Nationals leader David Littleproud said on November 1 that the party wants a climate policy that makes sure “we are actually not streaking ahead of ... the rest of the world”.
The next day, the Nationals formally rejected a “net zero” emissions target.
Liberals energy spokesperson Dan Tehan said on November 12 that one of the foundational principles of the party would be for “reducing emissions in a responsible, transparent way that ensures Australia does its fair share”.
This is a euphemistic way of agreeing with Littleproud that Australia should not aim to reduce emissions faster than other countries. The Liberals decided on November 13 to drop support for the nominal target.
Australia has had a formal target since 2021 to reduce carbon emissions to “net zero by 2050”. Angus Taylor, minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction in 2021, said the “[Scott] Morrison government will act in a practical, responsible way to deliver net zero emissions by 2050 while preserving Australian jobs and generating new opportunities for industries and rural Australia.”
Anthony Albanese’s Labor government made that target law in 2022.
Even though the Coalition seems to have little chance of winning the next election, the corporate media has been awash with speculation about the Coalition ditching net zero.
Completely absent from the coverage is the more pressing question of what policy is needed for Australia to lead on climate action and help reduce the global risk of devastating climate breakdown.
Insiders host David Speers asked Liberal shadow housing spokesperson Andrew Bragg on November 9 if dropping net zero could reduce power prices and if the Liberals might adopt a net zero target for some other time. Bragg, a so-called “moderate”, seemed more interested in attacking Labor than answering questions.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on November 12 that almost one in three Australians want the Albanese government to “dump its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050”. This is akin to asking people’s opinion on whether smoking causes lung cancer rather than undertake a scientific study.
The mainstream commentary is largely ignoring the well-documented science and largely buying into the Coalition’s political conundrum — how does it come back from the brink?
It means that the discussion around net zero has been degraded from being a serious issue of science and political resolve to “clever politics”.
The truth is that net zero by 2050 is already woefully inadequate for any serious climate policy today.
Net zero is not zero emissions
When Labor promotes its climate change credentials — including climate change minister Chris Bowen’s recent dubious claim that Australia is pursuing “maximum possible effort” — it talks up its commitment to net zero.
It sounds good, but obscures Labor’s business-friendly approach. It assumes that “net zero” can be achieved by dodgy offsets rather than emissions reductions. Bowen told Insiders in 2022 that “net zero does involve offsets” and has always been Labor policy.
That is why Labor keeps approving new fossil fuel projects that will create new emissions for decades.
During its first term, the Albanese government approved 27 new coal, oil and gas developments. Since May, it has made four new approvals, including the mega-polluting Woodside development on the North West Shelf, Western Australia, which is projected to emit pollution until 2070.
The Climate Council of Australia calculated that these 31 projects will produce more than 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. “That’s equivalent to about one-eighth of global annual emissions, about 15 years of Australia’s current emissions, or 159 years of the emissions from all of Australia’s cars and utes,” it said.
The Production Gap 2025 report concluded that, globally, governments are still planning to “produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C”.
Such plans would lead to “global production levels in 2030 that are 500%, 31%, and 92% higher for coal, oil, and gas, respectively, than the median 1.5ºC-consistent pathway,” it said.
“These plans and projections also collectively exceed the fossil fuel production implied by countries’ own climate mitigation pledges by 35% in 2030 and 141% in 2050.”
Almost all of the top 20 countries responsible for emission production — including Australia — have 2050 or 2060 net zero emission pledges.
“Net zero” is not zero emissions. For capitalist governments, it is a means to pursue economic growth with minimal disruption to the fossil fuel industry.
When the Coalition dumps net zero, it is signalling its preference for an even more business-friendly, and less effective, climate policy. In its calculations, it will have a better chance of being re-elected.
Ecosocialist Jason Hickel agreed with Brazil’s André Corrêa do Lago, president of the COP 30 climate summit, who said the “rich countries have lost enthusiasm for tackling the climate crisis”.
Hickel said “our capitalist classes have decided that it is not sufficiently profitable, so they’re not going to do it.
“Capital cannot be relied upon to address the climate crisis.”
Australia lags behind
Littleproud argues Australia should not “streak ahead”. The truth is that this rich country, with boundless potential benign energy reserves, ranks 52 (down from 50 last year) out of 67 countries as measured by the Climate Change Performance Index.
Emission reductions achievements to date have almost all come from changes in “land use”. This is a dodgy accounting trick that was inserted into the Kyoto Protocol to appease John Howard’s Coalition. It was known as the “Australia clause”.
Australia could achieve impressive emission reductions if it had political will. It has huge renewable resources, notably solar and wind. And, as a wealthy country, it can afford the investment needed to get to 100% renewable energy quickly.
Labor should ditch the $368 billion and rising on AUKUS nuclear submarines and spend the funds on decarbonising the economy.
For all of the scaremongering about energy prices, renewable power is cheaper than any other energy source. After the initial investment, the costs plummet to close to zero, as sun and wind are free.
The energy sector should be brought under democratic public ownership to guarantee a rapid transition to a decarbonised economy alongside dramatically lower power prices for households.
The investment could be paid for by taxing the billionaires, who have grown even richer on recklessly polluting the atmosphere, and redirecting the billions of public subsidies away from polluting industries to renewables.
Similar investments into expanding the ageing public transport networks and building sustainable and affordable houses will improve people’s lives while also reducing emissions.
Thirty years of climate summits show that negotiations between capitalist governments eager to please their billionaire masters are no pathway towards effective emission reductions.
Today, it is clearer than ever, that the preservation of a liveable climate depends on countries breaking with the suffocating straitjacket of climate inaction.
Australia should lead on climate policy. Not only does it have a moral obligation as the world’s second-largest exporter of fossil fuel emissions, it would be the most practical way to pressure other countries to also reduce emissions.
But this will only be achieved by breaking the vice-like grip that corporations have over the major parties. It means we need to build a people’s movement strong enough to deliver lower power prices, as well as other social justice measures.
[Alex Bainbridge is a long-term climate activist and member of the Socialist Alliance.]