The Chief Scientist says otherwise, but this is a political fix - and an understandable one.
When Alan Finkel released a preliminary report into energy security last year, there was no mention of the latest policy now thrust into the centre of the decade-old political climate wars - the creatively named clean energy target.
Six months on, it's a central recommendation. It is also the last and best hope of anything meaningful getting up on climate and energy under this government.
The politics look difficult as hell, and it's not what you would do if starting from scratch, but with a couple of adjustments it could deliver what Australia and the energy industry need: a path to encourage investment in new power plants and to start cutting greenhouse gas emissions from electricity. It should also help keep a lid on price rises and ensure the lights stay on.
Given the challenges faced, Finkel has done a mighty job. Until December, the barely whispered assumption was that, having heard industry's cries for an end to the playground politics over climate policy, heavyweights in the Coalition would back an emissions intensity scheme. Once made public, that option lasted barely 36 hours before the backbench erupted and the Prime Minister caved.
Along with other agencies, Finkel was left to come up with an alternative. The result is a mix of policy and politics, with its eye on what could get through the Coalition joint party room. It's worth a crack.
The expectation was an emissions intensity scheme would lead to a shift from coal to natural gas and renewable energy. High-emitting coal generators would have faced a cost that subsidised the cleaner fuels, making them cheaper.
A clean energy target is effectively an extension of the existing renewable energy target. It would require a certain amount of electricity from lower emissions and renewable technologies, with incentives paid on a sliding scale favouring the cleanest. Natural gas would probably play a much lesser role, coal plants would stay open longer and renewable energy would get ongoing support.
Without gas as a central player, it is expected the price of electricity would be cheaper than under an emissions intensity scheme. It would certainly be cheaper than if we did nothing and had to resort to expensive options as ageing coal plants shut without warning.
Modelling for the Finkel review suggests that 42 per cent of electricity would be from renewable technology by 2030. Coal plants would still close, but would have to give three years' notice to avoid the Hazelwood situation, where a giant generator shut with basically no notice.
There is nothing in the review stopping new coal plants being built, but it is highly unlikely they would be. They wouldn't receive credits, and financiers are not interested in investing in a technology they believe will be phased out.The battle over coal in the Coalition party room may be decisive, but it will be illusory.
Climate policy is just part of the Finkel review. Other recommendations include that new solar and wind should have to come with "dispatchable" back-up that can be called on whenever needed. There will be pressure to get batteries up and running at grid scale.
That path that we have taken to get here is, of course, ridiculous. It's worth remembering that John Howard - not exactly a champion of climate action - proposed a more exacting clean energy target back in 2007. Crucially, he saw it as a secondary policy to an emissions trading scheme that would cut pollution across the economy. Ten years on, a weaker side dish is being presented as the main meal.
The Finkel report leaves large unanswered questions. Crucially, it has an unrealistic expectation of how fast emissions must be cut from electricity. It wants a 28 per cent cut from power plants by 2030, mirroring the national target. In reality, it's much easier to cut pollution from electricity than, say, agriculture. It will have to do more. The report basically acknowledges this. How? It doesn't say.
But it is a beginning and policies evolve once in place. This shouldn't be that hard. Lower prices, improved energy security and a start to cutting emissions that can be built on later? Just bloody do it.
