Why net zero is a battle for political middle ground

The Liberal and Nationals parties have launched a review of their commitments to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, which shapes as a defining moment for the Coalition and the nation’s long-running climate wars.

Both Coalition partners announced, after Labor’s thumping federal election win this month, they would throw open debate in their party rooms before finalising their policy offerings.

Nationals leader David Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley.Credit: Marija Ercegovac

Net zero is among the most pressing issues, given Coalition leader Sussan Ley has committed to end the nation’s climate wars and take the Liberal Party back to the “sensible centre” of the political spectrum in a bid to win back the more than 30 seats it would need to form government again.

Most of Australia’s biggest polluters, including the mining, energy and agriculture sectors, are committed to reaching net zero by 2050, in line with Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

But four prominent Coalition MPs have called the commitment into question. Nationals Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan and Colin Boyce are campaigning for the Coalition to ditch net zero and to instead pursue greater use of fossil fuels in a bid to lower the cost of energy. Liberal Andrew Hastie has called for a debate on net zero.

Why is net zero important?

The goal is a centrepiece of the Paris Agreement, agreed to by 195 countries. It aims to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial levels and limit the worst impacts of climate change.

It was enshrined as a legally binding treaty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris in 2015. It has been official Australian government policy since, through Coalition and Labor governments.

To reach net zero, countries must drastically cut carbon emissions, which includes major reforms to energy generation, transport, agriculture and manufacturing. The aim is to leave just a small volume of annual emissions to be stored by offsetting projects such as tree planting.

But a decade on and the UN has said “commitments made by governments to date fall far short of what is required” to reach net zero.

Australia is a case in point. Respected analyst organisation Climate Action Tracker has found Australia’s action to reach net zero is over-reliant on offsets, with plans in place to cut just 60 per cent of emissions by 2050. It also found the Albanese government’s commitment to cut emissions 43 per cent by 2030 is consistent with global action that would lead to Earth’s atmosphere warming by more than 2 degrees and by up to 3 degrees.

Why is net zero controversial?

The Albanese government took an ambitious emissions reduction policy to the election, pledging to massively boost renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel use as a key measure to reach net zero.

The policy has also formed a political fault line: politicians who recognise the need to curb emissions to halt global warming on one side and those who question if climate change is real on the other.

When Ley declared this month that her policy review would include net zero, Energy Minister Chris Bowen accused the Liberal leader of lurching to the far right.

“Net zero by 2050 is not a policy, it’s the bare minimum framework you have to work under,” he said.

The Liberals’ moderate faction largely views net zero as a necessary commitment in their pitch to win back hoards of voters who have abandoned the party.

However, while the Coalition went to the 2022 and 2025 elections with a commitment to net zero, the Liberals’ right faction and many Nationals right-wing MPs have privately argued against the commitment.

Before Nationals leader David Littleproud ended the Coalition agreement as negotiations over policy broke down – it was reformed just eight days later – he had asked that rules for shadow cabinet be changed so Nationals shadow ministers could vote against joint policy positions.

Many assumed this was because Littleproud knew he could not guarantee his party’s shadow ministers would stick by the policy.

The demand was rejected, and both parties continue to debate their position on net zero.

But Joyce, Boyce and Canavan have since made repeated claims that cutting emissions to net zero is unachievable as developing nations increase their emissions and argue, against the findings of the CSIRO, that fossil fuels provide cheaper energy.

“Net zero is disastrous for our nation. Let’s fight it,” Joyce said on Thursday.

What is the ‘sensible centre’?

Ley’s ambition to form a centre-right Coalition policy platform will hinge on reaffirming the commitment to net zero, given the nation’s biggest polluters and employers have made long-standing commitments.

Australia’s largest employers Coles and Woolworths, as well as hardware giant Bunnings, have signed up.

Major industries are also committed to the goal. “There is strong industry ambition to achieve net zero emissions in mining operations by 2050 [and] our members are committed to this goal and are already investing in the technologies and processes to get there,” the Minerals Council has said.

The national gas lobby, Australian Energy Producers, is committed to net zero, as are the manufacturing and energy companies’ representatives, AI Group and Australian Energy Council.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.