The Atmosphere Doesn’t Care About Your Postcode

Series note: Commentary on how decisions are made, who makes them, and what they actually produce.

By Aiden Garrison

The bill arrives. It’s higher than last quarter. Much higher than five years ago. Your local member tells you this is the necessary cost of transition. The energy regulator publishes a report explaining the structural drivers. The Climate Council explains how much worse it would have been without the renewables build. Everyone has a story.

None of the stories explain why your bill has risen above CPI for two consecutive years while Australia digs up more coal than it has in years and ships 88% of it overseas to be burnt.

That gap — between the explanation and the receipt — is the article.

What you’re being told

You’re being told Australia is doing its part. We have a 2050 net zero commitment. We’re closing coal plants on schedule. We’re building wind and solar at record pace. The transition is expensive but necessary, because the alternative is a planet that doesn’t sustain your grandchildren.

Pay the bill. Take the medicine. Trust the experts.

The framing is moral. The framing is global. The framing assumes you’re either with the project or against the planet.

What’s actually happening

Australia produces 427 million tonnes of black coal a year. We export 88% of it. The buyers are Japan, China, India, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam. They burn it in power stations and steel mills. Each tonne releases about 2.4 tonnes of CO2 into the same atmosphere that sits over the Gold Coast and your grandchildren’s school.

The CO2 doesn’t check the postcode of origin. The molecules behave identically. The climate impact of Australian-sourced coal is the same whether it’s burnt at Bayswater or at Mundra.

The honest caveat: if Australia stopped exporting tomorrow, global emissions wouldn’t fall one-for-one. Buyers would substitute Indonesian, Russian, Mongolian or domestic Chinese supply. Australia is a low-cost, high-quality producer, so marginal displacement effects exist — pulling our supply would raise global coal prices and reduce demand at the margin — but the substitution is real and large. The point isn’t that Australian exports cause global emissions in some pure sense. The point is that Australia’s territorial net-zero accounting is a framing convenience, not a planetary outcome. We get the moral credit for not burning the coal here while the molecules go up anyway.

We do the same thing with gas. We export roughly 75% of LNG production at international parity prices. Then we charge Australian households and manufacturers those same international prices for what’s left. The east coast had no domestic gas reservation until this week. Western Australia has had one since 2006. WA gas has been materially cheaper for the entire intervening period. Same country. Different policy. Predictable result.

The reservation policy announced on 7 May 2026 is a 20% reserve from July 2027, applying only to spot cargoes and contracts signed after December 2025. Existing long-term export contracts are grandfathered. It is a step toward sanity — and it is partial, slow, and shaped by what the exporters could be persuaded to accept. That negotiation took place in the rooms where reform of this kind always takes place, between officials and counterparties who know each other well.

The story that explains the gap

This is not conspiracy. It is public choice operating exactly as the textbook describes.

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. The export companies, treasuries, gentailers, renewable developers and the institutional capital behind them collect identifiable, measurable rents from the current arrangement. The losses are spread across ten million household power bills and a hundred industrial sites — large in aggregate, individually too small to organise around. Concentrated interests outbid diffuse ones in every political system ever observed. Australia is not exceptional in this. The mechanics are.

Coal exporters earn on every tonne shipped. They pay royalties to state governments and corporate tax to the Commonwealth. They employ in marginal seats. They fund both major parties. They prefer it when domestic generation closes — the political cover for continued exports gets easier when domestic burning falls and the optics of phasing out coal can be maintained.

Gas exporters run the same play at larger scale. Santos, Woodside, Origin and the rest sell into Asian markets at premium prices. They pay royalties on less than half of what they export. They fund the same political infrastructure. They benefited for two decades from the absence of an east coast reservation policy because it meant Australian customers paid international parity for what was produced here. The new 20% reserve will pull that lever back partly. Existing contracts will continue exactly as before until they expire in the 2030s and 2040s.

Renewable developers are not the underdogs in this story, but they are not the villains either. High wholesale prices help unsubsidised solar and wind pencil out. Subsidies make them work better. They have also delivered real price-suppression effects in the NEM during high-output periods — Queensland wholesale prices fell 40% in 2023–24 driven by solar and wind, and renewables are now the cheapest source of new generation by a wide margin. The catch is that the retail bill hasn’t followed the wholesale signal. Network charges, policy costs and retailer margins absorb most of the relief before it reaches the customer, which is a structural feature of how the NEM is built rather than a renewables problem specifically. Both things are true: renewables are doing real economic work in the wholesale market, and the structure rewards offshore institutional capital that owns chunks of both fossil exporters and renewable developers while the household customer waits for the saving that never quite arrives. The “fossil vs. renewables” frame disguises the more accurate frame, which is rent extraction across the entire energy stack by capital that doesn’t live here.

Treasuries collect from all of it. Coal and LNG exports generate $60-plus billion a year in earnings, royalties and tax. That is a structural revenue dependency. No treasurer of either party wants to disrupt it.

The bureaucrats running the energy market and writing the climate policy operate inside this structure. Their career incentive is to keep the machine functioning, not to question whether the machine is built correctly. The lobbyists are often their former colleagues or future employers. The information they rely on comes from the industries they regulate. This is regulatory capture in its standard form: not corruption, but the slow alignment of regulator and regulated through shared information networks, shared career paths and shared assumptions about what counts as a workable policy. It is what every regulatory body in every advanced economy eventually becomes if the design doesn’t actively resist it.

What the politicians actually do

The politician’s job is to win the next election. To win the next election they need three things: money, media coverage, and a story voters will accept.

Money comes from donors. The donors are the same exporters, gentailers and developers who benefit from the current arrangement.

Media coverage requires a narrative. “Climate leadership” is a clean narrative. “We’re shipping the coal overseas while pretending to phase it out” is not.

The voter story has to be simple enough to repeat without flinching. “We’re saving the planet” works. “We’re transferring wealth from your household to multinational shareholders while global emissions continue unchanged in another country” does not.

Politicians are not stupid. They understand the gap between the framing and the reality. They tell the story that gets them elected because that’s what the job rewards. The bureaucrats execute the story because that’s what their job rewards. Neither group is acting against type. They’re acting exactly as the structure incentivises them to act. This is the part the public-choice framing predicts in advance — not malice, just incentives doing what incentives do.

The trilemma

There are three internally consistent positions on this. We are running none of them. Understanding why we’re running none of them is most of what’s interesting about Australian energy policy.

Position one — climate maximalist. Physically constrain the supply. End coal and gas exports. Accelerate domestic phase-out. Accept the loss of $60 billion a year in export earnings, the collapse of regional employment in coal regions, the hit to state budgets, and the substitution effect that means global emissions don’t fall by anything close to what your domestic emissions fall by — because Indonesia, Russia and others fill the gap. This is the only position that takes the climate framing seriously enough to act on its physical implications. No party in any major democracy is proposing it.

Position two — economic realist. Domestic priority everywhere. Comprehensive gas reservation, not the partial 2027 version. Coal-to-power retention where it remains economic. Technology-open approach including nuclear, large-scale storage, demand response. Lower bills, more competitive industry, slower territorial decarbonisation, larger contribution from continued export earnings. Requires confronting the export lobbies directly, which is why no major party proposes this in full either, though pieces of it now appear in Coalition platforms and the new gas reserve is a partial step.

Position three — status quo. Export the molecules at international parity. Charge the public the marginal price set by gas and ageing coal. Subsidise renewables to address the political optics. Call the result climate leadership. This is what we have. It is the stable political equilibrium because it pays the existing rent collectors most while imposing only diffuse, attributable-to-anything costs on the public.

The atmosphere is indifferent to which of these we choose, with one important asymmetry. Position one bends the global curve modestly, through marginal supply restriction, at very large domestic cost. Position two bends it not at all but produces cheap energy and industrial competitiveness. Position three bends it not at all and produces expensive energy and industrial decline. The current arrangement is the only one that pays the cost without buying the outcome.

What actually moves the needle

The thing that bends the global curve isn’t any sequence of Western territorial commitments. It is non-emitting energy technology that outcompetes coal and gas on cost and reliability everywhere — including in markets that have no climate policy and never will. China, India and Southeast Asia are not going to stop burning coal because of moral pressure from Canberra or Westminster. They will stop when the alternatives win on price and reliability in their grids, in their conditions, at their scale.

That makes the actual high-leverage policy quite different from what’s being run. R&D in long-duration storage, advanced nuclear, industrial heat decarbonisation, grid-scale firming, and synthetic fuels for hard-to-abate sectors. Procurement scale-up of mature tech where it’s already cost-superior. Honest accounting of the marginal cost and reliability trade-offs at every step. Dropping the moral framing entirely in favour of physics, engineering and economics.

This is not what governments are optimised to do. Governments are optimised to win the next election, which means producing announceables that signal virtue today, even if the engineering and the physics make those announceables irrelevant in twenty years.

The voter starts to figure it out

What’s changing now isn’t that the policy is failing. The policy isn’t failing. It is delivering exactly what it was designed to deliver: cheap exports, expensive domestic energy, treasury receipts, and offshore industrial migration, all wrapped in the moral packaging required to keep the public from organising against it.

What’s changing is that the voter has worked out that the bill is real, the climate impact isn’t, and the moral story doesn’t match the maths.

The Coalition has dropped its 2050 commitment. Reform UK leads the polls in Britain on a similar platform. Conservative parties across Europe are being rewarded for asking questions the technocratic centre refused to ask. Even the Tony Blair Institute has urged suspension of carbon taxes on gas to prioritise cutting power bills over near-term emissions targets.[1] Bill Gates published a memo before COP30 arguing that temperature is not the right measure of climate progress.[2] None of this is climate denial. It is economic literacy and engineering realism catching up to political theatre.

The thing the political class fears now is not that voters will demand stronger climate action. They fear voters will demand to see the receipts, sector by sector, and ask why we’re exporting the climate problem we’re charging ourselves to solve.

That is the question that ends careers. It is also the question that finally gets policy judged by physics, engineering and economics — instead of by how good the press release sounds at COP.

The system isn’t broken. It’s doing exactly what we asked.

The only question left is when enough voters work out who “we” actually means.

-----

[1] Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, Cheaper Power 2030, Net Zero 2050, October 2025. The report urged the UK government to temporarily suspend certain carbon taxes on gas while additional renewable and nuclear capacity is built.

[2] Bill Gates, “Three Tough Truths About Climate Change,” Gates Notes, October 28, 2025. Gates argued that temperature targets are not the best measure of climate progress and called for a strategic pivot in how climate action is framed and funded.