<
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/nov/11/coalition-brawl-australia-2050-net-zero-emissions-target>
"The best thing that can be said about the Coalition’s internal brawl over
whether to abandon its support for reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is that
it has some honesty in it. Not much honesty, but if you look closely you may
see some light breaking through.
The federal Liberals and Nationals have never supported the idea of reaching
net zero by 2050. Some individual MPs have but not the parties. We know this
because they have not backed a policy to help meet it since Scott Morrison
adopted the target in 2021 to try to deflect rising pressure at home and
abroad.
It means the public argument now playing out has been about politics far more
than substance. When Liberal MPs meet in Canberra on Wednesday they will be
really just discussing whether to drop the charade.
The taxpayer-funded nuclear energy policy rejected by Australian voters at the
last election was a fossil fuel policy in disguise. If it had been introduced
and worked – a Kosciuszko-sized “if”, according to some experts – it would have
meant stalling the growth of renewable energy and burning a stack more coal and
gas for power until at least the mid-2040s. The Coalition also promised to
abolish or limit all climate measures introduced in Labor’s first term.
Since getting thumped in May, it has dropped its election stance. But the
Coalition’s shadow energy minister, Dan Tehan, has signalled that its
replacement policy could include subsidies to introduce not only nuclear energy
but boost coal and gas. How this would square with the second part of his title
– shadow minister for emissions reduction – is anyone’s guess.
The Nationals’ leader, David Littleproud, has said his party’s decision last
week to abandon the net zero emissions target is “not denying the science of
climate change” because “what we’re saying is there’s a better, cheaper, fairer
way to address it”.
Has Littleproud explained what that better, cheaper, fairer way would be? You
can probably guess the answer. He also hasn’t explained how voters should
interpret the Coalition’s decision to drop the title of shadow minister for
climate change after the election as anything other than a form of climate
denial."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
