14 November 2025

Libs' net-zero move a political gift to everyone but themselves

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
72
Barnaby Joyce

Barnaby Joyce can’t believe the success he is having with his anti-net-zero push, but he’s still telling the Nationals he might be ‘outta here” anyway. One Nation is calling after all. Photo: Barnaby Joyce.

And the winner is … Barnaby Joyce … and Anthony Albanese … and even the Greens.

The Liberal Party can certainly not claim any victory from its gobsmacking decision to be dictated to by the Nationals and drop its commitment to net zero.

Nor can it take anything remotely like a sense of satisfaction from the rambling-upon-rambling circus show of a press conference held straight after that decision was made.

In a nutshell, the Liberal Party now “welcomes” the idea that Australia might achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but it will no longer commit itself to the target.

The Libs are “out” of net zero but still “in” the Paris Agreement.

It is more than baffling that this has any semblance of logic, especially when it constitutes a breach of the Paris Agreement on international climate change action for any signatory to water down its previously stated commitments.

Australia’s net-zero by 2050 commitment was made by former Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison in October 2021 and subsequently legislated in September 2022 by the new Labor government.

Could someone please explain to Sussan Ley how her party can stay committed to the Paris Agreement while not meeting its legislated net-zero targets?

The Opposition Leader herself made a botch of trying to answer that question when asked because, quite simply, it can’t be done.

They can’t have it both ways.

“Well, our policy will always be in the interests of affordable energy for Australian households, and I’m not going to say there’s some detail in an international agreement that prevents us from doing what we know we need to be doing for Australians,” Ms Ley said during the press conference..

“So in government, we would submit our nationally determined contributions, which are short-term targets under the Paris Agreement.”

Fat chance of that ever happening.

The Coalition has consigned itself to Opposition for many years to come.

Or maybe it’s worse than that. Perhaps it’s not too much of a leap to say (as some of the crossbenchers are already saying) the Coalition has consigned itself to oblivion.

It has certainly made itself irrelevant.

Irrelevant on climate change, irrelevant to young voters and irrelevant to inner city voters.

It’s fine for the Nationals to die in a ditch over net zero because they have a locked-on constituency in the bush.

The Liberals will literally die in the ditches they have just dug for themselves in metropolitan electorates where voters are demanding action on climate change.

Instead, the Liberals under Ley’s leadership are making motherhood statements about looking after their kids (but not so much the grandkids, apparently), taking care of the environment in ways other than just setting “pointless” long-term targets, and bringing down power bills (that old chestnut).

The policy that is not yet a policy that was presented on Thursday lacks detail, has no substance at all, and rings completely hollow. Even then, it’s not a policy until the Nationals give it the tick on Sunday.

Let’s see how far taking nuclear power as an energy policy to a federal election gets the Coalition. Hang on, haven’t we already seen how far (backwards) it gets them?

Australians can expect to hear more about nuclear energy and more about coal from the Libs and Nats over the coming months. They can’t help themselves.

Too bad (for them) that fewer people are listening to them with every new day and every new silly policy manoeuvre.

The Prime Minister can’t believe his luck. The Coalition has turned into the gift that keeps on giving to Labor.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has seized the moment, too, and asked whether the government can, in all good faith, now even deal with the Opposition in trying to get its environmental protection laws through the Senate.

Best to strike a deal with the Greens than to negotiate with the Coalition that has so openly displayed its contempt for the environment is the point she is making.

That’s a good point, but maybe don’t hold your breath waiting on that one.

All the while, Barnaby Joyce, whose dummy spit over net zero started this Coalition train wreck, isn’t even committing to staying with his party now that the whole Opposition has followed him down the anti-climate change path.

“This is not about me, this is about getting rid of the policy,” he said when asked if he was now likely to stick with the Nats.

“I keep my cards close to my chest, and I played my part. Now I look forward to seeing what happens on Sunday.”

But really, who cares anymore what happens when the Libs and Nats meet on Sunday to form an agreed energy position?

We already know it will be a corker and one that won’t protect Australia’s future … or the future of the Liberal Party and its leader.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

72
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

It is also worth noting the report from Ortec Finance today warning that the superannuation industry “could face significant long-term losses if the net-zero transition is delayed”.

“Climate change is intrinsically linked to economic fundamentals and is disrupting the vital pillars of economic stability. The effects on GDP growth and inflation are structural, persistent and increasingly visible in economic forecasts.”

https://www.ortecfinance.com/en/about-ortec-finance/news-and-events

One reason for the impacts is that many countries have or are introducing carbon taxes at the border, which will affect exports on which we rely if Australia is not also making the essential transition. From this and other industrial impacts Australian Super Funds are predicted to lose $9Bn by 2050 compared with a small gain otherwise.

The LNP want to use your taxes to fund coal generators to put Australia further behind in every conceivable respect.

HiddenDragon8:10 pm 14 Nov 25

It was a gift, of sorts, today for Chris Minns who indulged in a spray about anything that’s not renewables being b/s and did so without any inconvenient questions about this fiasco –

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/catastrophic-failure-delays-massive-1b-waratah-super-battery-20251110-p5n90f

Likewise, in a sense, for Chris Bowen, who drew himself up to his full rhetorical height and delivered a Shorten-esque zinger about the Liberals’ policy “blancmange” – it was just a shame that the ever so clever staffer who obviously fed him that line forgot to tell him how to pronounce blancmange.

The efforts from both sides over the next few years hold the prospect of being, in the memorable words of Malcolm Tucker, like watching clowns running across a minefield – given the standard of what Labor is actually doing (rather than how it is being reported) the Liberals could be forgiven for thinking that they will get to the other side of the minefield with at least as many appendages intact as their opponents.

lol ….yeah ok not so hidden agenda…renewables are not “b/s” because you cherry pick problems which are generally rare, when they happen.

“In a statement, an Akaysha spokesperson said:

“The Waratah Super Battery is still operating at 350MW capacity and actively bolstering energy security for NSW’s grid.

“The Waratah Super Battery continues to meet its System Integrity Protection Scheme (SIPS) service requirements of 350 MW, which is the interim commercial operating capacity.

“During ongoing Hold Point testing to transition the battery to full capacity, issues were identified with two transformers.

“The battery’s remaining capacity is expected to come online during 2026.

“There is no impact to the NSW electricity grid as the WSB remains operational and continues to meet its SIPS service requirements of 350MW.””

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-most-powerful-battery-hit-by-catastrophic-failure-of-transformer/

The battery is meeting it’s a service agreement despite some issues.

Problems happen and sure they need to be addressed and reviewed…but I do love this fantasy world where coal and gas plants have no problems or that you could build a new coal plant…an 8-12 year project or a new nuclear plant a 12- ? year project and not have issues. It’s the same “thinking” that blames renewable energy whenever storms knock down power lines….apparently fossil fuel generated energy arrives at homes problem free and via magic.

Correct HD, Bowen should take up comedy because what comes out of his mouth can never be taken seriosly. Likewise seano, who still seems to think that batteries produce energy.

The only way the Waratah not-so-super battery could meet its SLAs is if they specified net zero output.

“The only way the Waratah not-so-super battery could meet its SLAs is if they specified net zero output.”

Fatuous drivel. It is already meeting them, as stated.

Meanwhile, coal plants nearing end of life are becoming increasingly unreliable, also a straightforward fact, and no company wants to build more.

The fact that the Waratah super is meeting its SLA’s has struck a nerve because yet again Penfold chips in with a non-contribution and fails to land his puerile insults probably because they don’t make any sense to anyone but him.

As Axon points out the coal plants get nearer to end of service daily and the decision makers, ie. the people who sign the cheques and report to shareholders have to deal in data and evidence and therefore don’t get their information from Skynews and the IPA. Tough times ahead for culture warriors.

Mark Newman, In the last 12 Months China has built wind and solar that has taken us 20 years to build. Its still not enouph but at least they are making an effort.

just for your information nuclear energy will cost us ($145-$238 per MWh compared to $22-$53 for solar and $45-$78 for wind). Coal in $111-S178 gas is $174 per MWH

clarkea, over the last 20 years China doubled their emissions while we reduced ours by 28%. They’re mostly to blame for the world increasing emissions by 28% since 2005. In the last 12 months they did not reduce their emissions – all that renewables construction did was cover the new energy demand for the year. They quite shamelessly put their energy security and economic prosperity ahead of carbon emission reduction. Mind you, in the last 3 years we’ve managed a whole 1% reduction, but we’re somehow going to achieve a 15% reduction in the next 5 years to hit 43% by 2030 and then we’ll do the toughest 57% of reductions in just another 20 years. Targets need to be ambitious, but they need to be realistically achievable too. With India’s net zero target of 2070 that they’re on track to miss by more than we’ll miss 2050 and China to miss 2060, a realistic timeline for humanity to reach net zero is probably more like 2080-2100.

Those $ you’ve quoted don’t add up in the real world. If they did, our power prices would have gone down over the last few years as more renewables came online to reduce average power prices. Countries like China, India and Indonesia would have been building renewables instead of coal and nuclear. Are they maximum capacity figures rather than average capacity, do they include transmission lines for dispersed renewables production, and do they include sufficient storage for renewables to provide grid scale power rather than just supplement base load?

“”clarkea, over the last 20 years China doubled their emissions while we reduced ours by 28%.”

And where has manufacturing moved to not just from Australia but all around the world over the last 20 years? I’ll wait.

Your opening sentence is misrepresentative of what’s happened over the last 20 years and the misrepresentations don’t stop there, China’s emission have plateaued over the last 12 months whilst renewables soar (also reported in the New York Times but behind a paywall):

https://carboncredits.com/chinas-renewables-soar-18-months-of-stable-emissions-mark-turning-point/

You’re deliberately painting a misrepresentative and jaundice picture of the situation to back your conclusions.

PS. “base load” is an archaic term relating when the grid was almost coal and we needed to maintain a “base load” of power because coal units go down all of the time and require hours to restart. This bells that cat that a lot of this nonsense is coming from the usual right wing “think” tanks.

Garfield, as I have already pointed out, China’s emissions have plateaued this year. Their construction of renewables is more than the rest of the world combined and their actual generation is more than half their requirement. While Indonesia is still only planning for catch-up, India too is installing more renewables than coal-fired electricity generation.

Your claims are basically false.

clarkea quoted new build and generation costs. Have you noticed we have no nuclear plants? Your understanding of electricity pricing is also weak. Work it out.

Over the last five years nighttime prices, dominantly coal, have risen much faster than daytime prices, dominantly renewables. Do you actually imagine that we can stop investing in new generation capacity, stop the world in 2025? In all scenarios, renewables with firming are cheaper.

Quoting the hapless Sarah Sea Patrol on matters of the economy and our sinking standard of living doesn’t suggest a particularly strong case.

Typical Canberra bubble rubbish. The fact is that in regional Australia there is no appetite for net zero. If the Liberals get out of the way and unable the Nationals and One Nation to sell the “climate change” policy, then they will romp into government. The problem in the past has been the adherence to the Paris agreement and trying to please the IPCC. Bureaucrats in the Foreign Affairs Department have to do that. Farmers in particular have been hurt by the attempts to promote renewable energy, having officials invading their land and telling them that they will have to put up with wind farms and new transmission lines ruining their properties. I think we can now put down this whole thing as a dreadful mistake, and it is hoped that this whole rubbish has not gone so far down the track that it cannot be reversed by the time there is a change of government.

It has nothing to do with the alleged “Canberra bubble”. For the coalition to get back into power, it needs to win inner city seats in Melbourne and Sydney, including the seats it lost to the teal independents. Environmental issues will be big factors in future elections, whether the National party wants to face that reality or not. You claim regional Australia has “no appetite for net zero”, but you seem to miss the point that inner city taxpayers are quickly losing patience with the cost of bailing out farmers for extreme weather events triggered by climate change.

john that’s ok if most of the population lives in country areas but it does not. there are more city seats in parliament that country. As a forty year Liberal voter i will vote independent leaning with net zero as there policy. I know dozens exactually like that in my marginal electorate.

Nick Stevens12:46 pm 14 Nov 25

Once the baby boomers gasp their last breath, then there is plenty of support for climate action and the push for renewables as the source of energy, The future belongs to them, not those who hinder change.
As for invading their land and telling them to put up with it, I’m sure I’ve heard that scenario before, feels similar somehow.

“The fact is that in regional Australia there is no appetite for net zero. “

Your post is at best overblown and misrepresents the issue as something being forced on farmers with nothing in return. Whilst I acknowledge that there are issues that need to be worked through, there is a stack of money already flowing to farmers adding renewable energy income streams to their businesses with a lot more projected to come:

https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/billions-in-the-bush-energy-shift-delivers-$1-billion-to-farmers-and-$200-million-to-regions

While I suspect there are flaws in the modelling that says renewables are cheaper than coal, I haven’t seen the Libs or Nats release anything of substance that exposes such flaws. Seems a bit premature to pull back on renewables on the basis of cheaper electricity for residents without first making a good showing that there’s a cheaper alternative.

“While I suspect there are flaws in the modelling that says renewables are cheaper than coal, I haven’t seen the Libs or Nats release anything of substance that exposes such flaws.”….could that be because, and bear with me here, the CSIRO and the Energy Generators & Retailers (for profit power companies) are right that renewables are the cheapest form of energy….lol

The Principle Skinner meme seems to apply to your thinking here Garfield…”Am I out of touch?….No, it’s the children who are wrong”. lol

Keep finding ways to ignore evidence that doesn’t confirm your opinions. Funny stuff.

Garfield, I am not surprised you would “suspect” that because that is what the ideological right has been falsely hammering. The rest of your sentence is both accurate and with broader application.

There is also the matter of coal particulate emissions affecting human health as well as the major problem of greenhouse gasses. You may recall conservative claims that taking lead out of petrol was unworkable, that smoking did not cause cancer, in each case driven by existing interests whose aim was to preserve their profits in denial of evidence of harm and of potential improvement.

What’s not funny is that global carbon emissions have increased by 28% since 2005 while we’ve strained ourselves to reduce ours by 28%. We reached 27% under the coalition government and carbon reduction has flat lined since then despite all the extra renewables brought online. As the population grows we use more energy and all the extra renewables in the last few years has done is keep pace with that increased demand.

Just the same as for China. They’re being hailed as heroes by some for their record renewables investment, but their emissions haven’t started coming down as their demand for energy has increased in line with increased generation. Humanity reaching net zero by 2050 is looking a bigger fantasy now than it did 20 years ago. Even 2070, India’s target, seems unlikely.

I only delve into carbon emissions and costings on a casual basis, which is why I take pains to say I SUSPECT the costings or underlying assumptions, or time frame under examination for renewables may not be the best. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the terms of reference for government reporting were structured in such a way as to generate a particular end result. You only have to look at some of the reports commissioned by the ACT government around light rail to see that in action, or the testimony about the Campbell Primary School extension. There it’s been said the directorate just knew the CFMEU preferred one of the companies vying for the project and they similarly knew the minister’s office wanted the CFMEU to be kept happy. Of course everyone else denied having any such knowledge. The eventual report will be interesting, but will probably say insufficient evidence for further action.

Despite the coalition effectively saying they believe the true costs of renewables vs coal aligns with my suspicion, I’m annoyed they haven’t put anything out to quantify what they see as the difference. Despite what you may think, I’m not opposed to paying something of a premium to reduce carbon emissions. Given many zealous supporters of climate action aren’t even willing to pay $100 p.a., I’m actually more willing to fund it than most. Without the coalition releasing their own modelling to back their decision, I’m stuck doing my own research as time and inclination allows. Thus the annoyance as my time is precious to me.

China’s emissions have plateaued already.

Of course we need more energy, which makes it all the more important that we choose low emissions technologies. Those are also cheaper than more fossil fuels.

As I wrote elsewhere here today, a part of the emissions problem under our control is burning of fossil fuels. Burn less, reduce the problem. In fact we save money as well. I do not regard CSIRO scientists as one might see commercial consultants; quite different, as one can see in the care taken in the published work.

Anyone who says they will bring power prices down is probably having you on, or about to get you to pay through taxes, which is essentially what the LNP is proposing. What prices of anything do you expect to fall in the next 20 years, or fell in the last 20?

The relative prices of some technologies (e.g. batteries) have fallen in the last 20 years but are you paying fewer dollars, or just earn more while the price did not rise as much as other prices?

See the fact that nighttime electricity price, dominantly coal-fired, has risen much more than daytime electricity price, dominantly renewables, here in the last five years. That is ignoring all rebates or discounts. Both have risen but the renewables component less, because renewables with firming is cheaper.

“I only delve into carbon emissions and costings on a casual basis”

You mean you make it up, cherry pick and misrepresent and say things like “while we’ve strained ourselves to reduce ours by 28%”….while the IEA (actual experts) point out that Net Zero is cheaper:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-13/net-zero-iea-world-energy-report-emissions-cheaper-electricity/106000244

Wait for a couple of Newspolls Chris, you might be in for a shock.

And then wait until 2028 …. though Sussan mightn’t be the person to prosecute the case.

So much copeium.

“Wait for a couple of Newspolls Chris, you might be in for a shock.”

He won’t be. The LNP can’t win without regaining the teal seats which they lost over the climate wars in the first place. They’ve effectively burned that bridge.

The LNP also cannot win in the cities with this nonsensical policy platform…the moderates will all be worried about their seats and rightly so.

Meanwhile, as the Liberals fail to win the cities expect the One Nation to be pushing to pinch seats off the Nats. The only question now is do they descend into minor party status or oblivion. Enjoy.

Penfold just be straight with us one time.
Human induced climate change is a hoax – right ?
(Hint its a yes/no answer & please dont include endless links that nobody reads.)

Pengold is a big fan of forecasting things about Tomorrow.

Of course Tomorrow never actually arrives.

Wasn’t Dutton going to be PM? 😂😂😂👨‍🦯

franky that’s been answered several times. But if you want to read something hilarious have a look at this CSIRO report which seano loves which tells us only 4.6% of atmospheric CO2 emissions are caused by humans.

You might have to read it twice, but that’s what it says !

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2

Penfold literally telling porkies and being a troll again. I didn’t make any such claim, I refer you to experts as always. If you have any legitimate argument against climate change then prove it…to experts.

And as I’ve pointed out to you before I am not interested in wasting my time with your climate change denial, especially when we both know that evidence does not inform your opinions.

The penny still hasn’t dropped hey seano. Hmmm, sharp knives, drawers come to mind🤣

Nick Stevens12:37 pm 14 Nov 25

Agreed, party time for the Teals, once blue ribbon Liberal seats, now firming up as long time Teal seats. Incidentally, must be a quiet time at Sky News for their adoring fan club to spend time here waffling on their silliness.

I look forward to your peer viewed paper disproving climate change Penfold. Good luck with that buddy.

Enjoy waiting seano, I’ve never claimed global warming isn’t happening.

But speaking of peer reviews, you might want to talk to the CSIRO about their report which effectively claims fossil fuels play no part 😅

Why thank you Penfold.

So you DO Believe in Scientific evidence and the Scientific literature BUT ONLY when it supports your view that Human induced Climate Change is a hoax.

Glad we’ve got that cleared up.

“Enjoy waiting seano, I’ve never claimed global warming isn’t happening.”

Orly?

“But speaking of peer reviews, you might want to talk to the CSIRO about their report which effectively claims fossil fuels play no part”

It doesn’t.

Your constant attention seeking misrepresentation of the data and arguments on climate & energy, prove you’re a climate change denier Penfold and therefore can be dismissed.

You’re getting closer franky. Global warming is happening, CO2 has warming properties and man contributes. But there the science ends and the religious zealotry takes over. That’s when the hoax begins. Simples ! 😇

You really should read the report before continuing to – what’s your line – beclown yourself 🤡. And I mean read and think. It claims 95.4% of emissions are naturally occurring.

That’s some peer reviewing or lack thereof by the CSIRO. Much like not knowing where our electricity comes from 😆

None of that is true Penfold.

Comical and a bit sad but not true.

I suggest you start here:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

Topic after topic Penzero just continues to excel in ignorance.

Now not understanding how a system in equilibrium can be altered by changing the balance of inputs.

The delusion is just too funny at this stage.

Maybe he should go back to not understanding the difference between electricity and energy or mashing his calculator to make basic mathematical errors.

😂😂🤡

“Global warming is happening, CO2 has warming properties and man contributes. But there the science ends and the religious zealotry takes over.”

Quoth the zealot Penfold who has consistently demonstrated no understanding of science.

Surely stating that “CO2 has warming properties” is a little bit of scientific comprehension 🤣👨‍🎓🧑‍🔬

That you may be able to tie your own shoelaces would not qualify you in Knot Theory.

As another who has struggled with the differences between energy and electricity, do you think claiming scientific brilliance is a good idea ? One suspect 100% of scientists would say no !

“As another who has struggled with the differences between energy and electricity”

Penfold, I do like the way you keep making this lame accusation as if you haven’t done this yourself, or even more embarrassingly called people out for it incorrectly….like the time you started correcting people’s grammar in lieu of an actual point and used the incorrect “your”….funny stuff.

Penfold’s opening assertions are completely false. He cannot show otherwise.

Nothing new there.

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.