The Albanese government is hoping it can successfully juggle multiple audiences with its 2035 emissions reduction target .
Author
- Michelle Grattan
Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
With a specific number, no single set of stakeholders could have been fully satisfied without alienating another. In opting for a range, and a big one at that - a 62%-70% cut in emissions from 2005 levels - the government, taking a pragmatic course, has given itself maximum wriggle room. This is also reasonable, considering a future of economic uncertainty and rapidly changing technology.
Business can focus on the 62%; those wanting more ambition can hope the 70% might be reached. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared, "we think we've got the sweet spot". They haven't of course - because there is no "sweet spot". In policy terms, dealing with climate change is one of those "wicked problems". Often, it is a choice between least-worst courses, or a stab in the dark, given the long timelines.
The government's unveiling of its 2035 target has been a highly choreographed exercise.
A decision, certain to be controversial, was stalled until after the election. The Climate Change Authority - which earlier had announced it was consulting on a target between 65%-75% - did not formally hand its advice in until Friday, advice the government followed precisely.
On Monday the government released its National Climate Risk Assessment , that painted a dire and dramatic picture of the dangers presented by the changing weather. Thursday's target announcement was backed up by a package of measures, worth more than $8 billion, to support the energy transition, and accompanied by Treasury modelling documenting the advantages of an orderly path forward.
The 2035 target should go down quite well with most voters. It sounds like a credible commitment to action, which people want. This week's Newspoll found 25% of people thought Australia should stick to its current action on climate change, while 37% believed Australia should increase it.
The government legislated its 2030 target (for a 43% reduction in emissions) with much fanfare. But it has already accepted it mightn't be able to put the 2035 target into law. That would require support in the Senate from either the Greens or the opposition, and both have denounced it.
The Greens will try to use what they describe as a "capitulation to coal and gas corporations" to lever off some votes from Labor, especially in inner city areas.
With her party in an existential battle over the future of its commitment to net zero by 2050, Sussan Ley has navigated the opposition's reaction to the government's 2035 target by arguing it won't reach the 2030 one. While the government insists that target is still achievable, some experts are very sceptical. Ley also said there was nothing in the announcement "that demonstrates to Australians how much it will cost".
Whatever 2035 number the government produced, the opposition was always set to reject it, so it was just a matter of preparing the attack lines. But
Ley was careful to get shadow cabinet backing before stating a position.
As she seeks to shore up her leadership, she is looking for a way to qualify the net zero commitment without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Asked on Thursday about the future of the commitment, she said, "we have to play our part in reducing emissions but not at any cost".
Ley is caught between the importance of the net zero symbol to many voters, especially younger ones, and the pull of those in her party wanting to ditch or at least water down the commitment. Leadership aspirant Angus Taylor told Sky on Thursday, "I'm dead against targets that hurt Australians and hurt the Australian economy and I always have been".
Albanese has emphasised the government's 2035 target is in line with those of comparable countries. The prime minister will have a keen eye on how the announcement goes down internationally.
Australia is sweating on a decision about whether it will obtain hosting rights (together with Pacific countries) for next year's United Nations climate conference (the COP). Australia has the necessary support, but Turkey, the other country in contention, so far has declined to pull out. The conference, which would be held in Adelaide, is a huge event requiring much preparation. The government is extremely frustrated at the delay.
Albanese will be at the United Nations' leaders week in New York next week, where he will meet other countries for climate discussions. He'll hope this will encourage more pressure on Turkey to withdraw.
Apart from addressing the General Assembly, and Australia making good its commitment to recognise the state of Palestine, Albanese will take part in discussions with a range of like-minded countries about the future of Gaza.
But the centrepiece of the US trip (followed by a visit to Britain) is the anticipated meeting with President Donald Trump. AUKUS and tariffs will be high on the agenda.
Diplomacy is a tricky business, as we saw this week when what seemed a done deal for signing a major defence treaty with Papua New Guinea didn't come off.
The meeting with Trump (assuming this time it happens) is quite difficult for Albanese to prepare for. He won't be talking to your usual run of leader.
Fickle and unpredictable, Trump demands flattery while exercising power ruthlessly, whether over individuals, parts of his own government, organisations or other countries.
This week we have seen how the United Kingdom has tried to cement a relationship by according him a lavish, unprecedented second state visit. Trump would relish the pomp and glitter, but also the fact the British have felt the need to go to such lengths to get on his good side.
Meanwhile Trump has recently flexed extraordinary military muscle with lethal American attacks on Venezuelan boats in international waters.
As time's gone on it has become increasingly obvious that Trump is not the sort of person Australia would have ever expected to be dealing with as leader of its most important ally. It is not just his politics that differ from those of Albanese, but his values as well.
Managing the diplomacy of the encounter will be delicate. They will have plenty to talk about, and their phone conversations have laid a positive basis for the meeting. But probably some topics will be best avoided. Climate policy, for example.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
