The Liberal guide to net zero: How to do nothing and call it policy

Independent Australia has obtained what purports to be a briefing paper on net zero to be presented to Liberal Party Parliamentarians this week. Found by Steve Bishop.

GENTLEMEN — and ladies,

We are faced with the major political problem of what we should do about net zero emissions policies, which some entities, such as the United Nations and the world's scientific academies, claim have certain scientific ramifications, such as the end of the world as we know it.

Option 1: We accept the National Party policy of dumping net zero immediately.

Positive effect: This will solve the political dilemma by saving the Coalition and pleasing the National Party and experts attached to The Australian, The Spectator, the Institute of Public Affairs and Sky News. They may have no scientific expertise, but they know the world's scientists are frauds.

It will also win the electoral support of the 13% of Australians who think the Government should do less to limit the impacts of extreme weather events.

Nationals’ net zero backflip a disaster for the regions

The National Party’s decision to abandon its net zero target is a betrayal of regional Australia, leaving flood-ravaged communities like Lismore to face the escalating impacts of climate change alone.

Minor negative effects: The policy will be criticised by the world's scientific community and Pacific nations, who object to their countries being swallowed by rising sea levels. Labor, the Greens and Teals will have some support in labelling us climate change deniers, a joke and out of touch with reality. Long-term effects mean we will not regain any of the Teal seats and may lose further seats.

Option 2: Say we will always support sensible action to reduce emissions... but there's no need to try to achieve net zero with any urgency, unlike climate alarmists. In fact, in our September media release about our climate risk assessment, we totally avoided mentioning the Z word.

Positive effect: It could save the Coalition and will probably please the media climate experts mentioned in option one.

Negative effects: Probably the same as with option one.

Option 3: This is the least favoured scenario. It will please those who want to save the world by adopting a policy of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. But it will fail to solve our immediate and major political problem.

Reasons for adopting this policy: It fits in with warnings from the world's science academies and the United Nations that this is needed to keep the planet livable for our grandchildren and future generations.

The InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), which includes scientific academies from across the world, warns that:

Climate change is a real and rapidly increasing danger to people and the planet.

Science tells us we must act now and continue to act into the future to deliver net zero emissions if we are to avoid further dangerous warming. This is the time for all countries to commit to urgent measures of mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. The cost of inaction will greatly outweigh the cost of action.

The IAP deadline? ‘...actions to reach net zero by 2050 or earlier.’

Barnaby’s lunatic crusade of Net Zero relevance

Barnaby’s delusional huffing and puffing over Net Zero is once again front and centre, starting with the Murdoch gutter press (naturally) and culminating with ABC’s 7.30.

Many of us have no time for the meddling, unelected United Nations, but there are those who believe it has some credibility.

The UN warns:

‘The science shows clearly that in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change and preserve a liveable planet, global temperature increase needs to be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.’

Currently, the Earth is already about 1.2°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s and emissions continue to rise. To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.

Andrew Hastie speaks for many of us when he identifies people advocating these measures as “net zero zealots”.

Positive effects: This policy will enable us to win back inner city seats from the Teals, increase our appeal to young voters and provide a path to winning elections because it will meet the expectations of the 61% of Australians who support the Government's commitment to cutting carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Negative effects: It completely fails to solve the immediate and major political problem.

It will destroy the Coalition, half of us will continue to speak out against such a radical policy, the Nationals will attack us for falling for a scam and we will be relentlessly attacked by the experts attached to The Australian, The Spectator, the Institute of Public Affairs and Sky News.