The ongoing split within the Liberal Party over climate policy remains a contentious issue that shows no signs of resolution, despite a series of meetings scheduled for this week. Both moderates and conservatives inside the party are bracing themselves for a clash that many believe could further weaken Sussan Ley's leadership authority. And here's where it gets controversial: even after these discussions, a clear consensus appears unlikely, especially around the terminology used.
The core debate seems to revolve around the phrase 'net zero'—a term that has become somewhat of a political battleground. When party members convene this Wednesday to discuss their stance, the main focus will be whether they stick to the exact phrase 'net zero' or shift to a broader, less specific commitment. Interestingly, there is a growing general agreement on the substantive elements of climate policy—most are prepared to support a target date of 2050 for achieving net zero emissions, but with some important caveats.
Sources from both factions have indicated that the 2050 deadline might be dropped, yet other commitments are likely to stay. These include exploring the feasibility of nuclear power, extending the operation of existing coal plants where possible, and increasing the supply of natural gas. The question that remains less clear is whether the party will continue to adhere to the goal of net zero beyond 2050—something moderates might accept as a fallback position, especially if it aligns with international climate agreements.
Adding fuel to the fire, Sarah Henderson, a Liberal MP, publicly called for abandoning the term 'net zero' altogether last Friday. This viewpoint echoes sentiments expressed by several conservatives who regard the phrase as politically divisive. Conversely, moderate voices like Andrew Bragg have dismissed such ideas as 'absolutely ridiculous.' The overall debate is nuanced, but the most probable outcome, according to multiple Liberal insiders, is that the party will move away from explicitly endorsing net zero in its current form.
The choice of wording is perceived as a decisive—perhaps even defining—test for both sides. Conservatives argue that the heavy industry sector faces insurmountable challenges, highlighting government efforts, such as supporting the Tomago aluminium smelter, as evidence that the transition to cleaner energy sources is stalling and potentially politically damaging. They point to changing attitudes on the political right—especially in the United States—and influential figures like Bill Gates, who recently called for a 'climate pivot,' as signs that the political landscape is shifting against aggressive climate action.
Despite these criticisms, polling suggests that support for climate initiatives remains relatively strong in Australia, particularly among urban residents and younger voters, even if there has been a slight decline since 2022 amid economic pressures like inflation. Supporters argue that delaying the net zero target might be acceptable, but many believe that the phrasing—whether 'net zero' or not—signifies a meaningful commitment in the public eye.
Keith Wolahan, a former MP, emphasized that abandoning these terms might send a message that the party no longer cares about the concerns of voters who prioritize meaningful climate action. On the other side, some conservatives argue that the phrase 'net zero' is essentially aspirational and could be replaced with a pledge aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement, which references net zero indirectly but does not explicitly use the words.
However, those supporting the retention of 'net zero' argue that such a legalistic distinction is meaningless. One Liberal opponent of net zero told the ABC that if the party endorses staying within the Paris framework, it would be unfair to prevent moderates from using the term. They see this as a binary dilemma: either the party commits fully to net zero or not at all.
This dichotomy opens the door to potential breakdowns in the compromise. After the meeting, some conservatives might claim that the term 'net zero' has been dropped, while moderates could continue to describe their policies as aligned with net zero goals. Such a scenario would further complicate Ley's leadership, which is already under pressure from factions within her own party—conservatives openly criticizing her role and moderates supporting her but frustrated at her perceived lack of a decisive stance to regain urban voter support.
Moreover, some speculate that the events of this week might bolster figures like Angus Taylor—who, as energy minister, signed Australia up to net zero—and could shift the internal power dynamics. Many conservatives acknowledge that abandoning net zero could worsen the Liberal Party’s struggle to connect with urban voters, where the party has seen massive seat losses—from 38 seats under Scott Morrison down to just 12 now.
While there is some hope that shifting suburban voters on climate issues might be possible if economic pressures, such as cost-of-living, continue to dominate public concern, many within the party believe the strong conservative stance based on party loyalty and ideological grounds makes significant change unlikely. As one senior Liberal put it, 'A nuanced, slightly pro-net-zero position isn't sustainable; our members are completely against it.' They conclude that the party might as well finish the debate now rather than prolonging the internal conflict, which could only lead to further divisions and repeated debates in the future.
