11 April 2025

Coalition stumbles over commitment to Paris climate agreement

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
15
Chris Bowen and Ted O'Brien at the National Press Club

Chris Bowen and Ted O’Brien at the National Press Club on 10 April. The Coalition has wavered in its support for the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Photo: Screenshot.

The Coalition is wavering on its commitment to the Paris climate agreement, with shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien refusing to rule out a Peter Dutton-led federal government walking away from it.

Australia is a signatory to the Paris deal and has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.

During a National Press Club federal election climate change and energy debate on Thursday (10 April), Mr O’Brien was asked if a Coalition government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement.

His answer was noncommittal.

“Our commitment is this: when it comes to establishing future targets, we need to account for three things,” he said.

“One, the trajectory of emissions; two, the state of the Australian economy; and three, the suite of our policies, not Labor’s policies.

“That will allow us to then understand the art of the possible. We want to ensure that we are growing this country.

“Decarbonising it is good. De-industrialising it like Labor is, is bad.”

When pressed further by the media and asked again if the Coalition would stay committed to Australia’s legislated Paris commitments, Mr O’Brien would not rule out quitting the agreement.

“I can commit that we will always act in the national interest, and we’ll be upfront with the Australian people,” he said.

READ ALSO Dutton releases gas policy price modelling, promises household bills will drop

Just a few hours after the debate, Mr O’Brien was forced to release a clarifying statement confirming the Coalition’s continued commitment to the Paris Agreement.

“To be clear, we are committed to the Paris Agreement, including net zero by 2050,” his statement said.

“But under Labor’s trajectory, Australia’s chances of hitting the 43 per cent target by 2030 is pure fantasy.

“Unlike Labor, we’ll be upfront with Australians about how we assess these factors and how they shape our targets.”

That statement, however, came after fellow shadow ministers Jane Hume and Michaelia Cash both, separately, publicly contradicted their colleague’s press club comments and each stated the Coalition remained committed to the Paris global pact.

The Press Club debate between Mr O’Brien and Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen allowed each an opportunity to present their respective parties’ energy plans and credentials.

Mr Bowen pointed out the stark differences between Labor’s plan and that of the Coalition, which includes the establishment of seven nuclear power plants.

“No one could accurately say that both parties have the same positions when it comes to energy. We do have very different plans,” the Minister said.

“On the one hand, our plan, backed by the experts of the CSIRO and our energy operators and regulators. Our plan stays the course with an appropriate mix of more renewable energy backed by storage, backed by gas peaking and firming, backed by household batteries, transmission and a stable system.

“And the good news is that this is not a trade-off. The same plan, our plan, is the right plan that delivers the cheapest, most reliable form of energy and reduces emissions in this, the critical decade for our planet.

“They want a radical change in direction. They propose the biggest change in our electricity generation ever.

“They dismiss the advice of the CSIRO, the Energy Market Operator and the other experts.

“That’s the essential difference of approach – we listen to the experts. Mr Dutton and Mr O’Brien think they know better than the experts, and that’s why their plan is so risky for our country.”

READ ALSO AEC acknowledges influencers in federal election, with updated advice on authorisations

Mr O’Brien said the Coalition’s plan was based on “engineering and economics” and a balanced energy mix.

“Under our plan, in the short term, one, we do not believe that we should be closing our baseload power stations prematurely – unlike Labor, which is happy to close one system without having another one ready to go,” the shadow minister said.

“Two, we believe we need to pour more gas into the market, more gas and a lot of it, and get it to where it needs to be. Australian gas for Australians first.

“And three, we believe that we need to continue with renewables and storage, but in a sensible way, one that doesn’t fight against regional communities but carries them with us.

“Then, in the near term, our plan is to replace retiring coal plants with zero emissions nuclear energy, bringing us back to where we should be, lined up with other advanced economies around the world. And unlike Labor, we’ve done the work, we’ve done the modelling, and we have a plan.

“And under our plan, in the short term, we will see gas prices coming down for industry by 15 per cent, households 7 per cent, and for wholesale electricity 8 per cent, or for your bill at home, electricity [down] 3 per cent.”

Join the conversation

15
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I will not vote for a political party that supports Nuclear Energy. and i usually vote Liberal. I can not bring myself to vote Labor anymore and I can not vote for anyone who does not believe in climate change. I have no idea who I will vote for neither major party is worth the $3.78 they get for my vote from the public purse.

Darryl Guise1:55 pm 11 Apr 25

Remember, under the Australian system you do not have to like the candidate. We actually elect the candidate who is least disliked and that is a good way to do it.

To win government, the Coalition has to win back 17 seats – including inner city ones that went to Independents last time. Voters in those electorates made it clear that they care about environmental issues. O’Brien just shot his own party in the foot.

Nuclear power is cost-competitive, has popular support, is emissions free, has suitable locations, is reliable 24/7, and is a proven technology that has been providing electricity since 1954 (US Navy) or 1956 (UK commercial).

According to Frontier Economics, the Coalition’s plan of adding nuclear power to the generation mix will reduce the full system cost to 2050 by 44% or $263 billion, compared to full system cost of the renewables-only Labor plan.

When asked “Do you support or oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?”, the annual 2024 Lowy Poll found 61% support (27% strongly, 34% somewhat).

Life-cycle CO2 emissions per GW/h are less for nuclear plants than for wind or solar plants (Our World in Data).

Replacing coal power stations with nuclear will reduce local air pollution and utilise existing infrastructure.

Nuclear power is reliable 24/7, whereas unreliable wind and solar generate nothing during calm nights.

The 2023 climate meeting launched the “Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050”, which has been joined by 31 nations, 14 major global banks, 140 nuclear industry companies, and a wide cross-section of major energy users.

ANSTO and ANU scientists developed Synrock to contain nuclear waste decades ago, and Australia will build a storage site for spent nuclear fuel, initially for our submarine fleet and eventually for our power plants.

Australia has by far the largest reserves of Uranium, estimated by the IAEA to be over 2 million tonnes.

“Nuclear power is cost-competitive, has popular support” …neither of those two things are true, as your first premise failed therefore your whole arguments (read the Gencost report).

I notice you proceed to bang on about nuclear in the UK…well on that subject, Hinkley C was due to be finished in 2017 at cost of around $35bn…it’s already blown out to three times that figure and won’t be finished until about 2032. And that’s happening in a country with an established nuclear industry.

BTW…you can bang on all you like about Dutton’s nuclear plan but it’s dead. The Energy Generators & Retailers have said no, for profit companies who don’t want to invest in it because it’s too expensive, too slow and too risky and the LNP QLD government have rejected nuclear reactors in QLD.

Dutton is going to the election with no energy plan and therefore a vote for Dutton is a vote for higher energy prices.

Stephen Saunders10:14 am 11 Apr 25

Penfold is dead right. Australia is a patsy, the RET is a fantasy, and the Coalition (if they really were a Conservative Party) should have the cojones to repudiate Paris Agreement. When you factor in India and China, Net Zero Emissions is a “religious revival” not at all rational science. But sadly, even our Academy of Science has now gone fully-woke.

Climate change is real and serious, renewables are the cheapest form of energy, China & India have massively invested in renewable energy (see pt 2).

It is good to know the Academy of Science is fully aware of racial prejudice and discrimination.

In other news, rational science continues despite some comments in a thread on Region Canberra.

Darryl Guise2:00 pm 11 Apr 25

Anyone who uses the term “woke” should immediately bail out of the debate.

@Darryl Guise
… unless they actually understand the true meaning of the term

What’s wrong with the term Darryl ? It describes the worst aspects of our society.

Definite “woke” then without sounding like a fool Penfold. You won’t because you can’t.

@Penfold
I think what you mean is woke (awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination) describes the worst aspects of your type of society.

Absolutely we should walk away from the Paris agreement. China, India and many others are treating it as a joke. The resulting 82% 2030 RET is going to be missed by miles, none of it is worth the paper it was written on.

The main story from yesterday’s debate was Bowen making a fool of himself by refusing to admit that his $275 promise was broken and that power prices are far higher than three years ago. These are simple facts. Chris Uhlmann made him look like a fool.

No of that is true.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.