Chosen respondents: Tim Flannery & Scott Ludlam
In response to Dr Alan Finkel’s essay Getting to Zero, Flannery and Ludlam each expressed their
opinions on his roadmap towards net zero carbon emissions. Flannery’s much more vehement and
progressive analysis of Finkel’s essay raised issues with Finkel’s support of using natural gas as a
“transition fuel” during the process of converting Australia to means of clean electrical energy
production. Conversely, Ludlam is more prudent in his response, acknowledging Finkel’s experience
and expertise in the field of sustainable energy production and climate systems, while establishing
social concerns surrounding the scale of the project.
From the outset, Flannery voices his doubts concerning Finkel’s approach towards transitioning to
renewables. Stating that Finkel’s suggestion of utilising gas as a firming agent was “inconsistent” with
both “a safe climate” as well as “twenty five of Australia’s top climate [scientists’]” views, Flannery
confidently dissects Finkel’s argument, yet provides no reasoning as to why gas cannot be used as a
source of transitionary energy, other than the inferred emissions and environmental concerns-based
argument. Propagating a similarly styled argument founded on pathos with nuclear energy, Flannery
attempts to undermine Finkel’s evidence-based logos with hollow claims that Finkel seemingly
baselessly “backs away” from nuclear power as a source of energy, despite Finkel stating nuclear
energy would not be possible in Australia due to “populations around the world [living] in fear of
nuclear disaster” as well as lack of “government … leadership”. Finkel furthers this concept in a
recent article published by The Guardian, where he posits “legislation” and “various operational,
political and cost challenges faced by the nuclear industry” as limitations of nuclear power.
Despite this, Flannery poses a valid argument when it comes to obtaining hydrogen from coal and
gas as well as carbon capture and storage (CCS) associated with it. A large majority of the statistics
used in Finkel’s essay are derived from credible sources such as the CSIRO, the BOM, and other
conclusions are made based on computer modelling. According to Finkel, the accuracy of such
modelling is promised by “hypotheses debated and refined for thirty years, and credible data from
billions of data points around the planet over many decades of recording”. Moreover, Flannery and
Ludlam both praise Finkel’s analysis, further demonstrating the relevance and quality of his scientific
methods and results. However, in rebutting Finkel’s claims that “producing hydrogen from fossil
fuels … will [not] proceed without carbon capture and storage”, Flannery utilises numerical evidence
of Victoria’s La Trobe Valley coal-to-hydrogen plant venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a
“rate of around 88 kilograms for every kilogram of hydrogen created”, implying the greenhouse gas
emissions from utilising underdeveloped technology is . To this, Finkel has limited response, merely
stating that “using fossil fuels with CCS” depends on “economics”, suggesting Flannery’s criticism on
this aspect of Finkel’s roadmap is justified and has potentially unearthed a purposely omitted piece
of data, perhaps unveiling some systematic bias. However, in an article published by The Guardian on
the La Trobe Valley plant, Jeremy Stone, non-executive director of J-Power Latrobe Valley stated that
“about 11.5kg of CO2 [is being produced] for every kilo of hydrogen”. Therefore, it is difficult to
determine which statements are more accurate due to implicit bias being factors in both.
Contrastingly, Ludlam is more supporting of Finkel’s suggestions, claiming with the scientist that “we
are facing “political questions … not technical ones”. Like Flannery, Ludlam agrees that electrifying
the nation should be achieved with a “zero-emissions electricity grid powered by the sun and wind,
and distributed backup in the form of batteries and pumped hydro”. However, unlike Flannery,
Ludlam doesn’t outright admonish Finkel’s roadmap towards zero emissions, rather, pointing out a
critical aspect that Ludlam considers “cautionary”. Using a cause and effect sequence to elicit the
scope and magnitude of Finkel’s proposal, Ludlam reveals that “a high-end solar field would occupy
an astonishing 20,000 square kilometres of land”. Therefore, he makes it evident that using such vast
amounts of land may easily extend into the territories and lands of the Indigenous peoples, raising an
ethical and social issue concerned with the roadmap.
In correspondence to this, Finkel concedes that it is essential to “have policies in place [encouraging]
high-efficiency technologies and practices”. However, he backs off slightly, indicating that he may
ultimately not agree with Ludlam’s “lower impact” solution of higher-efficiency energy usage.
Therefore, it can be deduced that Finkel has not made adequate consideration for the ethical
considerations raised by Ludlam, and consequently inadequately addressed Ludlam’s main concern.
Ultimately, there is no perfect solution nor pathway towards reaching zero. Although Dr Finkel’s
highly informative essay Getting to Zero lays down the groundwork needed to be completed in order
to reach the target, it does lack focus in some facets as mentioned by Flannery and Ludlam; the still
premature technology surrounding CCS, and the societal impacts of using large amounts of land for
wind and solar farms. Thus, while Finkel’s plan is imperfect, it is certainly a solid base to build upon.
References:
Finkel, A. (2024, March 21). Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net
zero. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/hereswhy-there-is-no-nuclear-option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero
Readfearn, G. (2023, March 7). Japan to spend $2.35bn on turning Victorian Latrobe Valley
coal into “clean hydrogen.” The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/07/japan-to-spend-235bn-onturning-victorian-latrobe-valley-coal-into-clean-hydrogen