Article by Matt Canavan, courtesy of Gladstone Today.
06.11.2025
When the country adopted net zero, I said:
“A net-zero emissions target will mean net-zero economic development for our nation. Australia will be poorer and with fewer opportunities than we should have.
We remain a nation with untapped water, agricultural, and mineral resources. But a net-zero emissions target puts a shallow ceiling over our heads, limiting the reach of our grasp.”
Sadly, my prediction has come true.
Since net zero, we have lost over 7,000 manufacturing jobs. Electricity prices are up 39 per cent, gas prices are up 46 per cent, and we are wasting over $100 billion in various green energy schemes.
What is clear now is that, despite the promises, cutting emissions is a costly exercise. Now that we know the costs are higher, it is time to change tack.
Net zero has passed its use-by date. It is time we return to the land of common sense and adopt a plan based on reality. That is why the Nationals Party has this week abandoned any commitment to net zero.
Many countries are now walking away from net zero. The United States has pulled out completely. Just one-third of countries have submitted 2035 targets under the Paris Agreement — they were due earlier this year. Even Europe can’t agree on its next steps, as voter “greenlash” punishes governments for runaway energy prices and decimated industrial areas.
Now Australia finds itself in the uncomfortable position of racing ahead of the rest of the world on costly emissions cuts. We have cut our emissions by 28 per cent, while the advanced world has cut theirs by just half that. Why would we take on double the burden of emissions cuts when we are just 1 per cent of the world’s total?
We have reduced our emissions by roughly 160 million tonnes, at a rate of 9 million tonnes per year. More than 90 per cent of these reductions have come from converting land — mostly farmland — to trees.
We have already lost 7.2 million hectares of productive land, sacrificed to the carbon gods. That is more land than the entire size of Tasmania.
Rich people — who often vote for climate action — have not reduced their driving, flying, eating, or consuming. Their emissions have gone up or stayed the same. The costs of Australia’s emissions reductions have fallen on farming communities, who have lost jobs, industry, and business by having less land to farm.
This is not fair.
The Nationals have proposed a “fair go” climate plan that would calibrate our emissions reductions to what other advanced countries have done. We should not race ahead of the world on emissions reductions — especially now that we know the true cost.
We should fund more moderate reductions by working with businesses to increase their efficiency, not punishing employers for creating wealth. That is why the Nationals propose to remove all taxes on industry and restrictions on what car you can buy. No one should be forced to buy an electric car.
Most of all, we should run our energy system with one primary goal — delivering cheaper energy for our nation, not cutting emissions to win applause from the United Nations.
The Nationals have a cheaper, better, and fairer plan for our energy system.
Net zero was never a plan; it was a prayer — a prayer that hydrogen, batteries, and “green” metals would fall from the sky like manna and save the day.
Now that our prayers have been unanswered, it is time to get real — and focus on the hard yakka needed to bring back our wealth, bring back our jobs, and bring back our pride.
