTube:
You can also like us on Facebook:
Or follow us on Instagram:
Or even on Twitter:



  • @stephen7774

    CO2 is a harmless gas which plants breathe in and makes plants grow faster. CO2 has a saturation point of 80 parts per million which stops further reflection of the infra red wave length. Thus, adding more CO2 doesn't increase temperature.

  • @graemeratcliffe2498

    Sure is a climate emergency. Power shortages. Power prices going through the roof. But don't worry, it's only the peasants who will have to turn off their heaters. It should do our collective hearts good to know the poor are doing their bit, doing the right thing and freezing to death to prevent global warming.

  • @rogiervantilburg3440

    Thanks so much for sharing!

  • @ocean1233


  • @edwalker8375

    "carbon pollution" etc.. What a hoax and lie from the "neo -comms", ( neo communists). Carbon won't hurt anything…

  • @codyjones1098

    This is one of the MOST insipid and insulting videos I have seen. They are going to produce their way to clean whatever. This is beyond DUMB! Same old story! Its always some far off future date. Too far to mean anything to anyone alive today and thats the point! 2050 is a cruel joke. Disaster will be here before 2030!

  • @jonc67uk

    A better question to ask would be is consumer capitalism physically sustainable without making the planet unsurvivable. Cue the awkward silence…

  • @TomSimak

    “Don’t want to tax these industries off the planet” 😂 I think they’ll be right Scomo

  • @notyou1877

    Let's see, hmmm?
    Removing carbon from carbon life cycle… that sounds like a bad thing to me…

  • @GoPieman

    cancel "the economy"! banish the relevance of gdp growth in "developed" countries and radically rearrange wealth to decouple any perceived connection between gdp and wellbeing. that's right eat the rich, for climate change.
    and no that isn't enough, it isn't a substitute for going green but it'll make it an easier pill to swallow.

  • @stephenspreckley8219

    That Mr Mann is …………………………

  • @fraserwood3314

    What a load of shit.
    So if plants grow with a co2 level between 350 and 550ppm, and the current co2 levels are about 411ppm.
    Why on earth would we reduce co2?
    Its plant food. This nonsense has to stop

  • @shaunluckham1418

    CO2 concentration doesn’t correlate with higher temperatures. The whole carbon narrative is bogus. By all means be conscious of ecology, pollution and waste. The “green” economy is just the latest grift from the super wealthy.

  • @oouziii4679

    Its gonna fkn have to be.. Or their not gonna have an economy left

  • @conor5145

    good video. can bicker over government policy all day but seeing the business / market side of the transition was interesting

  • @VMRDY

    Sad to see my tax dollars being wasted on ABC. Let’s defund the ABC and lower income taxes for every Australian.

  • @rickrys2729

    We have reached the point where net zero alone is insufficient and we will need to take CO2 out of the air to meet our Paris climate goals of 1.5 to 2.0 DegC. It's long overdue to put a fair price on carbon pollution as all options for removing CO2 so far are hugely expensive.

  • @davidcarey9135

    Lots of feel good statements and vague ambitions without fully discussing or understanding the impacts on both sides. Basic problem is that a barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of around 4.5 years of human labour. Nothing currently comes close to that including solar panels, batteries and wind turbines which is why oil currently dominates the economy and almost all human activity. Even if all coal fired electricity were phased out completely, electricity is only a fraction of total energy use. Trucks, tractors, shipping etc. don't run on electricity. You also need to be able to generate the heat to smelt certain metals which can currently only be achieved by burning something in many instances. Zero carbon dioxide emissions are fine if humanity decides that it wants to make huge sacrifice for the environment. You would be looking at humans living much closer to subsistence and probably with a much smaller global population. The idea that we will magically stop burning fossil fuels and everything will continue as normal with economic growth etc. is sadly unlikely to be the case – not consistent with physics.

  • @terenceiutzi4003

    I know it will never be a possibility and I am extremely glad! If the world goes carbon neutral we will all starve because of the carbon drought

  • @ianbarron1196

    remember when we run out of carbon dioxide we all DIE !

  • @DSAK55

    Mad Max will soon be Reality

  • @davidwilkie9551


  • @garykendall8646

    At what point will carbon neutrality be reached? Is the term interchangeable with nett-zero? Thus far, no politician or alarmist has given a sold answer to the desirable level of atmospheric carbon-dioxide. What if the neutrality point is 1000 ppmv? Plants would love that! At present they are on starvation rations. So much excretion from male bovines, so little solid evidence ! { Models are not evidence.}

  • @alanmay7929

    why cant australia invest in nuclear energy

  • @bosswana

    It is great to hear some of the industry leaders pushing this change and their comments add value to the public debate. I am not sure how the journalist interviewed adds to the credibility of the debate though. They are just qualified in writing and have no standing in the actual science. Unfortunately our media have developed a habit of interviewing journalists and treating them as experts (ABC is a killer at doing this) and using them to lead opinion when their formal expertise is low and their standing in the community is questionable.

  • @harrydecker8731

    The goal to achieve carbon neutrality is based on bunk science, political agendas, and environmental extremism. It's scientifically inaccurate to use the term "climate change" to describe any and every extreme weather event to include forest fires and floods. It's astounding how many people worldwide have been brainwashed by this bunk. The problem lies in the fact people are not being told all sides of the issue. They are not told all of the facts, nor are they told the history of climate such as times in earth's distant past where CO2 levels where ten times higher than today when no humans existed. They are not told that according to the geological record there is little correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising temperatures. Unfortunately, people either don't have the time or inclination to look up the facts themselves and listen to scientists who disagree with catastrophic climate change, and that is exactly what mainstream news, politicians, and extremists want! They depend on people remaining in the dark so they can advance their programs, which are going to do more harm than good in the long run.

  • @hijazkamalhasnan5752

    its inpossible to achieve carbon neutrality unless you totally stop consumption…..switching to EV and even solar is just switchung between products….manufacturung EV, solar and renewables will always produce carbon and pollution….look up solar panel waste, its toxic!

  • @jeanlefranc3817

    Companies exist because customers buy their products. Simple as that. Expecting companies to bring their total emissions down to zero, with an ever growing world population, aspiring to higher standards of living at no extra cost, is just a dream. It will simply not happen.

    The only way to sustainability reduce the GHG content in the atmosphere for the next centuries is to bring the world population down to 2 or 3 billion in the next 30 years and bring back manufacturing and food making at local level. Worked well until 1850, will work just as well tomorrow.

  • @davefroman4700

    Wake me up when they realize that our economic model is scientifically invalid to start with…..

  • @marktucker887

    Scottie in charge of Marketing is doing a good job of wagging the dog!

  • @grittychops6755

    The pentagon has determined we are just a hand full of years away from a Blue Ocean Event (BOE)….that is when there is less than 15% sea ice cover in the Arctic during summer….this will spike temps and the planet will feel it….then we will see policy surge.

  • @DaniDhonau

    No CO2 means no vegetation equals no food.
    Do not turn the CO2 neutrality (what ever that neans anyway) into a religion by missing more important issues such as overfishing and polluting of the oceans and illpracticing and unsustainable farming.

    Use common sense and keep focusing on things that we can control and make a huge difference today.

  • @satatik21

    This is basically govt and corporate propaganda heavily stacking in national interest, which is economic development at the cost of our future. Look, these companies knew what they are doing and didn't care.

    It's too late to prevent the fall of global society, but we can prevent the destruction of the earth if we change now. Humanity still has a chance.

    Change now, because climate change is going to bring every country to it's knees wether we change or not.

  • @iareid8255

    Who says there is a climate emergency and can prove it?
    Talk is cheap but trying to do what the greens want us to do is very expensive and likely to be completely ineffective.
    How much has the cost of electricity gone up in the last ten years in Australia? Mostly due to renewables and the grids are less stable and reliable, needing even more expensive equipment to just keep the grid running; all unecessary

  • @HappyBear376

    Utter tripe

  • @fraser372

    We simply have no choice as there is no bargaining point and to presume there is is to seriously underestimate the significance our climate driven to hither too unknown levels. We and the foods we depend upon will struggle with increasing average temperatures as chlorophyll within our diverse food crops simply shuts down and aerobically respires.

    Our most serious concern should be food production and that which impacts it and its sustenance because if we cannot feed ourselves everything else in a very short order becomes meaningless. Already food insecurity in many countries is a growing concern and as far as Australia is concerned look at the prices of food as an indicator and its demand world wide . All this before we even think of portable water with aquifers running empty and desertification continuing not to mention incremental weather which can destroy a food baskets production in very short order.

    Hollow idols.


    PM Morrison has little vision…with his Trumpian denialism of global warming. Coal makes 64% of Ozzie power….disgusting .


    of all countries in the world NOT needing more heat and fires and droughts and's Australia. I know.. being born there but living in temperate NZ where 28C is a real hot day!!

  • @coraltown1

    All of the world's countries are bald faced liars when it comes to carbon. They sign their names to agreements, while simultaneously wiping their asses on the commitments involved; hypocrites all, across the globe.

  • @gonzothegreat1420

    I cant believe that climate change is the major topic only in western countries. Not china not russia not any other eastern country is concerned ! We really want to destroy ourselves dont we ?

  • @EdgeMasterPro

    Mining companies sacked Rudd for suggesting taxing them. They run this country they own both sides of politics. Until we get money out of politics in Australia nothings going to change.

    Market forces will be too little too late on climate change.

    Pretty pro industry piece by the ABC I guess they know what side their bread is buttered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.