As the election campaign draws to a close, it’s safe to say both major parties have been quiet on climate change. While Labor policies have made some progress to decarbonise, the Coalition threatens to scrap or weaken them.
Around the world, more and more electric vehicles are hitting the road. Last year, more than 17 million battery-electric and hybrid vehicles were sold. Early forecasts suggest this year’s figure might reach 20 million. Nearly 20% of all cars sold today are electric.
But as more motorists go electric, it creates a new challenge – what to do with the giant batteries when they reach the end of their lives. That’s 12 to 15 years on average, though real-world data suggests it may be up to 40% longer. The average EV battery weighs about 450 kilograms.
By 2030, around 30,000 tonnes of EV batteries are expected to need disposal or recycling in Australia. By 2040, the figure is projected to be 360,000 tonnes and 1.6 million tonnes by 2050.
Is this a problem? Not necessarily. When a battery reaches the end of its life in a vehicle, it’s still got plenty of juice. Together, they could power smaller vehicles, houses or, when daisy-chained, even whole towns.
For this to work, though, we need better information. How healthy are these batteries? What are they made of? Have they ever been in an accident? At present, answers to these questions are hard to come by. That has to change.
Old EV batteries have huge potential. But it’s not going to be easy to realise this.
That’s because it’s hard to get accurate data on battery performance, how fast it’s degrading and the battery’s current state of health – how much capacity it has now versus how much it had when new.
Unfortunately, vehicle manufacturers often make it difficult to get access to this crucial information. And once a battery pack is removed, we can’t get access to its specific data.
This comes with real risks. If a battery has a fault or has been severely degraded, it could catch fire when opened or if used for an unsuitable role. Without data, recyclers are flying blind.
Reusing EV batteries will only be economically viable if there’s sufficient confidence in estimates of remaining capacity and performance.
Without solid data, investors and companies may hesitate to engage in the repurposing market due to the financial risks involved.
EV batteries are full of critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium and manganese. Nearly everything in an EV battery can be recycled – up to 95%.
Here, too, it’s not as easy as it should be. Manufacturers design batteries focusing on performance and safety with recyclability often an afterthought.
Battery packs are often sealed shut for safety, making it difficult to disassemble their thousands of individual cells. Dismantling these type of EV batteries is extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. Some will have to be crushed and the minerals extracted afterwards.
EV batteries have widely differing chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate and nickel manganese cobalt. But this vital information is often not included on the label.
Used EV batteries fall into three groups based on their state of health:
High (80% or more of original capacity): These batteries can be refurbished for reuse in similar applications, such as electric cars, mopeds, bicycles and golf carts. Some can be resized to suit smaller vehicles.
Medium (60-80%): These batteries can be repurposed for entirely different applications, such as stationary power storage or uninterruptible power supplies.
Low (below 60%): These batteries undergo shredding and refining processes to recover valuable minerals which can be used to make new batteries.
Researchers have recently succeeded in estimating the health of used EV batteries even without access to the battery’s data. But access to usage and performance data would still give better estimates.
An EV battery is a remarkable thing. But they rely on long supply chains and contain critical minerals, and their manufacture can cause pollution and carbon emissions.
Ideally, an EV battery would be exhausted before we recycle it. Repurposing these batteries will help reduce how many new batteries are needed.
If old batteries are stockpiled or improperly discarded, it leads to fire risk and potential contamination of soil and water.
Right now, it’s hard for companies and individuals to access each battery’s performance data. This means it’s much harder and more expensive to assess its health and remaining useful life. As a result, more batteries are being discarded or sent for recycling too early.
Recycling EV batteries is a well-defined process. But it’s energy-intensive and requires significant chemical treatments.
At present, many battery manufacturers are wary of sharing battery performance data, due to concerns over intellectual property and other legal issues. This will have to change if society is to get the fullest use out of these complex energy storage devices. But these changes are unlikely to come from industry.
In 2021, California introduced laws requiring manufacturers to give recyclers access to data and battery state of health. Likewise, the European Union will require all EV batteries to come with a digital passport from January 2027, giving access to data on the battery’s health, chemistry and records of potentially harmful events such as accidents or charging at extreme temperatures.
Australia should follow suit – before we have a mountain of EV batteries and no way to reuse them.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australia is running out of affordable, safe places to live. Rents and mortgages are climbing faster than wages, and young people fear they may never own a home.
At the same time, climate change is getting worse. Last year was Australia’s second?hottest on record. Global warming is leading to more frequent and severe bushfires, floods and heatwaves.
These two crises feed each other. Energy-hungry homes strain the grid on hot days, and urban sprawl locks residents into in long car commutes. And dangerous, climate-driven disasters damage homes and push insurance bills higher.
It makes policy sense to deal with both crises in tandem. So what are Labor, the Coalition and the Greens offering on both climate action and housing, and are they fixing both problems together?
On housing, Labor has promised A$10 billion to build up to 100,000 new homes for first home buyers, over eight years. It is also committed to the national cabinet target of 1.2 million homes by 2029.
A returned Labor government would also allow first home buyers to use a 5% deposit to purchase a property. And it would invest in modern construction methods to speed up the building process and make housing more affordable.
On climate policy, Labor is aiming for a 43% cut to emissions by 2030 (based on 2005 levels) and net-zero emissions by 2050. It has also pledged home battery rebates up to $4,000.
The verdict: Labor’s plan represents progress on both climate and housing policy, but the two are moving on separate tracks.
Buildings account for almost a quarter of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. But Labor has not made any assurances that the promised new homes will have minimal climate impact.
Labor’s commitment to new construction methods is welcome. Modern solutions such as prefabricated housing can substantially reduce emissions.
However, the spending represents only a tiny proportion of Labor’s $33 billion housing plans.
A Coalition government would permit first home buyers to pull up to $50,000 from their superannuation savings for a home deposit. It would also make the interest on the first $650,000 of a new home loan tax-deductible.
The Coalition has also pledged $5 billion to speed up home-infrastructure development such as water and power, and would reduce immigration to ease housing demand.
A Dutton-led government would also freeze building standard improvements for a decade, because it claims some improvements make homes more expensive.
On climate change, it would review Labor’s 43% emissions-reduction target, expand gas production and build small modular nuclear reactors at seven former coal sites.
The verdict: The Coalition’s housing and climate policies are not integrated. And while freezing changes to the national building code might lower the upfront costs of buying a home, it may prevent the introduction of more stringent energy-efficiency standards. This would both contribute to the climate problem and lock in higher power bills.
The Greens say rent increases should be capped at 2% every two years. It is also pushing for 610,000 public and affordable homes in a decade, to be delivered by the federal government. Property tax breaks, such as negative gearing, would be wound back.
On climate action, the Greens want a 75% emissions cut by 2030 and a ban on all new coal and gas projects. The party is also advocating for large public investment in renewable energy and grants to help households disconnect from gas appliances and install electric alternatives.
The party says its housing plans slash energy bills and emissions, because more homes would be energy-efficient and powered by clean energy.
The verdict: The Greens offer the most integrated climate-housing policy vision. But its plan may not be feasible. It would require massive public expenditure, significant tax reform, and logistical capabilities beyond current government capacity.
Neither Labor, the Coalition nor the Greens has proposed a truly integrated, feasible policy framework to tackle the issues of housing and climate together.
Resilient, net-zero homes are not a luxury. They are a necessary tool for reaching Australia’s emissions-reduction goals.
And government policy to tackle both housing and climate change should extend beyond new homes. None of the three parties offers a clear timetable to retrofit millions of draughty houses or protect low-income households from heat, flood and bushfire, or has proposed binding national policies to stop new homes being built on flood plains.
Whichever party forms the next government, it must ensure housing and climate policies truly pull in the same direction.
Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).
Integrity organisation claims Australians for Natural Gas overstates role of gas in economy and failed to disclose directors’ links to industry on website
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been asked to investigate allegedly misleading claims made by Australians for Natural Gas, a pro-gas group with directors who include a gas industry executive and a Liberal candidate running in the federal election.
Lawyers acting for Climate Integrity, a not-for-profit focused on corporate accountability, have filed a complaint with the ACCC. They argue that the website and advertising materials of Australians for Natural Gas have failed to disclose its directors’ links to the gas industry and Liberal party, and overinflated the role of gas in the economy and energy transition.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Feral cats are a menace to wildlife but South Australia’s KI has taken a stand in a bold eradication program that is at a critical point
The cat-proof fence drops off a sheer cliff on one side of Kangaroo Island, and disappears into the ocean on the other. The top section is floppy and electrified – a rude shock for wily cats seeking to climb over – and the bottom is burrow-proof.
Gaps left for humans and wildlife funnel any would-be trespassers through a minefield of traps, which are closely monitored.
Years of fires, landclearing and introduced predators have seen Australia’s bilby population plummet but a glimmer of hope exists within six protected areas.