Essay by Eric Worrall
But still wants to stay in the Paris Agreement?
Liberals formally abandon net zero by 2050 but Ley says reaching target would still be ‘welcome outcome’
Future Coalition government would not withdraw from Paris climate agreement altogether, Liberal frontbench decides a day after five-hour party room debate
Dan Jervis-Bardy, Krishani Dhanji and Josh Butler
Thu 13 Nov 2025 17.13 AEDTFuture Coalition government would not withdraw from Paris climate agreement altogether, Liberal frontbench decides a day after five-hour party room debate
…
The Liberal party will abandon a firm net zero emissions target, siding with the Nationals to end the Coalition’s commitment to the climate goal, in a bid to pursue what Ley and energy spokesperson Dan Tehan called “energy abundance” by supporting nuclear power, and backing coal and gas.
But in an at-times confusing press conference, Ley said it would still be a “welcome outcome” if they managed to reach net zero emissions anyway, despite planning to junk Labor government legislation and renewable targets which support such an outcome.
“I could not be more clear when I say we are removing net zero targets and long-term targets from our policy. We are not pursuing a policy of net zero,” Ley said in Canberra on Thursday.
…
However the Liberal plan would not include withdrawing from the Paris agreement, which was a red line that could have prompted the resignation of moderate Liberals such as Andrew Bragg and Maria Kovacic. In an olive branch to moderates who wanted the target retained, MPs will also be free to argue that reaching net zero would be a “welcome outcome” in the future, two sources confirmed to Guardian Australia.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/13/liberal-party-net-zero-policy-meeting-debate-decision
The Guardian described the press conference which announced this new policy position as “at times confusing” – an assessment I agree with.
On a positive note, this will likely throw sand into the gears of the Aussie Net Zero revolution. It’s difficult to raise green energy loans on the back of subsidies which could be pulled at any moment. At the very least it will force the current government to provide more green energy loan guarantees, which will cause significant embarrassment, and open them to accusations of gambling with Australia’s future financial stability.
On the negative side, I and I’m sure plenty of my fellow Aussies still have no idea what Australia’s mainstream opposition stands for.
Still it seems a step in the right direction, however tentative.
Hopefully in a few years, in the leadup to the next election cycle, COP and Net Zero will have become such a no-show embarrassment political leaders will quietly forget there ever was a Paris Agreement.
Murdoch Media Sky news take on the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXCc__HK10E
Government funded ABC News take on the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRtz8rqe4F8
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of
the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.
Winston Churchill 1942
Until Europe starts to crack then maybe the middle of the beginning.
WWII 1939-1945
Soviet Union 1917-1991
Radical Environmentalism & Climate Hysteria 1962-20??
What 1962 event is a good marker for the start?
My birthday…Nov 9, 1962
Or mine, May 4, 1962
Rachel Carson’s Book – Silent Spring
Thanks, I agree, it’s a good marker.
Only going half way still in Paris agreement
“would not withdraw from Paris climate agreement altogether”
I wonder whether that quote means anything?
Really it could mean 1pct in or 99pct in just the same.
“still in Paris agreement”
Well, this doesn’t require anything from Australia. The CO2 reductions are voluntary. If Australia doesn’t want to reduce CO2, the UN can’t do anything about it but complain.
As much confused as the claimed rejection of Net Zero from the UK Tories which should leave most rational people to not trust them.
Malcolm Turnbull, champagne socialist, former leader of the Liberals, and an ex-Prime Minister, is unloading on them for abandoning Net Zero. Whether that’s because they refused to sink with him and instead chucked him out of the PM role, because he has millions invested in Net Zero being legislated and funded by government, or because he wants to show he’s on the approved side of the cultural and political spectrum i.e. the Left, isn’t clear.
Naturally the current PM is taking advantage of the internal conflict.
But whether it’s enough to convince people to vote for Leybor isn’t clear. Current Opposition Leader Sussan Ley Is a moderate i.e a RiNO or worse. Like England, much of the Conservative vote is flowing away to a minor party that’s never before governed, and may not have the infrastructure to.
With Turncoat it’s all about the money and influence.
Turnball is like that knitted jumper that you grandma made for you that just made the end of a fashion but was immediately pushed to the back of the wardrobe not to be seen in public. Each time you open the wardrobe door you can hear it begging to be worn but best just to ignore it.
Turnbull’s brainchild has gone from A$2B to A$12B with further cost increases coming.
Sunk-cost fallacy to continue, time to abandon the whole ridiculous idea IMO.
Down the linked ABC page above Isla Evans writes: “The project (Snowy 2.0) is expected to provide up to 2.2 gigawatts of electricity to the national grid” thereby defying the laws of physics.
Isla doesn’t realise that pumped hydro consumes more energy than it produces.
This akin to Gates’ statement only better. It may seem like a little step but it is movement in our direction, that is a good thing. Now get busy building fossil fuel and nuclear generators, there is no time to waste.
They may have created the illusion of abandoning “net zero” but they still retain both feet in ‘Paris’. They’re just playing the hokey pokey with us for their political survival.
I suppose being squishy is an improvement on being a True Believer.
Slowly, but surely, the climate skeptic narrative is being accepted. For whatever reason it is good.
Unfortunately they are still making dumb comments like “reducing CO2 emissions”..
… which is a totally anti-science, pointless and counter-productive.
CO2 emissions will NOT show any reduction until BRICS namesake nations China and India begin reducing emissions
Every developed nation that eliminates some industrial function to reduce emissions is ultimately just outsourcing those emissions along with the industrial function and associated jobs to other countries…like China and India.
They’re promising not to pull out?
Oh the topic is climate. Sorry, I read it as climax.
After two decades of steadily improving living standards around 2007 productivity and living standards started a steep decline.
What happened?
What happened was Kevin Rudd came down from Queensland “to help” and declared global warming to be “the great moral challenge of our generation”, the country hasn’t been the same since.
Immigration has been used to make the overall GDP figures look better than on a per capita basis.
“the great MORAL challenge”
Says it all.
Well it’s the climate changer’s loopy prescriptions that are making strange bedfellows-
Moonlight Range Wind Farm: Developer Greenleaf Renewables to reapply after project rejected by Qld deputy premier
“I’ve come to a point where I do not care if people believe in climate change or not. I do not care if people believe in coal or gas. All I care about is keeping our wild places wild.”
Clicked through to find out whether the guy wanted to clear out wilderness to build windmills to save the wilderness and go to:
“Rainforest Reserves Australia’s submission had referred to a state agency that has not existed since 2009, two others that do not exist, and cited case studies from a non-existent project.”
I knew these guys in school. If the professor said 20 pages, they’ make 20 pages. 20 pages of what? 20 pages of 8.5×11, silly.
The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, but the Net Zero bandwagon didn’t get moving until after 2018, when the IPCC’s Special Report On Global Warming 1.5C was published. Nobody ever wants to be the last to jump onto a bandwagon, because it makes you look bad. “Hey, Tardy, welcome aboard. Glad you decided to join us”.
So yes, technically, you can jump off the net zero bandwagon and still be in the Paris Club. But boy, it sure does make for a bad look.
Story tip Pennsylvania is backing out of the northeast climate pact, I guess they found the actual cost was too much:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5605079-pennsylvania-rggi-northeast-climate-pact-shapiro/amp/
Story tip just another delay to all electric buildings for NY. Lawfare works both ways!
https://www.news10.com/capitol/hochul-delays-all-electric-buildings/
I imagine this may be another ‘bait and switch’ like we see constantly in the US. Yesterday’s “position” becomes today’s puzzled look and then business as usual.
Aus Liberals still seem a bit half pregnant on the whole issue. Only wise thing I heard come from a Lib in the leadup to the meeting was holding Australia’s carbon(dioxide) output to 1% of global output which is where we stand now,
The Southern Hemisphere is already net sink.
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
For CO2, CH4 & N2O
The Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink
Both of our major parties seem to believe we have to reduce our output of ‘greenhouse’ gasses to zero and do not understand the concept of ‘net’.