Sussan Ley plays down argument over net zero at Coalition partyroom meeting 

ABC News
Tuesday 26 August


In short:
Sussan Ley says she welcomes a debate of the Coalition's net zero position at a partyroom meeting this morning.

She says the Coalition is committed to its review of energy policy led by frontbencher Dan Tehan.

What's next?
A comprehensive review of the Coalition's energy policy, including its commitment to net zero, is underway.


Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has played down tensions within the Coalition over its position on net zero, after a reportedly chaotic partyroom meeting where a number of MPs argued over the Coalition's climate position.

It follows the Liberal National Party's resolution at a Queensland conference over the weekend to formally dump a target to reach net zero by 2050.

Ms Ley said partyroom discussions were "collegiate" and she invited contributions from her colleagues.

"I am not going to address it directly for the simple reason that I never talk about private conversations on a range of matters," she said.

She said people were "pleased" at the opportunity for debate at this morning's meeting.

The ABC understands there was a discussion at the meeting over its energy review process, and whether the party should spell out its position before a comprehensive review led by Shadow Energy Minister Dan Tehan has been completed.

Ms Ley has pointed to two principles Mr Tehan is working with: lowering energy costs and reducing emissions.

"[It is] important, because it is bringing together experts, it's bringing together the party room," Ms Ley said.

Meanwhile, several Nationals have openly advocated against the commitment to reach net zero by 2050.

Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack have spearheaded a debate in the lower house to repeal climate-related laws, which Labor has allowed as it seeks to maximise the Coalition's pain over internal divisions.

Barnaby Joyce points to himself as he addresses the chamber
Barnaby Joyce introduced a private member's bill to scrap several climate-related laws in the last sitting fortnight. (ABC News)

Liberal MP Simon Kennedy told Sky News the government was not going to meet its 2030 target, "and they're about to legislate their 2035 targets".

"We do need real policy, we need a policy position on that. We know it's going to be between we think 65 to 75 per cent, so we should be starting to think about a policy," Mr Kennedy said.

"The domestic gas reserve we announced last election, we should reinstate that as a policy, we modelled that ... that would give us something to talk about."

Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie said the commitment to reach net zero by 2050 undermined Australia's sovereignty, security and competitiveness and he did not support it.

But he said Ms Ley had been clear that the party should follow its process.

"We're going through a process to settle our energy policy and it's right that backbenchers express their views," Mr Hastie told ABC Afternoon Briefing.

With the Coalition divided on its approach to climate change, Ms Ley was asked whether she expected to still be leading the party in three years' time.

"Absolutely I will," Ms Ley responded. 

"I know my party room, and I know the party room that I lead."

There are dissidents in every party room. It is just a matter of papering over the cracks. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

If anybody thinks different, then it can only be viewed as group think, with no knowledge.

Which state has closed all its coal plants?

SA

Which state has the dearest energy bills?

SA

Which state would be in a constant state of blackout if they couldn't get coal fired electricity at night from Victoria?

SA


SOUNDS like net zero is a myth

Greens say Net Zero by 2035 required to protect communities and nature
2025-07-30
greens.org.au
The Australian Greens have called on the Government to follow the science and set 2035 targets at net-zero and stop approving new coal and gas mines, or risk losing our critical opportunity to prevent disastrous global heating.

Anything below net zero by 2035 condemns Australia to more than 2 degrees of warming, in breach of the Paris Agreement.

Lines attributable to Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Larissa Waters:

“With the government planning their 2035 climate targets, it’s vital that they listen to climate scientists, people in regional communities and our Pacific Island neighbours; and not take us backwards on climate.

“Climate Targets aren’t just figures on a page. They're life or death events for people in our region and people in regional communities and all Australians who are suffering from natural disasters that are turbo charged by the climate crisis.

“We know the Government is thinking about what the targets should be for our country to do our bit globally to tackle the climate crisis and global warming. But thankfully, there’s been plenty of thinking already done, and the answer is quite clear. 

“The government just needs to listen to scientists, listen to bushfire survivors, listen to our Pacific neighbors, the unions and businesses who are all saying the same thing - Australia  must settle on strong science based 2035 targets - and that means net zero.

“The first act of Labor after being re-elected was a tick off on Woodside's massive North West shelf gas project out to 2070. That is inconsistent with strong climate action, and just like Pacifica leaders, the bushfire survivors, and scientists, the Greens say we need strong science based targets that tackle climate pollution and keep us all safe.

“Australia has done too little for too long - and now science based targets that keep warming below 2 degrees requires a monumental effort of reaching net zero in the next ten years, not by 2050.

“We can see that states and territories are doing some good work already in this space, and if you put all of their contributions together, that would already see us reduce emissions by 71%, so regardless of what the Business Council or the Nationals say, anything less than that is going backwards. And a safe climate is a mandate on which this Government was elected. They said to the voters before the election, and what Australians want is strong climate action to keep us safe, to keep nature safe, and to keep our Pacific neighbors safe.

“It can be done and the economic modelling even shows that if the federal Government invests well and soon, a net zero climate target can even be a driver of economic growth, bringing with it cheaper, cleaner energy, new industries, lifelines for regional communities, more Australian manufacturing - as well as less suffering for Australia and our Pacific neighbours and fewer species sent to extinction.”

Whiteknight

Could we disconnect all green voters from the electricity grid.

Would this not be a win win

22 failed energy policies over three terms and presided over 4gwh leaving the grid , no one with any brains takes liberals seriously on well ...anything

So the question still stands.  What is the Coalition's energy policy?.   :( 

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

The Australian Greens have called on the Government to follow the science and set 2035 targets at net-zero and stop approving new coal and gas mines, or risk losing our critical opportunity to prevent disastrous global heating.

Ah, they mean the scientific consensus only. ;)


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

Anything below net zero by 2035 condemns Australia to more than 2 degrees of warming, in breach of the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement has no teeth, it is entirely voluntary. How can there be a breach of a voluntary agreement? You can simply change your mind and then there is no breach.


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“With the government planning their 2035 climate targets, it’s vital that they listen to climate scientists, people in regional communities and our Pacific Island neighbours; and not take us backwards on climate."

So tell us which Pacific island has sunk, which has increased in size and which one has reduced in size.


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

They're life or death events for people in our region and people in regional communities and all Australians who are suffering from natural disasters that are turbo charged by the climate crisis.

Not according to the IPCC. Strange that. ;)


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“The government just needs to listen to scientists, listen to bushfire survivors, listen to our Pacific neighbors, the unions and businesses who are all saying the same thing - Australia  must settle on strong science based 2035 targets - and that means net zero.

They are ALL saying it?  Complete bullshit. ;D ;D ;D
whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“The first act of Labor after being re-elected was a tick off on Woodside's massive North West shelf gas project out to 2070. That is inconsistent with strong climate action, and just like Pacifica leaders, the bushfire survivors, and scientists, the Greens say we need strong science based targets that tackle climate pollution and keep us all safe.

Nope. They say we need to keep gas for the forseeable future. More lies.


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“Australia has done too little for too long - and now science based targets that keep warming below 2 degrees requires a monumental effort of reaching net zero in the next ten years, not by 2050.

It is impossible to get to net zero. Wind and solar are too diverse.  Think - What power generation are they going to use so that it becomes net zero rather than absolute zero. ::)


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“We can see that states and territories are doing some good work already in this space, and if you put all of their contributions together, that would already see us reduce emissions by 71%

All of their contributions together so far have not achieved reductions of that magnitude. ;)


whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

“It can be done and the economic modelling even shows that if the federal Government invests well and soon, a net zero climate target can even be a driver of economic growth, bringing with it cheaper, cleaner energy, new industries, lifelines for regional communities, more Australian manufacturing - as well as less suffering for Australia and our Pacific neighbours and fewer species sent to extinction.”

Oh noes more poor Pacific Islanders. Of course they COULD be a driver of economic growth, if the renewables actually worked at the time required. :-?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-07/australian-power-market-allows-world-highest-price-spikes/105673588

“ Groups including Energy Consumers Australia, which represents small energy users, say households are needlessly paying billions of extra dollars under a cap they claim does little but hurt them. ”

The danger for Australia is that we learn the wrong lesson and waste this crisis. The early signs are disturbing.

The response now taking shape is to double down on an electricity system built on intermittent generation, backed by storage, in the belief that electrifying everything will deliver security. It will not. It risks replacing one vulnerability with another and building a single point of failure into the nation’s operating system.

If that system fails, everything fails with it. And maybe the people who are building this system should ponder whether it is wise that so many of the components in its nervous system are made in China.
...


The immediate reality is that the world still runs on hydrocarbons and will for decades to come. With major suppliers of oil and gas shut down there is a clear opportunity for Australia to fill the gap, to strengthen our own economy, and to build security and resilience against future shocks.

We should be producing more energy, not less. We should be expanding exports of coal, LNG and uranium. We should be building nuclear power plants. We should be exploring for oil and developing the capacity to turn coal and gas into liquid fuels.

Above all, we should ensure that this country never again finds itself so exposed.

The lesson is not complicated. The world runs on the dense energy of oil, coal and gas. Ignore that, and the real world will blow up your operating model.
Chris Uhlmann

Nuclear power is not the way for Australia to go.  One should not forget the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 10:14am:

Nuclear power is not the way for Australia to go.  One should not forget the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

So tell us what made them disasters. Poor maintenance? Mounting pumps below ground in an earthquake/Tsunami zone.

What were the death tolls?

Thorium is superior to Uranium, especially in Australia, where Desals are required for human use and data centres.

The off/on-alition are puppets, probably being paid by the uranium lobby, to push a lesser technology onto the country.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 1:13pm:

Thorium is superior to Uranium, especially in Australia, where Desals are required for human use and data centres.

Desals are required for data centres? ::)

Alongside energy hogs, data centres are water hogs (for cooling).

ai :
Data centre water usage varies significantly by facility size and cooling technology, with large hyper scale data centres consuming an average of 2.1 million litres per day.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 10:14am:

Nuclear power is not the way for Australia to go.  One should not forget the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.   :(

Nor is Chinese solar panels and wind mills and jet fuel.




As of May 2021, there are 180 operable power reactors in Europe, with a combined electrical capacity of 159.36 GW.[1] There are currently 8 power reactors under construction in Europe.




It is ludicrous that an island country of 28 million with an entire resource rich continent to itself is energy dependent on imported fuel brough in by foreign ships.

The Gretafication is complete.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 1:33pm:

Alongside energy hogs, data centres are water hogs (for cooling). ai : Data centre water usage varies significantly by facility size and cooling technology, with large hyper scale data centres consuming an average of 2.1 million litres per day.

Now all you have to do is tell us why the water can't be cooled and re-used. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 2:17pm:

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28th, 2026 at 1:33pm: Alongside energy hogs, data centres are water hogs (for cooling). ai : Data centre water usage varies significantly by facility size and cooling technology, with large hyper scale data centres consuming an average of 2.1 million litres per day. Now all you have to do is tell us why the water can't be cooled and re-used. ;)

It can be, the heat used for heating homes through to agriculture ... yet that would eat into the owner's of the data centre's economics. 





Native title holders take appeal over one of Australia's largest groundwater licences to High Court


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-10/nt-high-court-singleton-station-aboriginal-groundwater-rights/106322626

And that is what is at the heart of the dispute, after the NT government approved a 30-year licence for Fortune to take 40,000 megalitres from the aquifer each year to support its enterprise.  (for free).

There's always low costing politicians giving stuff away for free. Why recycle !

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

It can be, the heat used for heating homes through to agriculture ... yet that would eat into the owner's of the data centre's economics.

Why? it is either re-used or it is released via a water line. Who would by "used" water? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

Native title holders take appeal over one of Australia's largest groundwater licences to High Court

Nothing to do with AI data centres. ::)


Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

And that is what is at the heart of the dispute, after the NT government approved a 30-year licence for Fortune to take 40,000 megalitres from the aquifer each year to support its enterprise.  (for free).

Ok So what happens after that water is used? Is it all used up or ir is it used for other purposes. Is it released and allowed back into the acquifer? ::)


Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

There's always low costing politicians giving stuff away for free.

Ah so now it is the pliticians fault.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

"Nothing to do with AI data centres"


Data centres uses heaps of water and politicians give water away for free ... unless they get paid under the table.

Cheaper to buy politicians than pay for recycling.


Now back to topic. Why's the off/on-aition ignoring Thorium for Uranium. Any ideas?

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:44pm:

Data centres uses heaps of water and politicians give water away for free ... unless they get paid under the table.

You still haven't decided what actually constitutes "use", "re-use" or "release" of water.
Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 3:44pm:

Now back to topic. Why's the off/on-aition ignoring Thorium for Uranium. Any ideas?

that is not the topic, dufus. ;)

Isn't forcing nuclear on Australia coalition energy policy?

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 4:34pm:

Isn't forcing nuclear on Australia coalition energy policy?

By taking it to an election? You mean unlike the mandates for renewables? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 4:40pm:

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Isn't forcing nuclear on Australia coalition energy policy? By taking it to an election? You mean unlike the mandates for renewables? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes tthe Libs took nuclear to the 2025 federal election and suffered a 3.9% swing against them.




“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on Mar 28^th, 2026 at 4:55pm:

Yes tthe Libs took nuclear to the 2025 federal election and suffered a 3.9% swing against them.

So not forced then. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Unlike renewables and EV mandates.