From “Net Zero” to “Maybe Later”: Coalition Climate Policy Up in the Air (Again)
Dan Tehan, the newly minted Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, has made it clear: the Coalition’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 might come with an asterisk — or a price tag big enough to scare Barnaby Joyce back to the paddock.
As the Coalition begins a wide-ranging internal review of its climate policy, Tehan’s stance is that dollars and cents — not science or disaster risk — will be the main deciding factor on whether the party sticks with the 2050 goal. “The cost will be one of the most significant factors that will drive our decision,” Tehan told The Guardian.
Quick Look: The Net Zero Debate Breakdown
| Issue | Tehan’s Position | Labor’s Policy | Independent View |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net Zero by 2050 | “Depends on cost” | Strong commitment to 2050 target | Paris Agreement signatory |
| Cost of Net Zero | Unclear, needs full accounting | No exact figure provided | Climate inaction may cost $130B by 2060s |
| Nuclear Power | Support lifting moratorium, no building yet | Opposed, prefers renewables | $600B+ projected cost for nuclear rollout |
| East Coast Gas Reservation Scheme | “Needs review” | In favour of long-term renewables transition | Controversial among free-market Coalition MPs |
| Paris Agreement Commitment | Open to review | Maintains current obligations | Trump plans to pull out (again?) |
The Coalition: Climate Tug-of-War in Three Acts
- Sussan Ley’s Blank Slate
Following the Coalition’s bruising federal election defeat, new Liberal leader Sussan Ley hit the reset button, putting all policies — including climate — up for review. Think of it as an emissions target Tinder swipe: it’s all “under consideration.” - Nationals vs Moderates
- Team Dump It: Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce want net zero gone yesterday.
- Team Maybe: Andrew Hastie is giving the goal some serious side-eye.
- Team Stick It Out (Silently): Inner-city Libs hoping this all goes away quietly before the next poll.
- Dan Tehan’s Middle Path
Tehan, no stranger to political rodeos, has been tasked with navigating the minefield — or should we say, coalfield — of climate policy division.
“I mightn’t have many capabilities but one I do have is dogged determination,” Tehan told The Guardian. (Ripper quote, Dan.)
What’s the Cost of Doing Nothing?
Labor and climate scientists point out that while the cost of going green may be high, the bill for climate inaction is astronomical. According to the 2023 Intergenerational Report:
- $130 billion in extra disaster payments (bushfires, floods) by 2060s
- Billions more in lost agricultural productivity, infrastructure repair, and insurance claims
- Tourism, health, and exports also at risk
Yet Tehan insists Labor hasn’t been transparent with the actual cost of its net zero roadmap, including renewables investment and energy transition programs like the Capacity Investment Scheme.
Election 2025 Preview: Battle of the Budgets
Tehan’s strategy is simple: shift the conversation to economics. “What are the true costs of your approach?” he asked PM Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, promising to hammer the government in the lead-up to the next federal election.
But as Labor points out — loudly and often — the Coalition had its own billion-dollar idea: taxpayer-funded nuclear power, which it never fully costed. Some estimates suggest the Coalition’s reactor rollout could top $600 billion. That’s more zeros than there are votes in North Sydney.
Tehan’s Trump Card?
Dan Tehan also suggested that if Albanese ends up in a tête-à-tête with Donald Trump at the G7, he should ask about:
- Trump’s plan to ditch the Paris Agreement (again)
- Whether Trump would show up to the UN Climate Summit if Australia hosts it
Because what’s global diplomacy without a cheeky climate side quest?
Final Word
The Coalition’s climate platform is in flux — stuck between balancing the books and keeping the base. Whether net zero remains Coalition gospel or gets dumped for “budget realism” may depend on how much costings can be weaponised politically.
But let’s not forget: the cost of action may be big, but the cost of inaction? That one’s already burning a hole in the national budget.
