Australian Coalition MPs have been issued talking points by their party, which instruct them to argue that dropping a net-zero emissions target does not contradict Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement. However, leaked documents suggest that such an approach may be at odds with the agreement's requirement for signatories to progressively increase their emissions reduction goals.
The guidance tells MPs to say there is "no contradiction at all" and that the Paris Agreement allows countries to set their own targets. It also claims that Australia will continue to reduce emissions, but in a way that keeps energy costs affordable for families. This response seems to be an attempt to downplay concerns about the apparent conflict with the Paris Agreement.
The Coalition's new plan, finalized on Sunday after months of infighting, has been met with criticism from industry groups and energy experts who argue it will not lower power prices as promised. The party's leader, Sussan Ley, has conducted almost 30 media appearances since the announcement to prosecute the case that ditching a net-zero emissions target and pursuing "energy abundance" would achieve this goal.
However, moderate Coalition MPs have been confused by these talking points, with some saying they are struggling to sell or defend the policy to voters. The guidance also instructs MPs to say there is no blank cheque for new coal-fired power stations, but it seems that the party's stance on this issue is being challenged by its own senators.
Overall, it appears that the Coalition is walking a tightrope in trying to justify its decision to drop a net-zero emissions target while still maintaining its commitment to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The guidance tells MPs to say there is "no contradiction at all" and that the Paris Agreement allows countries to set their own targets. It also claims that Australia will continue to reduce emissions, but in a way that keeps energy costs affordable for families. This response seems to be an attempt to downplay concerns about the apparent conflict with the Paris Agreement.
The Coalition's new plan, finalized on Sunday after months of infighting, has been met with criticism from industry groups and energy experts who argue it will not lower power prices as promised. The party's leader, Sussan Ley, has conducted almost 30 media appearances since the announcement to prosecute the case that ditching a net-zero emissions target and pursuing "energy abundance" would achieve this goal.
However, moderate Coalition MPs have been confused by these talking points, with some saying they are struggling to sell or defend the policy to voters. The guidance also instructs MPs to say there is no blank cheque for new coal-fired power stations, but it seems that the party's stance on this issue is being challenged by its own senators.
Overall, it appears that the Coalition is walking a tightrope in trying to justify its decision to drop a net-zero emissions target while still maintaining its commitment to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement.
I'm not sure how good an idea this is for Australia... They're basically trying to justify dropping a climate goal by saying it's allowed under the Paris Agreement, but isn't that kinda like trying to have your cake and eat it too? 
I get that there are some confusing talking points from the Coalition, but honestly, this whole thing feels like a bit of a mess. I mean, how do you reconcile wanting to keep energy costs affordable with actually cutting emissions? It's like they're trying to square a circle... 
I'm literally living for this... no, not living for it, more like worrying about it 
. Like, how are they gonna sell this to Aussie voters? The whole point of the net-zero thing was to reduce emissions and save the planet, but now they're all like 'energy abundance' and coal-fired power stations? 
It's like, what's next? Bringing back dial-up internet? 
.
.
. Until then, I'm just over here... 
she must be getting paid a lot lol. anywayz, i dont get why ppl r not seeing the bigger pic tho...
. this whole thing seems like a right old mess 
.
. They're trying to spin this whole "dropping" net-zero target thing into not being a big deal, but honestly, it just seems like they're making stuff up 
. I mean, if they want to keep energy costs affordable for families, shouldn't that be part of their plan from the start? Instead, they're trying to retroactively sell us on it by saying "oh, we'll still reduce emissions, but in a way that's not too expensive" 
. Like, come on, guys! If you're gonna do something like this, own it and explain why it won't hurt our global reputation 
which is just not true if you ask me. the paris agreement is all about reducing emissions and this gov is kinda... undermining that 
guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out 
THEY'RE TRYING TO DOWNPLAY THE FACT THAT DROPPING A NET-ZERO EMISSIONS TARGET WOULD BE A BIG DEAL FOR THE PLANET 
. What's going on here is kinda fishy 
... if they say there's no contradiction but still drop the net-zero target, isn't that like saying you can have your cake and eat it too? 
. It's like they can't make up their minds! And what's with all these talking points? It feels like they're spinning a web of deceit 
. I just don't get why they can't have a straight conversation about this issue – it's not that hard, guys 
.
anyway back to aussie politics lol i was just thinking what's with our energy policy, can't we just stick to renewables already? i mean what's the harm in setting a goal and trying to achieve it? it sounds like the coalition is just winging it over there...
Maybe they could be the answer. We should totally give them a try and see what happens! 
i mean i get that the party is trying to balance energy costs and economic growth, but can't they find a way to make both work? 
. But, like seriously, what's up with this climate change stuff? Can't we just switch to renewable energy and call it a day? 
It seems like the Coalition is trying to spin some pretty wobbly arguments about sticking to their emissions targets and still keeping energy costs low... I mean, come on, guys! 
wonder how they think "energy abundance" is gonna work out... sounds like they're trying to spin a losing hand into a win 
and Sussan Ley's been on the media circuit nonstop – guess you could say she's really "abundance"-ly available 
. anyway, hope moderates in the party are paying attention to these talking points 'cause it seems like some ppl don't wanna be left holding the bag when this whole thing implodes 
. Anyway, back to this Aussie stuff... I don't get why they need to stress about the Paris Agreement so much. Can't they just say they'll try their best? Like, what's the worst that could happen if they miss a few targets here and there? 
I mean, Australia's already got a reputation for being one of the worst polluters out there, so ditching a net-zero target just seems like a big step backwards 
Anyway, I'm not gonna get all worked up about it... yet 
The real question is what the other parties are gonna do next