Ending the policy of 'emissions reduction whatever the cost'
The policy of cutting emissions 'whatever the cost' is no longer sustainable. It weakens our competitiveness, burdens our industries, and treats the public with contempt. by nick cater.
Speech to Liberal Party Mosman Branch
Introduction – When Ideology Becomes Policy
If there was a moment when Julia Gillard’s political fate went from precarious to terminal, it was the evening of Sunday, 10 July 2011, when she made a prime ministerial address to the nation.
“Good evening. I want to talk to you tonight about why the government is putting a price on carbon.”
Gillard’s carbon price of $23 a tonne would have raised the price of almost everything, a point Tony Abbott hammered home before winning the 2013 election in a landslide.
The public didn’t buy it then, and they won’t buy it now.
A decade later, Anthony Albanese is repeating the experiment — only this time, on the sly.
There was no address to the nation. Instead, the government’s new carbon tax was buried deep inside Appendix C of Treasury’s modelling, disguised under the euphemism 'marginal abatement incentive.'
Treasury’s own figures tell the story: a carbon price rising from $65 a tonne by 2030 to $328 by mid-century — 14 times Gillard’s levy.
Chris Bowen’s claim that renewable energy is cheap, because the wind and sun are free, turns out to be economic nonsense. Investment costs and system costs — the cost of integrating intermittent, non-synchronous power into the grid — will be well over a trillion dollars.
Labor’s policy was born in deceit, sustained by spin, and defended with creative spreadsheets.
The government no longer asks whether the costs of emissions reduction are justified — only how to conceal them.
That is why we as Liberals must recognise that locking the nation into fixed emissions reductions targets — according to a timetable set by unaccountable supra-national bureaucrats — was a mistake.
The policy of cutting emissions 'whatever the cost' is no longer sustainable.
It weakens our competitiveness, burdens our industries, and treats the public with contempt. They must be taxed, nudged, and subsidised into compliance.
We should remind ourselves how offensive this approach is to the Liberal Party’s key guiding principles.
Top down, central planning is for Socialists. Regulation, coercion and taxation anathema to us.
We understand that the pace of innovation cannot be determined by government fiat, and to do so invites harmful, unintended consequences.
Socialists are driven by utopian visions. Liberals are constrained by reality — dealing with intractable problems with painful trade-offs.
Individual enterprise drives us forward, not expert pronouncements.
Five Reasons to End the ‘Whatever It Takes’ Approach to Net Zero
1. It is economically reckless.
A nation cannot tax and regulate its way to prosperity. Yet that is precisely what the net zero plan demands — higher energy prices, new compliance costs, and endless subsidies dressed up as 'investments.'
When energy becomes expensive, everything becomes expensive: manufacturing, transport, construction, food. No nation ever grew rich by making power unaffordable.
2. It erodes Australia’s competitive advantages.
Australia accounts for just over one per cent of global emissions. If we disappeared tomorrow, the effect on global temperatures would be undetectable. Yet we are told we must inflict industrial self-harm while China and India expand their emissions.
3. It is scientifically selective.
Science should inform policy, not dictate it.
The complexity of the climate system is replaced by a simple slogan: 'follow the science,' as if science were a commandment, not a method. Real science welcomes doubt, revision, and discovery. The politics of climate change suppresses all three.
4. It erodes democratic honesty.
Julia Gillard at least faced the voters and called her carbon price what it was — 'effectively a tax.' Today, the same impost is hidden behind euphemisms like 'marginal abatement incentive' or 'safeguard mechanism.'
If a policy cannot survive being described in plain English, it has no business being law.
5. It weakens Australia’s strategic independence.
The transition to renewables, as currently designed, deepens our dependence on imported technology, foreign supply chains, and Chinese-made components. We are replacing one form of dependency — imported oil — with another: imported solar cells, batteries, and critical minerals processed offshore. No nation secures its future by surrendering its energy sovereignty.
We must return to realism — to policies grounded in affordability, reliability, and national interest. We must call time on the dogma of sustainability and enter the age of energy pragmatism.
How to win arguments
Before we focus on what our policy should be, let’s remind ourselves of how we win arguments.
In the second half of 2018, few of us thought winning the upcoming election was possible, let alone likely.
The party was divided, the press was hostile, and the polls were unforgiving.
Scott Morrison had replaced Malcolm Turnbull only months earlier. The Liberals had lost Wentworth, and the post-mortems were bleak. Many believed the Coalition’s internal wars over energy and climate had finally destroyed us.
On the afternoon of the Wentworth by-election in October, 2018, I took a call from my chairman at the Menzies Research Centre, Paul Espie. Paul had an idea — that the MRC should try to find a position on climate and energy policy that everyone in the party could agree on.
I remember saying, 'Paul, why not start with something easier — like peace in the Middle East.'
Then, in November 2018, Bill Shorten announced Labor’s target: a 45 per cent cut by 2030. The consequences for jobs, energy prices, and industrial competitiveness would be enormous.
That should have been the story in the media — yet it wasn’t. The story was the fighting inside the Liberal Party.
First, however, we had to identify a unifying position — one that nobody in the party room would love, but everyone could live with.
We commissioned some polling in February which confirmed my hunch that climate change was not a 50-50 proposition.
When we asked voters if we should pull out of the Paris agreement or water down the targets, a quarter said yes. Another quarter said we should do more than our Paris targets.
The other 50 percent either didn’t know or thought we should try to stick by our Paris commitments, providing it didn’t damage our economy.
Whoever won the debate would not do so with an argument that was either anti-Paris or fanatically pro-Paris.
The argument would be won by appealing to those with no strong opinions either way.
And so it was that the Liberal and National parties coalesced under the proposition:
'We’ll meet our Paris target, but go no further. Not at the expense of jobs. Not at the expense of affordable energy.'
Then, shortly before the election, economist Dr Brian Fisher released a report modelling the economic cost of Labor’s 45 percent target compared to the Coalition’s 26-28 percent Paris commitment.
Every time Bill Shorten mentioned climate or energy, the costings were thrown back in his face.
That’s the position we need again today: clear, credible, and united. Because Labor’s current policy is even more dangerous than Shorten’s.
Let’s start, as we did in 2019, by taking a reading of the public mood. First let’s assess the feelings in this room, and then I’ll share some unpublished polling which takes a look at the wider sentiment.
Who in this room thinks the Liberal Party policy should be to pull out of the net zero agreement?
The bad news from the polling is that only one-in-six Australians agree with you. If pulling out of Paris is our policy position we’ve got a lot of work to do before the next election. We have to devise a way of shifting 16 per cent to 50 per cent plus one.
The good news is that voters don’t agree with Labor’s approach either. Only a third of Australians think the target should stay exactly as it is. A clear majority — more than half — believe it should be more flexible, realistic, and achievable. That is our opening. That’s the common-sense middle ground the Coalition can reclaim.
Seven policy pillars
Here’s the position I believe can unite our party — and the nation:
Net zero becomes an aspiration, not a binding target.
It’s a direction of travel, not a destination set in stone. We aim to cut emissions, but not to cripple ourselves doing it.
No fixed deadline.
We’ll move as technology and economics allow. If progress slows, we slow with it. If breakthroughs come, we accelerate. The timeline should serve the economy, not the other way around.
Technology neutral.
All options stay on the table: coal, gas, hydrogen, carbon capture, nuclear — yes, nuclear — and renewables where they make economic sense. The role of government is to set standards, not to pick favourites.
Economically positive.
Every policy must pass one test: does it make Australia stronger and wealthier? If not, it doesn’t happen. No more subsidies for billionaires. No more bets on unproven technology.
Grounded in engineering and economic reality.
We will no longer build fantasies on PowerPoint slides. Infrastructure must be deliverable, power reliable, and costs transparent.
Improves our competitiveness.
Energy should be our advantage, not our weakness. We must bring back the industries that left because of high power costs, and attract the ones that never came.
Enhances energy security.
We will not surrender our sovereignty to imported solar panels or Chinese-made batteries. Our energy must be Australian, affordable, and available when we need it.
In summary, we must advocate a return to sanity. Net zero should be a goal we pursue, not a strait jacket. It should lift the nation, not weigh it down.
Five winning arguments
Let me give you some arguments that this polling shows we can win.
The Government’s target is unachievable and unrealistic. 55 per cent agree with that.
We want to cut emissions, but first we must make sure that electricity is affordable and jobs protected. Two thirds of Australians agree with that statement.
Net zero should be a long-term, national goal. It would be foolish to set a deadline. We are prepared to slow the timeline if it means electricity is more affordable and reliable. More than six out of 10 Australians agree with that statement.
All technology should be on the table in the effort to keep electricity affordable. We’re happy to increase the use of coal and gas if it keeps prices low. Again, six out of 10 people are on board.
Australian households shouldn’t bear the cost of climate measures. Fewer than half of Australians are prepared to see prices rise by more than 10 per cent to get to net zero.
Conclusion
When future generations look back, they won’t thank us for our rhetoric or scientific purity. They’ll thank us for keeping the lights on, for protecting their jobs, for defending their prosperity.
That is what genuine environmental stewardship looks like — not self-punishment, but self-respect.
The era of ideology must end. The age of reason must begin. And the spotlight must be turned on the government every day from now for the next two and a half years.
This is an edited transcript of a speech given by former MRC Executive Director Nick Cater to the Mosman Branch of the Liberal Party.