22 October 2025

The Coalition's zero sum game over net zero continues

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
23
Australian Parliament House

Coalition MPs will stay in parliament an extra day next week to debate everyone’s views on net zero. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

As the Coalition zeroes in on deciding its net zero position, a joint partyroom debate has been scheduled for Friday (31 October), following next week’s parliamentary sitting days.

Liberals and Nationals have been asked to stay back in Canberra another day for a three-hour all-in, over exactly what energy policy the Opposition will be taking to the next federal election.

The meeting is being convened by the Coalition’s economic policy committee.

Whether to maintain support for the legislated net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or dump it is tearing the Coalition apart. Shadow ministers are quitting the front bench to speak out more freely, and both Liberals and Nationals are hinting at leaving the party over the issue.

Nationals backbencher Barnaby Joyce is insistent that support for net zero should be dropped and has invited speculation that he will join One Nation for the next election campaign.

He has already stated he does not intend to contest the next election for the seat of New England, which he currently holds for the Nationals.

But he is far from the only conservative who wants to see the net-zero policy booted.

READ ALSO Barnaby to join One Nation? What could possibly go wrong?

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is trying to remain calm in the face of it all, promising the Coalition is almost, possibly, maybe at the point of deciding its energy policy.

“Barnaby Joyce is making his own decisions as any individual in the National Party is entitled to, and I leave that as a matter for the National Party,” Ms Ley said when asked about the looming crisis.

“You talk about net zero, that’s our energy policy. We’re developing it now. It’s happening continually.

“It’s being led by Dan Tehan, and it includes two fundamentals – that we have a policy that delivers a stable, reliable grid, and affordable energy for households and businesses.

“Critically, the sort of businesses we want to see in our resources sector and that we also play our role internationally in reducing emissions. That work is ongoing.”

The Opposition Leader hinted at next week’s meeting, suggesting there will be a wide spread of views aired.

She rejected suggestions that the party was taking too long to decide its position.

There was no indication, however, that the review and the internal party debate, which has been ongoing for five months now, was any closer to reaching a conclusion.

“We’re going back to Canberra next week, further experts will present, discussions will be had,” Ms Ley said.

“Every single member of my party room and the Nationals party room is involved in those discussions.

“People can suggest policies, and indeed I see that conjecture from time to time in the media [that support for net zero will be dropped], but our policy is under development as I said, and we’re including everyone and every view.

“It’s important that we get it right and most importantly, it’s got to be a policy that is unique for Australia’s national interest when it comes to the vital involvement that energy has in manufacturing in this country.”

READ ALSO PM’s meeting with President a success, despite (and maybe also because of) Rudd

Next week’s meeting isn’t intended to make a final decision; rather, it is to allow everyone who wants to air their views to have a say.

Interestingly, a diary clash will likely result in several Nationals being unable to stay in Canberra for the meeting.

While the meeting is set for three hours, the Opposition Leader says her party will take as much time as needed to decide its policy.

“We will get it right because we know how important energy is to the productivity of this nation,” she said.

“It’s been five months. The policy is ongoing and you will see it when we talk about it further. So I’m very comfortable with where we’re at in the development of that policy, but I also make the point that right now the energy policy of this country is being controlled by the Labor Party, and it is a disaster, and we will have a very strong alternative.”

Another Liberal Party source told Region there is great unrest over the time the party’s energy reviews are taking.

Five months since the last election and we have nothing to tell Australians on the topic,” they said.

That’s embarrassing when you think about it. And the longer it drags on, the more our infighting and dirty laundry get aired publicly.”

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

23
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Stephen Saunders2:22 pm 22 Oct 25

It’s not the Coalition at sea -it’s net zero itself. Even if China were to play ball, it’s absurd to think human emissions can be slashed, carbon captures cranked up, to the extent that obedient Planet Earth will routinely “net” our emissions to zero.

Whether we can do it in time is a different question but we already have the technology to reach net zero. Meanwhile China continues record breaking investment in renewables.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2025/china

China is indeed “playing ball” Stephen Saunders.

Why can human emissions not be stopped from rising? Detail it.

Why can carbon capture not be used in offset? Detail it.

Why would we not simply use cheaper energy with lower emissions?

No-one claims to control planet Earth. Some people prefer not to sit on their hands like useless patsies in the face of clear scientific evidence.

Axon, China has doubled their carbon emissions since 2005 while we reduced ours by 28%. We’ve achieved a greater reduction than Europe or the US. That’s mainly because we started from a higher base as Europe and the US had lower emissions per capita due to their use of nuclear energy. China is on track to miss their 2060 net zero target spectacularly.

Seano, “record breaking investment in renewables”, only after record breaking investment in coal generation that saw China’s emissions double over the last 20 years while we reduced ours by 28%. China is spectacularly off target for their goal of net zero by 2060.

Unless the western world is willing to hit China and India with carbon tariffs (a bit hard with the current White House occupant), knowing that will cost residents more for everyday manufactured goods, we’re probably going to be better off overall by pushing the net zero target to 2060. In so doing we’d be giving very costly immature green technologies like SAF for planes and green hydrogen for cargo ships more time to achieve cost competitiveness.

Bit of a fallacious argument, with the manufacturing base of many Western countries moving to China/Asia while the West moved into service industries. We ended with higher standards of living as a result.

Whilst China needs to do much, much more they are making progress:
https://theconversation.com/china-leads-the-net-zero-transition-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-its-progress-in-beijing-and-hong-kong-237075

it’s understandable that the Liberals would be in this state over energy. On the one hand, many if not all of them would be aware that net zero is an absolute joke, and on the other, probably at least half of them would be worried about telling that to the lunatics in Australia who really believe net zero is a winner.

If the Liberals look crazy right now, it’s because Labor and a good percentage of Australians were crazy first

You are making a category error. Renewables may be an economic winner; more importantly, they are essential.

“If the Liberals look crazy right now, it’s because Labor and a good percentage of Australians were crazy first”

What if it’s not Labor and a good percentage of Australians, who were “crazy”.

Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy. Every major scientific body in the world is not wrong on climate change.

Seano, the latest CSIRO Gencost report has coal as the cheapest form of new energy right now. Not by much, but still officially the cheapest. Integrated renewables are only forecast to be cheaper than new coal in 2030. Just pointing this out as your last paragraph suggests every major scientific body is in agreement about climate change AND the cost of constructing new energy.

More broadly, if renewables are clearly cheaper, why did China and India put so much money into nuclear and coal generation?

It’s not just the Coalition Chris – it’s the planet which is becoming more sceptical of net zero. It’s clear that the top 4 emitters (54% of global emissions) have no interest in belting their economies by trying to achieve net zero. The British are slowing things down as their economy suffers as are several European countries. The Third World is increasing energy demand to improve their standards of living (and not through expensive renewables). Even the once-climate champion Tony Blair has worked it out.

Australians feel the need to help the net zero effort but have consistently shown they won’t open their wallets to do so. There’s growing momentum amongst sensible conservatives – Hastie, O’Brien, many Nationals, a growing One Nation – to stop the decline of our standard of living by ditching net zero.

The sooner the Coalition step back from the craziness the sooner we can start bringing some reality back to the discussion. A discussion which includes nuclear energy.

Btw what does the “zero sum game” reference mean in the article’s heading ? As our standard of living declines we’re going backwards.

Need to get your story right Penfold. One minute Climate Change is all a hoax, the next minute it’s real but we shouldn’t do anything because whatever we do will be offset by third world emission increases.
You are confusing us simpletons.

Humblest apologies franky, perhaps we should start at the beginning.

Would you be kind enough to provide a definition for the term “climate change” ?

And perhaps some scope as well. e.g. does the term define a situation, a problem, does it prescribe solutions, are there timeframes involved ?

Penfold makes haste to mislead as usual.

Top emitters? How is China’s relative investment in renewable vs fossils & nuclear going? To save you time googling or looking up an incorrect IPA talking point, China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks. They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.

America has a known problem in its head, yet there are recent reports that fossil fuel companies are not answering the call to “drill” there, because it is uneconomic! Even in Texas the rate of tapping their still ample reserves is in plateau or decline.

Developing countries? You mean a leader like Chile? China as above? Nepal at 99%? It was way back in 2017 that wind and solar accounted for more capacity additions in developing nations, and it was near 60:40 back then. In fact Bloomberg reports that renewables took the lead in 2015.

You like the IEA so read their chart here: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/changes-in-primary-energy-demand-by-fuel-and-region-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2019-2030

It shows growth in renewables with low growth or decline in fossil fuels, including in America and the EU and except for the Middle East, and India which is still trying to catch up.

The world has stepped back from the craziness of “Hastie, O’Brien, many Nationals, a growing One Nation” and is stepping forward without you.

Classic Penfold mantra – never ever answer the question.

You have claimed several times that climate change is a hoax.
Now you imply it’s not a hoax
Which is it ???

Axon – it’s lovely to hear you’re now all across Total Energy Supply and the difference between energy and electricity.

Though your analysis seems a little off. The graph indicates that between China, India and South East Asia, fossil fuels vastly exceeded renewables on the Primary Energy Demand metric. Though to be fair those numbers are five years ago.

And despite your tales of USA woes, their fuel export levels have surged 26% in the past five years:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EP00_EEX_mbblpd_a.htm

As for your comment on China “They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.” The IEA disagree, with solar and wind are around 13% with coal 61%.

https://www.iea.org/countries/china

So on the subject of misleading ….

“on the subject of misleading” … “[Penfold’s] numbers are five years ago”

Wonderful self-awareness!

And Penfold’s IEA figures are three years ago, while I wrote “China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks”

Hard of reading, Penfold? Unprepared to deal with the IEA reference I provided?

I said nothing about USA oil exports. I wrote that recent reports have Texas oil plateauing or falling, and that American oil companies seem remarkably reluctant to open new wells in America. In any event, who cares when the world is overwhelmingly moving to renewables, still more so in those developing countries Penfold mentioned as having increased demand in total.

Penfold is able to contradict nothing but himself.

franky – you didn’t ask a question. CC isn’t a hoax as long as it’s purely about weather observations. The rest of it is a hoax.

Even easier Axon, I quoted the (your) EA figures back to you. Coal 61%, solar wind 13%. Perhaps you’ve redefined “fossil rocks” 🤣

And sorry to have to join the dots for you but if the USA has declining fossil fuels, how is it their fuel exports are rising ? Very confusing. 🤔

Human-forced climate change is accepted by at least 99% of climate scientists, but not by people wishing to hoax others.

To consider Penfold’s irrationality, first take the similarly unquestioned fact that humans have been getting taller over history, especially in the last 200 years. Penfold is claiming, “if you measure any individual that is not a hoax but if you say there is a trend in height, that is a hoax.”

Yet the trend in human height is a fact, whatever the height of a random individual you measure. Human forced climate change is a fact, whatever the weather happens to be today.

Penfold has trouble dealing with facts, as demonstrated in this thread and most others.

Btw franky, any idea what this “zero sum game” means ?

Getting taller ? Well i certainly agree with that Axon. As i do with “Human forced climate change is a fact”. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has warming properties. Science is even kind enough to help us understand why – CO2 emissions have increased because of burning fossil fuels. No problems there.

But here’s where we start running into uncertainty. What’s the relationship between CO2 and global temperates you ask ? Well science can tell us it means warming, but after that it can’t help much. Science can’t tell us how much CO2 means how much warming, that’s a fact. Don’t ask me though, ask the “experts”. The IPCC has to come up with five “scenarios” because it hasn’t much of a clue.

So here’s where engineering, economics and risk managment should take over and tell us:

* What are the solutions and options ?
* What are their costs ?
* What is the risk profile ?
* What is the costs / benefits ?
* Should we smash our standard of living to reduce CO2 when the rest of the world isn’t ?

But rather than having those questions answered, religion takes over. Nothing else matters.

Our government and climate evangalism won’t tell us the costs, the benefits, the risks. there’s no profiling of the scenarios against these. We can’t even discuss real options like nuclear. Even the so-called experts “homogenise” the historic temperature readings to make things seem worse. The UN even scare the kiddies with their overblown rhetoric.

So guess what – beyond accepting that the planet is warming (and part of this is natural), the rest of the whole thing is a hoax. It’s religion, it’s fearmongering, it’s greed and it’s all coming apart. Wind power is an expensive, dirty joke. Solar makes China rich.

If that makes some of us “deniers”, then knock yourself out. The only deniers i’m seeing are the ones who can’t form an opinion outside the indoctrinated climate zeitgeist.

False, Penfold, you did not quote my IEA (you said EA) figures back at me but whatever else you were on at the time. My reference points to “Changes in primary energy demand by fuel and region in the Stated Policies Scenario, 2019-2030” where for China there is an increase of 204 Mtoe in renewables, 144 Mtoe in gas, and 55 Mtoe in oil, but a reduction of 60 Mtoe in coal.

That is for energy, while as I also said about electricity, “China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks. They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.”

What is so hard to understand?

I said about the US that production, not reserves, in Texas was plateauing or declining. I said also they are not drilling as presumed would happen, on an economic basis. It may be too subtle for you but do try to work out that none of the above is inconsistent with greater current shipments by those companies, something I did not discuss.

You are unable to rebut that the majority of new investment world wide, in both developed and developing nations, is toward renewables, for energy generally and with considerable progress already for electricity.

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.