Coalition MPs have adopted vastly different approaches to communicating the plan, with moderates who lost the fight to retain a net zero emissions target \u2013 including Dave Sharma, Tim Wilson, Andrew Bragg and Julian Leeser \u2013 choosing to ignore it on their social media channels.<\/p>\n
The opposition has pledged to ditch a net zero emissions target but remain in the Paris agreement, allowing MPs to argue the Coalition has not abandoned climate action.<\/p>\n
Sign up: AU Breaking News email<\/a><\/p>\n The Paris agreement<\/a> sets a global aim for carbon neutrality in the second half of the century and does not force countries to set net zero emissions targets.<\/p>\n However, the agreement requires signatories to progressively raise their emissions reduction goals to \u201creflect its highest possible ambitions\u201d with each new five-year target, meaning countries cannot downgrade their existing commitments.<\/p>\n A future Coalition government would therefore be breaching Australia\u2019s obligations if it dropped the net zero emissions by 2050 target and rescinded the Albanese government\u2019s 2030 and 2035 goals, as it plans to do<\/a>.<\/p>\n The leaked talking points prepare MPs to face several questions about the Paris agreement, including whether it is \u201ccontradictory to drop net zero 2050 but stay in Paris\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no contradiction at all. The Paris Agreement is built on national choice,\u201d the suggested response reads.<\/p>\n \u201cAustralia will remain in Paris. We will continue to reduce emissions. But we will do it in a way that keeps power affordable for families who are already under pressure. That is entirely consistent with Paris and it is the right call for our country.\u201d<\/p>\n The document poses several potential follow-up questions about how the position fits with the Paris requirement to constantly increase targets, indicating the Coalition is alive to scrutiny of the apparent contradiction.<\/p>\n If asked how a future Coalition government could dump Labor\u2019s targets, MPs are advised to respond: \u201cParis does not require Australia to copy Labor. Paris requires Australia to contribute.\u201d<\/p>\n The guidance points out that Paris is a \u201ccollective agreement, not a contract with penalties\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cCountries are encouraged to offer their highest possible ambition,\u201d it stated. \u201cOur view is that the highest responsible ambition Australia can offer is one that keeps energy costs down, protects jobs and continues responsible emissions reduction.\u201d<\/p>\n Guardian Australia asked the shadow minister for energy and emissions reduction, Dan Tehan, if he stood by the assertion that abandoning a net zero emissions target was consistent with Australia\u2019s obligations under Paris.<\/p>\n \u201cAs detailed in the talking points, the answer is yes,\u201d a spokesperson said.<\/p>\n After initial talking points were circulated after Sunday\u2019s meeting, an updated version was distributed to pre-empt questions about the funding of coal-fired power stations.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n Sign up to Breaking News Australia<\/p>\n Get the most important news as it breaks<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com<\/a> to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n Moderate Liberal MPs were seething on Sunday after the policy left the door open to using taxpayer funds to prop up coal-fired power stations via a \u201ctechnology neutral\u201d capacity investment scheme.<\/p>\n The Nationals senator Matt Canavan<\/a> has used the policy to renew calls for the construction of new coal-fired power stations.<\/p>\n In an interview on Monday night, Ley said a coal project could be subsidised under the Coalition\u2019s plan \u201cif it stacks up\u201d \u2013 but stressed there were no such proposals on the table.<\/p>\n If asked whether taxpayers could support new coal projects, MPs are advised to respond: \u201cIf a private investor wants to put forward a project of any kind, they would have to demonstrate that it delivers affordable power, that it stacks up commercially, and that it fits within the rules of the scheme.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no blank cheque and there is no planning to build new coal fire plants,\u201d the document stated.<\/p>\n Ley has conducted almost 30 media appearances since Sunday\u2019s announcement, prosecuting the case that ditching a net zero emissions target and pursuing \u201cenergy abundance\u201d <\/a>\u2013 including with coal and nuclear \u2013 would lower power prices for households and businesses.<\/p>\n![\"What](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/1763679734_612_1280.jpg\")
What does net zero emissions actually mean? And is it different to the Paris agreement? \u2013 video<\/p>\n