Exporting sustainable energy to the Pacific

Recently, at the Pacific conference in Tuvalu, my nation's evangelical, transphobic, neoliberal PM reduced the leader of a Pacific nation (Tonga) to tears by refusing to admit to the existential reality of the climate crisis.

It was abhorrent behaviour on all counts.

So . . . what could my home state do, if anything, to help Tuvalu - in addition to the existing commitment to reduce GHG emissions?

Well, we've recently started exporting hydrogen (although made from coal, which makes it environmentally questionable, in my inexpert opinion), and we've started manufacturing electric buses and rapid charging stations. In addition, two projects are underway in Australia's north and northwest to develop ways of exporting solar power to Asia - probably also through generating hydrogen, as I understand it.

Now, I'm not a coastal engineer (I thought about it a few times, partly because of my passion for sailing, ), but I also understand that, as sea levels rise, seawalls and other defences will need to be constructed.

On top of that, clean water is often a challenge in smaller islands. 

If I put all that together, how about this:

• Victoria joins the growing move to export sustainable power by constructing a hydrogen from solar and/or wind and/or geothermal plant(s), taking advantage of the current plans for hydrogen from coal (it would be manifestly insensitive to offer hydrogen from coal when pro-coal caused the reaction described above); 
• noting my home state's history of involvement in overseas aid projects (the work I did overseas in the 90s was for the Overseas projects Corporation of Victoria, which was spending, as I understand it, AusAid money), Victoria establishes a network of ships and receiving stations through the Pacific, aimed at, in the first instance, meeting any power needs they may have (again, I'm not an expert on that, but I know power needs are a major problem in Africa); 
• a by-product from burning hydrogen is water - it won't be potable (it will need disinfection for a start), but it also won't be saline, and thus will eke out (it won't be a large volume) existing fresh water sources as climate change makes rain increasingly unreliable; 
• my home state takes advantage of its manufacturing capability to develop whatever equipment (amphibious excavators? barges?) is necessary to enable Pacific islands to modify reefs (e.g., I've read of trials relocating sections of coral to shallower water to (a) keep the coral alive and (b) maintain the "sea defence" aspect) or perform other works needed by Pacific island nations to maintain as much security as is possible until the world works out a proper plan for those affected by climate change, whether that is resettlement or continued efforts to control the change and respond to the effects of the change.

As I see it, this could:

• meet the development and some of the environmental needs of the too often neglected Pacific region; 
• increase employment in my home state - hopefully in the heavy industry experienced Latrobe Valley, where, despite excellent efforts, unemployment after the Hazelwood closure is still an issue; 
• provide actual data on the sort of employment generated by sustainable energy schemes of this type, which may be of use in places like central Queensland at the next Commonwealth election; 
• place us in the lead of a new market of environmentally sustainable heavy equipment (I have often advocated - in business - for being the first in an area, which means others are competing and playing catch up, but I have never yet been listened to, meaning those who ignored me have found themselves having to compete and play catch up); 
• offset some of the damage done by Australia's current neoliberal Commonwealth government to Australia's international standing.

PS - see this: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/waking-australia-s-real-pacific-family