Take coal, for example. In the last month, Newcastle, the world's largest coal port, announced its intention to diversify away from coal; BHP-Billiton, the world's largest mining company, announced its intention to withdraw from the World Coal Association; and the Queensland government was re-elected after abandoning its support for subsidies for the world's largest export coal mine. And, of course, AGL, the largest consumer of coal in Australia, just committed to replacing its ageing Liddell coal-fired power station with a suite of renewable energy and gas projects.

Even coal is getting out of coal.

But only a year ago, after an unprecedented cyclone in South Australia knocked down a dozen electricity transmission towers, Malcolm Turnbull and his front bench started the craze of blaming blackouts on renewable energy and assuring us that coal would be with us for "many, many, many decades to come". They were heady days. Scott Morrison got so excited that, like a kid sneaking a yo-yo into class, the Treasurer got in trouble for bringing a lump of coal into the House of Representatives.

Prime ministers are more visible, and less powerful, than they used to be. Appearing on the news every day may be a good way to build a profile and "get the message out", but providing commentary on the story of the day lessens the significance of prime ministerial pronouncements. Like Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott before him, Turnbull has fallen into the trap of delivering catchy grabs in response to the daily news agenda that end up haunting him like the ghosts of Christmas past.

Last summer, the Prime Minister jumped onto the idea of blaming renewable energy for South Australia's blackouts, like a man jumping from a burning ship into an ocean full of sharks. Sometimes, it's better for the captain to stay with the ship and pick up a fire extinguisher. But captain's picks have not been Turnbull's strong suit.

While Coalition MPs clearly enjoyed mocking renewable energy last summer, teasing technologies is not really a long-term policy or political strategy. This week, when the ageing Loy Yang coal-fired power station broke down, the world's largest battery, the one funded by the South Australian government and built by Elon Musk's Tesla in 90 days, fired up in 180 milliseconds to protect the grid. It would have taken a gas-fired power station 30 minutes to provide the same reserve capacity. The Coalition has been mute in its praise of the new-fangled battery it was so recently ridiculing.

Of course, it isn't only conservatives who can jump onto the wrong fad. A decade ago, Australia's environment movement was so obsessed with emissions-trading schemes, like the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme (remember that?), that it wound up spending all of its political capital pushing for an unpopular tax rather than direct its attention towards unpopular coal mines and unreliable old power stations.

While only a small portion of the public would hit the streets to demand a new tax, the campaign to stop subsidies for Adani's coal mine united farmers, businesspeople, environmentalists and people who just hate seeing taxpayers' money wasted. Few people outside Queensland noticed that even One Nation campaigned against subsidies for Adani.

For all of the talk about the effects of Twitter and the 24-hour news cycle on modern politics, the Coalition's biggest problem is that it is yet to adjust its strategy to accomodate the simple realities that the environment movement isn't pushing for an unpopular carbon price at the moment, it's pushing to stop unpopular coal mines and pushing to support popular renewable energy.

And when this political strategy is combined with the fact that the costs of renewable energy are collapsing at a time the private sector is being asked to make 50-year bets on new coal-fired power stations, it's easy to see why the Coalition is so lonely. The same business voices that joined Abbott's war on the carbon price have abandoned Turnbull's war to defend coal.

Nor is it only the Australian business community that is turning rapidly away from fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, energy bills and air pollution. Just this week, the French President ruled out exploitation for oil in all French territories. And just last month, the former secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figureres, warned Australia that our fossil-fuel subsidies are harming our international reputation. Whether Australian politicians like it or not, the world energy market is shifting rapidly.

No one knows what faddish gift they or their kids will want for Christmas in 10 years' time, and the same uncertainty applies to the shape of our rapidly changing energy, electricity and transport sectors. No one, including the Prime Minister, can predict the future.

But while experienced parents know to plan ahead at Christmas and buy some spare batteries, Turnbull seems stuck with Abbott's plans to shove a lump of coal into everyone's Christmas stocking. The last 12 months showed how unsuccessful that strategy is.

The big question is whether, in the lead-up to the next election, the Prime Minister decides to give the voting public the renewable energy that every poll says it wants. A year is a long time in politics.

Richard Denniss is The Australia Institute's chief economist. Twitter: @RDNS_TAI