Iluka backs Lindian rare earths play in Malawi with $32M
Emerging junior Lindian Resources has unveiled a multi-pronged, multi-million-dollar major offtake agreement, cornerstone funding and strategic partnership with global critical minerals heavyweight Iluka Resources to push its world-class Kangankunde project in Malawi towards first production.
The seismic deal for the company cements Kangankunde as one of the pre-eminent rare earths developments on the planet, as Iluka scrambles to lock in its strategic rare earths supply for Australia's future.
The news has set the market abuzz with Lindian's share price soaring by as much as 60 per cent in early trading this morning, as investors piled into the stock on the back of the US$20 million (A$32 million) partnership.
Under the agreement, Iluka will front a US$20 million construction loan, accompanied by a 15-year offtake deal for 90,000 tonnes of Kangankunde's premium monazite concentrate, weighing in at a stellar 55 per cent total rare earth oxides (TREO).
The concentrate is almost 20 per cent high-value neodymium and praseodymium (NdPr) rare earths, which are critical for electric vehicle motors and renewable energy technologies.
Lindian is now firmly plugged into the Western world's push for a secure, non-Chinese rare earths supply chain.
The project's hefty 261-million-tonne resource grading some 2.19 per cent TREO with an ore reserve at a higher 2.9 per cent, had the company firmly on the radar of global players such as Iluka. The Australian producer has now jumped to lock in the emerging Lindian, as the federal government moves to replicate the United States and set a floor price for local rare earths production.
Kangankunde is well on its way to stage 1 production, in which the project is set to churn out 15,300t of concentrate annually, including 1600t of NdPr, over an uncapped 45-year mine life. And that's just the start.
With a pre-production capex of just US$40 million (A$64 million) and operating costs of US$2.92 per kilogram of rare earth oxides, the project sits in the lowest cost quartile globally.
Even at today's depressed rare earths prices, Lindian's feasibility study projects a pre-tax net present value of US$794 million (A$1.225 billion) and an internal rate of return of 99 per cent to give a one-year payback.
The Iluka partnership looks like a masterstroke for both parties. The offtake locks in 6000t per annum of feed for Iluka's Eneabba rare earths refinery in Western Australia - Australia's first fully integrated, government-backed rare earths facility, slated for commissioning in 2027. The pricing will be tied to Eneabba's realised NdPr oxide prices, offering a floor price likely to dwarf Kangankunde's already profitable production cost.
If Iluka secures government price support, Lindian will get a slice of that upside too. It also has a right of first refusal clause in the deal for an additional 9600t of NdPr after the initial offtake and up to 25,000t per annum for a phase two expansion at Kangankunde, provided Iluka funds 50 per cent of the expansion capex.
Lindian says a stage 2 expansion would potentially triple output down the line, using the same low-risk gravity-magnetic flowsheet that makes the mining so simple. The project impressively requires no flotation, no reagents, no waste dams and has a negligible stripping ratio of 0.2.
Iluka's US$20 million secured term loan comes with a five-year tenor at a 9.7 per cent average interest margin, with no financial covenants or penalties for early repayment.
Lindian can also raise an additional US$7 million working capital facility, giving it the flexibility to fully fund Kangankunde's Stage 1 build. First production is targeted for 2026.
The deal doesn't just de-risk Stage 1 - it lays a rock-solid foundation for growth. Iluka's terms for Stage 2 funding signal confidence in Kangankunde's scalability.
With a 45-year mine life, a flowsheet that's as simple as it gets and a partnership to supply Australia's critical minerals strategy for the foreseeable future, Lindian is no longer just a junior with potential - it's emerging a serious future cornerstone in the global rare earths race.
Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
matt.birney@wanews.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
16 hours ago
- ABC News
US senator Chris Coons says Australia spending more on defence than given credit for
A senior Democrat senator who led a US congressional delegation to Australia says the Albanese government deserves more credit for its level of defence spending, but should still go further. Senator Chris Coons, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Australia was spending more than it was given credit for once shipyards and other defence infrastructure were taken into account. The delegation of Republican and Democrat members of Congress met Australia's prime minister in Sydney on Friday afternoon after attending the Australian America Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide. "I do think an increased investment in defence would be justified", Senator Coons told the ABC after meeting Anthony Albanese. "Of course, that's a decision for the Australian government, the Australian people", he added. Defence spending currently sits at just over 2 per cent of GDP in Australia and is forecast to reach 2.3 per cent by 2033-'34. Senator Coons said if other defence infrastructure was to be included the figure would be higher. "The way that our NATO allies are counting their percentage of GDP, I'm told, would give Australia credit for north of 2.7 or 2.8 per cent," he said. NATO members have recently committed to lift their defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Senator Coons said this figure "might be significantly easier for Australia to reach, given that your accounting doesn't quite give you full credit". He has vowed to spend as required to meet Australia's defence needs. The congressional delegation also strongly backed the AUKUS deal amid an ongoing review of the agreement by the Pentagon. US Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby, who is conducting the review, has also called on US allies in the Asia Pacific region to lift defence spending. Senator Coons said Congress would resist any move by the Pentagon to cancel or significantly change the AUKUS agreement. "I think if there were to be some unexpected change in direction there'd be very strong pushback from Republicans and Democrats who I've spoken within the Senate leadership," he said. The prime minister is hoping to meet President Donald Trump during a visit to the United States next month for the UN General Assembly.
The Advertiser
16 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it.
Sky News AU
17 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Kosha Gada: Labor leads Australia into oblivion with net zero's trifecta - grid insecurity, solar's hidden costs and the blight of wind farms
Few issues cut deeper into national survival or division than energy policy. In 2025, the Western world faces a stark split: the US, under President Donald Trump, has abandoned net zero to pursue fossil fuel dominance, while Canada, Europe, and Australia double down on costly climate pledges. Within minutes of taking office on January 20, Trump pulled the US from the Paris Agreement and declared a National Energy Emergency to unleash oil, gas, and coal for affordability, security and dominance. In contrast, Canada, the EU and Australia cling to net zero targets despite mounting costs. Australia's uniquely punishing burden Australia's situation is extreme. A July 2025 ACCC report warns that outdated market rules are driving grid volatility and soaring household bills. With just 27 million people and a $200 billion fossil fuel export economy, rigid net zero targets mandated by the 2022 Climate Change Act risk crushing both grid and economy. The law demands a 43 per cent emissions cut by 2030 and net zero by 2050, while the 2024 Future Made in Australia Act pledges $22.7 billion for green industries. A 2035 target of 65 to 75 per cent reduction looms. Unlike the UK, the EU, Canada and Japan, which rely on nuclear or hydro, Australia has vast coal, gas, lithium and uranium reserves yet no comparable low-carbon baseload options. Net zero requires slashing domestic fossil fuel use while still exporting them- a hypocrisy critics call 'starving while selling bread'. With a sparse population and sprawling grid, renewable intermittency hits harder than in denser nations. Failures such as Queensland's $14 billion hydrogen project collapse and soaring transmission costs expose the fragility of the plan. Ross Garnaut warns the absence of a carbon price makes the Net Zero Plan incoherent, while years-long project approvals add delays. Net zero's 'catastrophic trifecta' - grid instability, solar's hidden costs and wind's environmental damage - reveals deep flaws in the policy's economic and ecological logic. Grid on the precipice: Physics versus fantasy The National Electricity Market (NEM) is straining under the shift from coal (down 35 per cent since 2000) to 83 per cent renewables by 2030, as projected by AEMO. Intermittent solar and wind lack the synchronous inertia of coal and gas, destabilising frequency- a weakness exposed by the 2016 South Australia blackout and recent solar output cuts in North Queensland. Australia's vast, lightly populated grid cannot match the resilience of Japan's compact network or Canada's hydro-backed system. Gas 'peaking' plants and unproven long-duration storage are stopgaps, but one in four households already struggles with energy bills. A 2022 NSW price spike forced AEMO intervention, and the Productivity Commission warns of 'massive costs' to triple NEM capacity by 2030, with storage needs rising from 3 GW to 49 GW by 2050. The physics - not politics - make net zero's ambitions unattainable without destabilising supply. Solar illusion: Hidden costs and false promises Large-scale solar farms, costing over $1 billion per gigawatt, require massive public and private investment plus billions more for grid integration. Solar's daytime-only output forces reliance on backup generation. End-of-life disposal is a looming crisis: panels contain toxic materials, last only 20 to 30 years, and Australia lacks scalable recycling. Panel manufacturing depends heavily on coal-powered Chinese factories, which control 80 per cent of global supply, binding Australia to environmentally damaging and strategically risky supply chains. Land use is another issue - vast farms consume thousands of hectares, fragmenting ecosystems, and competing with agriculture. These costs undermine solar as a pillar of reliable, affordable energy. The windfarm contradiction: a renewable hellscape Wind farms scar iconic landscapes, from Tasmania's hills to Queensland's coasts, fuelling rural resentment. A 2023 CSIRO survey found widespread opposition, citing the visual blight of 200-metre turbines. Wildlife suffers: thousands of birds and bats die annually, including protected species, while offshore projects threaten marine life through underwater noise. Turbine blades, made of non-recyclable composites, are piling up in landfills. Decommissioning costs often fall to taxpayers, and vast transmission projects fragment habitats while inflating costs. For a sparsely populated country with unique wilderness, wind power's environmental toll contradicts net zero's 'green' image. Government's true duty The government's first responsibility is reliable, affordable energy, not pursuing an abstract 'luxury belief' of net zero. Cheap, stable power underpins households, farms, and industries, sustaining the $200 billion fossil fuel export economy and Australia's living standards. With one in four households in energy hardship, intermittent renewables risk further strain. Reliable energy safeguards jobs, competitiveness, and national security. Net zero, by contrast, is a distant goal disconnected from Australia's immediate needs and advantages. The debate is fundamentally about the role of government - keeping lights on and costs down versus chasing utopian ideals. The righteous fight In Canberra, opposition is hardening. Senior Liberal Andrew Hastie vows to keep fighting net zero despite electoral headwinds, citing public anger over prices. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has introduced a bill to repeal the target, backed by Senator Matt Canavan, who calls net zero 'crazy and insane'. Regional MPs like Garth Hamilton and Alex Antic argue it betrays Australia's resource wealth. Nationals leader David Littleproud has labelled the target 'impossible'. Moderates like Andrew Bragg and Zoe McKenzie warn that abandoning net zero risks losing urban seats to the Greens and independents. The Coalition's May 2025 election loss - Labor won a historic majority - has deepened divisions. Pro-climate independents and the Greens gained ground, while the Coalition's pro-nuclear, pro-gas platform failed to win undecided and female voters. For the Coalition, the stakes are existential: Net zero threatens regional economies and energy security, yet dropping it risks alienating urban voters. The challenge is to reframe the issue - not just about reliability and affordability, but about national pride and energy supremacy. Australia, as the 'lucky country,' could deliver abundant, cheap power, thriving industries and jobs while fuelling the world's energy needs. Selling that vision could unite rural and urban voters, dismantle net zero's hold and restore Australia's economic leadership. Kosha Gada is a tech entrepreneur and broadcast commentator on US and international current affairs, appearing live three nights a week on Sky News Australia. She is a board member of sports betting platform PointsBet
