"The Liberal Party’s formal abandonment of the net zero by 2050 target and the repeal of the legislated 2030 emissions reduction goal represent a catastrophic failure to acknowledge both climate science and energy system dynamics. Our rigorous (yet simple and transparent) Global Renewable Energy and Sectoral Electrification (‘GREaSE’) model [1,2] confirms that choosing a weak climate intervention setting directly results in cumulative emissions consistent with catastrophic global warming of approximately 2.5 to 3°C. The party’s decision aligns Australia with the worst-case emissions outcome identified in our analysis.

This intentional policy failure immediately exposes Australia to the severe physical risks detailed in the National Climate Risk Assessment (NCRA). Under the highest warming scenarios (3.0°C) considered in the NCRA, severe heatwave events could more than quadruple, dramatically increasing heat-related mortality. Furthermore, relying on weak policy acts as a dangerous "threat multiplier" to national security, risking overwhelming the Australian Defence Force’s core mission amid cascading disasters.

Crucially, the Liberal Party’s policy retreat ignores a fundamental truth: the transition to renewable energy is inevitable. Our modelling demonstrates that, irrespective of climate policy choices, the depletion of fossil fuels dictates that the shift to renewable supply and sectoral electrification must occur. By abandoning the strong policy pathway necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target (requiring net zero by 2050), they are guaranteeing maximum emissions overshoot and greater climate peril, all for the sake of delaying (by a decade or so) a wholesale energy transformation that must happen anyway."

References:
[1] Hopeward, J., O’Connor, S., Davis, R., & Akiki, P. (2025). Scenarios of carbon and energy risk: Building rapid insights from a global energy transition simulator. In CSE 2025 (pp. 166-177). Adelaide: Engineers Australia.
[2] Hopeward, J., Davis, R., O’Connor, S., & Akiki, P. (2025). The Global Renewable Energy and Sectoral Electrification (GREaSE) Model for Rapid Energy Transition Scenarios. Energies, 18(9), 2205.
Link to model:
https://kumu.io/JamesWard/grease

"Scott Morrison believed in miracles and the US alliance. Under his Prime Ministership (when Biden was in the White House) the Liberal Party adopted a “net zero by 2050” goal, but its implementation plan relied on miracles and international offsets. Sussan Ley once followed numerology, the mystical belief that numbers predict events. Having been forced to dump the net zero goal, she will be hoping the outcome is not net zero Liberal wins in metropolitan seats.
Despite the Albanese government’s efforts to accelerate the electricity sector’s transition to renewables backed by gas, Australia still lacks a credible net zero plan. Yet bipartisan support for a "net zero" goal mattered because symbolic goals steer both policy and investment decisions.

Likely political consequences for the Liberals are mixed. It will reinforce perceptions of Liberals as climate deniers and may cost support among younger and metropolitan voters; yet it will help the Liberal party to sharpen its “cost of living” message and retain rural/regional support. Where President Trump recently told the UN General Assembly that climate change is “the greatest con job ever”, Ley’s Liberals are still promising to remain in the Paris Agreement. However, their retreat from climate ambition aligns them with developments among right-wing parties internationally."

"The Coalition position to dump Net Zero by 2050 has but one virtue, transparency, making clear their position since 2013 of denial with all its inherent hypocrisies. While mostly acknowledging the reality of climate change, they have no credible commitments or policies to do anything about it in either the mitigation or adaptation sense. The Nationals, while claiming to represent rural and regional Australia, including the agricultural communities, are blind to the devastating impacts of more frequent extreme weather events, fire, droughts and floods on agricultural industries and dependent regional communities. Their position is a tragic triumph of politics over reality, intergenerational equity and the national interest."

"The decision of the Liberal Party to dump the 2050 net zero target is not in line with Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, which requires the emission reduction commitments put forward by each country to reflect their highest possible ambition and for each updated commitment to represent a progression beyond previous commitments. Australia risks international reputational damage and potential international legal actions if there isn't bi-partisan commitment to take ambitious action to prevent dangerous global heating in line with our international obligations"

"The decision by the Liberal Party to drop its net-zero-by-2050 target seems to reflect a broader international shift in how governments are weighing the costs, feasibility, and timing of deep decarbonisation. Achieving net zero by mid-century is an ambitious goal, and realistically it cannot be reached without large-scale deployment of carbon offsets, negative-emissions technologies, or carbon capture and storage — all of which remain uncertain at scale and potentially very expensive.

At the same time, Australia is uniquely positioned to lead on decarbonisation. Our exceptional renewable resources, coupled with world-class expertise in energy markets and engineering, mean that an ambitious transition is not only possible but could deliver long-term economic and strategic benefits. From this point of view the decision seems rather disappointing.

The global conversation is also shifting: in the US, China, and even among influential voices like Bill Gates, there is growing recognition of the costs and trade-offs associated with net zero. The Coalition’s rethink appears to align with this wider reassessment. As we move forward, the critical question is how Australia can balance ambition with realism — ensuring that decarbonisation remains both economically sustainable and technologically achievable."

"Abandoning a clear commitment to net zero is profoundly out of step with what we are already seeing in Australia’s climate and ecosystems. In the past year alone, catastrophic marine heatwaves have bleached coral and driven mass fish kills along large stretches of our coastline, and South Australia is still grappling with an unprecedented toxic algal bloom that has devastated marine life and coastal communities. At the same time, southern Australia (from SA through western Victoria, Tasmania and southern WA) faced a prolonged, record-breaking drought, with rainfall in many areas a fraction of long-term averages, while New South Wales simultaneously endured destructive coastal storms, storm surges and destructive flooding.

These are not abstract environmental issues. They directly threaten food security, fisheries, tourism, water supplies, infrastructure and public health, and come on top of the 2019–20 bushfire season that is still fresh in many Australians’ minds. In this context, any weakening of national climate ambition sends the wrong signal to communities, investors and our international partners. To protect both biodiversity and people (our health, safety and critical assets), Australia needs to strengthen, not retreat from, robust national climate targets and a credible pathway to net zero emissions."

"The Coalition is yet again engaging in a version of climate denial.

Without explicitly opposing emissions reductions in general, they have again refused to accept robust scientific assessments that show a slow decrease in global emissions condemns us all to much higher temperature increases over the coming decades.

And, without saying so, they are rejecting core tenets of the Paris Agreement, about the necessary urgency of a transition away from fossil fuels by 2050 at the latest, and the need for strong contributions from rich countries like Australia in this effort.

The Liberals’ desperate attempt to keep the Coalition alive means that they are consigning themselves to the political wilderness for the foreseeable future. The Party has misunderstood the sense of urgency and anxiety that urban voters and those in rural areas ravaged by climate-exacerbated fires, floods and storms are feeling over this issue.

This sentiment was a driving factor in the rise of Teal Independents across Australia. More Lower House seats will now swing away from the Liberals to independents who are strong on climate change, or through their preferences, to Labor or the Greens, while there are none to be gained for the Coalition overall."

"The Liberal party’s abandonment of a 2050 net zero target simply formalises their opposition to any serious policy aimed at reducing Australia’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Since it is unlikely that the LNP will regain national office within the next five years, the direct implications of this decision are limited.

The big problem is that the absence of any serious opposition gives the Albanese government cover to parade a stated commitment to “net zero” while planning for an indefinite continuation of coal exports and continued domestic emissions from transport and industry.

What is needed is “real zero” - a policy aimed at eliminating all major sources of emissions."

"Net-zero refers to a balance between greenhouse gas emissions, for example from burning fossil fuels, and sinks, for example where carbon is absorbed by planting forests.

When this balance is achieved globally, temperatures will stop rising.

The sooner net-zero is achieved, the more we will limit damage to the Earth's climate system and protect Australians from the worst impacts of climate change."

"Our research indicates that trust in climate scientists is a critical factor shaping how the public understands and responds to climate policy. When political signals shift abruptly, it has the potential to weaken that trust - not because people expect perfect certainty from science, but because they look for consistency between scientific assessment and policy direction.

In work with my colleague Omid Ghasemi, we find that people are more willing to trust climate science when they perceive climate scientists as independent, transparent and aligned with evidence-based conclusions.

Sudden policy reversals could create the impression that scientific guidance is secondary to short-term political considerations, which makes it harder for the public to evaluate risks accurately and make informed choices.

The scientific consensus on the need for substantial emissions reductions has been remarkably stable over decades. Maintaining trust in that process is essential.

Durable, evidence-aligned policy, regardless of political party, is one of the strongest signals governments can send to support public confidence in both science and institutions. Clear, consistent alignment with the science helps people navigate uncertainty and contributes to better long-term outcomes for Australia."

"Australians are already feeling the impacts of climate change, from rising insurance premiums to food price shocks, and these pressures compound the cost-of-living crisis.

We’ve seen this firsthand: families in the Northern Rivers still rebuilding after multiple catastrophic floods, and communities across Queensland and Victoria hit by back-to-back disasters.

Climate related disasters are estimated to cost Australia up to $94 billion a year by 2060 and our National Climate Risk Assessment — just released — warns climate impacts will escalate, with millions of people at risk from coastal hazards by 2090. Weakening our climate commitments won’t ease household bills; it will make them worse by undermining investment in clean energy and resilience."

"This is a massive retrograde step. The Australian government simply has to continue its commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050. Around the world we share in, the future of our planet and government is an essential influence on the sustainable direction we take.

We are already seeing the impacts of climate change from floods, fires, reef degradation and algal blooms. Without concerted targets and action now these impacts will only get worse for all of us."

"The decision by the Liberal party to drop net zero doesn’t pass the pub test on five counts.  It ignores:

1. the science which tells us that we need to reach net zero by 2050 to stand any chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees
2. the economics which says that it is vastly cheaper to address climate change than to do nothing
3. the business case for replacing our aging fleet of coal fired power stations by using renewables as the cheapest option to keep electricity prices down
4. the electorate, the vast majority of whom across the country are calling for concerted action on climate change.
5. the business community, who are calling for consistent policy on climate action to create the certainty that de-risks the cost of investment.

The only net zero the Coalition are now committed to is the number of additional votes from adopting this policy."

"Dropping our 2050 net zero target is an extremely unwelcome outcome for all Australians. 

Everyday Australians are already paying the price for global warming, through higher house cooling costs in summer, more damaging heavy rain events, worse droughts, higher insurance premiums, and higher food prices because of the effects of climate change on agriculture. These impacts disproportionately affect Australians living outside capital cities, as well as children and older people, people with disabilities, and people already struggling with high cost of living.

Children today are growing up in a world that has already changed significantly from when their parents were young. Not only is the weather hotter, but rainfall patterns are changing, sea levels are rising, and we are at risk of losing fragile and unique environments such as the Great Barrier Reef. The ongoing climate crisis also poses a mental health threat to children, many of whom feel frustrated and betrayed by poor governmental responses to climate change. This will only get worse if Australia abandons its commitments to addressing climate change.

Backing down on our net zero target is not only socially irresponsible, but economically irresponsible. Extreme climate events like floods and droughts already cost Australia tens of billions of dollars per year. If climate change is allowed to continue unchecked, this figure will only rise in coming decades. 

We cannot just rely on other countries to solve the problem for us by reducing their emissions, while not playing our part. Climate change should not be a political bargaining chip: it is an issue that transcends politics because it threatens our very way of life."

"The Liberal Party’s decision to formally abandon a net-zero target is a profound strategic miscalculation that reveals a party trapped in the past, actively ignoring the clear lessons of the last federal election.

The rise of the Teal independents was not a fleeting protest; it was a direct repudiation by traditionally conservative voters of the party's inaction and ambiguity on climate change. By jettisoning net-zero, the Liberal Party is not merely ignoring this message – it is spurning a significant portion of its own base. It is also still unlikely to heal the rupture with the National Party.

Furthermore, this policy shift is a transparent attempt to weaponise climate action as a political wedge. By framing the transition to a clean economy as a partisan battleground, the party seeks to create a clear, if false, dichotomy against Labor-Greens or "green left". This strategy is designed to mobilise a specific segment of the electorate by stoking cultural anxieties about change and economic cost.

However, it treats a critical matter of national and economic security as a mere political football, prioritising short-term electoral tactics over the long-term national interest. In doing so, the party is unequivocally coddling the far-right fringe of its own coalition and the broader political landscape, alongside powerful fossil fuel lobbyists. This effectively holds the nation’s climate policy hostage to very narrow interests.

Most alarmingly, this stance is a wholesale denial of overwhelming scientific evidence and established economic policy. Every major scientific body, from the IPCC to Australia’s own CSIRO, has stated that achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century is the absolute minimum required to avert catastrophic climate impacts.

Simultaneously, bodies like the International Energy Agency and International Monetary Fund have detailed the immense economic opportunities of the energy transition and the crippling risks of being left behind.

To dismiss net-zero is to dismiss this entire body of expert consensus, an abdication of responsible governance that will cost Australia dearly in global influence and economic competitiveness – not to mention the high-costs for ordinary citizens in terms of sky-rocketing insurance premiums and suffering through increased extreme weather events."

"The Liberal Party’s move isn’t about dumping a burden — it’s about losing competitiveness.

The Liberal Party’s decision to abandon Australia’s Net Zero commitment is not about removing an economic burden, it’s about walking away from one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time. The world is moving toward a $12 trillion transition economy by 2030, driven by clean energy, low-carbon technologies, and green innovation.

While other nations are investing to secure their place in this new economy, Australia risks being left behind, clinging to an outdated model built on coal and mining industries that are rapidly becoming stranded.

We have world-class research capabilities in renewables, green hydrogen, and sustainable systems, yet we continue to lease our mines and return minimal value to the Australian people. Instead of leveraging our scientific strength and natural advantages to build a resilient, competitive economy, we are choosing to retreat.

The real risk is not the cost of transition, but the cost of inaction. By turning away from Net Zero, we are turning away from innovation, investment, and the prosperity of future generations. This is a failure to understand strategy in the context of policy decisions as a political movement."

"Removing a firm net zero target while keeping an openness to carbon neutrality creates a policy vacuum that raises strategic and financial risks for Australia. The science is unambiguous that reaching global net zero around mid-century is necessary to limit warming to 1.5C. 

What is clearly missed in this political debate is that targets without credible mechanisms do not reduce emissions. 

Investment flows, regulatory certainty and long-term signals are the primary drivers of cost reductions in clean energy technologies. 

Abandoning a clear target and rejecting the tools needed to reach it exposes Australian firms and industries to higher transition risk, particularly given that major trading partners are moving toward mandatory climate risk disclosure and carbon-adjusted trade measures.

This shift also threatens Australia’s competitiveness in low-carbon export markets where trading partners maintain net zero commitments. 

The immediate political gain may be outweighed by the economic cost of uncertainty for investors who require stable climate policy to deploy capital. The question is not whether Australia will transition, but whether it will do so on terms that lower transition risks."

"Achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide is a necessary part of keeping temperatures to the Paris Agreement targets, so it is difficult to see how we can ditch this but remain in the Agreement.

Furthermore, because of record-breaking emissions since the Paris Agreement was started, if we want to keep to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we now need to go below net zero, which means extracting CO2 from the atmosphere permanently as well as driving down our emissions. These large-scale changes will only happen with strong, consistent and informed policy.

They will not happen by accident, something to "welcome" if we stumble across it. Additionally, the Paris Agreement has a ‘ratchet’ clause which requires nations to successively increase their emission-reduction goals, so suggestions of stepping back our goals are incompatible with that Agreement."