Fascinating article Mega, thanks for posting. It completely...

Fascinating article Mega, thanks for posting. It completely passed me by.

It is a highly significant shift in language but the article reads as if the MCA has changed its language with a gun held to its head by its larger constituents - BHP seems annoyed at its pro-coal lobbying ("you're not helping"), whereas Rio seems like it's trying to hold off shareholder activists by asking the MCA to tone it down.

If I were cynical, I'd say that the shift is to subtextual language - "technology neutral" "baseload generation capacity" and "lowest cost reliable dispatchable energy supply" are all roundabout ways of saying "we think you still need to use coal, gas and ahem ahem nuclear".

To be less cynical, it is fair to say that the mining industry also has a stake as a materials supplier to the renewables/energy storage industries. And it's genuinely refreshing to see a mining lobby group starting to frame the industry in this way.

And at the very least, this language signals a shift from a "spoiler" lobby group actively arguing for retrograde policy to a more circumspect, nuanced participant in debates about energy policy. Which is a great development.

I still wouldn't trust em tho