In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, some Coalition backbenchers in Australia have suggested the party should reconsider its support for achieving net zero emissions by 2050. However, this push has been swiftly rejected by senior party figures, who warn that abandoning climate commitments could have severe economic consequences.
Littleproud: Australia Must Understand Its Place in the World
National party leader David Littleproud was unequivocal in his response when asked if the Coalition should rethink its net zero stance. “No,” he stated bluntly. Littleproud emphasized that despite Trump’s “soundings” about withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, Australia needs to be mindful of its position as a much smaller nation heavily reliant on international trade.
“They are 330 million people, we’re 27 million people, we’re a trading nation. The only people that will hurt out of that will be our farmers and our mining sector.”
– David Littleproud, National party leader
He cautioned that any attempt by Australia to “lead the world” in exiting the Paris accord would likely result in carbon tariffs being imposed on the nation’s vital commodity exports. The EU has already established a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and other major economies are considering similar measures to penalize imports from countries with weaker climate policies.
McKenzie and Birmingham Also Reject Backbench Suggestions
Shadow transport minister Bridget McKenzie and Senate Liberal leader Simon Birmingham joined Littleproud in affirming the Coalition’s commitment to the net zero by 2050 goal. McKenzie called it a “fundamental pillar” of the party’s plan, which includes support for nuclear energy.
She did note ongoing concerns within the National party about the pace and cost of emissions reduction, particularly the impacts on regional industries and communities. However, McKenzie made clear this was primarily in reference to state government targets and the Albanese government’s 43% reduction goal for 2030, not the Coalition’s own 2050 timeline.
For his part, Birmingham described the Coalition’s net zero position under Peter Dutton as “rock solid.” This includes openness to implementing “difficult decisions” like pursuing zero-emission nuclear technology to achieve the long-term target.
Climate Minister Expects Continuity From Any New US Administration
Prior to the US election outcome, Australian climate change minister Chris Bowen had expressed confidence that even a second Trump administration would be unlikely to follow through on anti-climate rhetoric. He suggested policy and economic momentum would make drastic reversals difficult.
Bowen noted the “close alignment” between the Australian government and Biden administration on climate, and said that while a “forward-leaning” US policy was beneficial, he expected any future president to be constrained by established trajectories. As the world’s second-largest emitter, a renewed American withdrawal from Paris would still have global ramifications.
Australia Aims to Balance Climate Action With Economic Concerns
The firm rejections from Littleproud, McKenzie, and Birmingham underscore the tightrope the Coalition is trying to walk on climate policy. The party needs to satisfy its rural and regional base, which is worried about disproportionate economic impacts and the pace of change, while also projecting credibility to the wider electorate, where concern about climate inaction has grown.
Littleproud tried to strike this balance by criticizing the government’s 2030 target as too aggressive, arguing instead for a slower, more economically cautious approach to reaching net zero by mid-century. He touted the Coalition’s openness to carbon capture and storage plus nuclear energy as a way to protect fossil fuel jobs during the transition.
At the same time, he was adamant that following Trump’s lead in rejecting Paris outright would be counterproductive and self-harming for Australia as a trading nation. In an increasingly carbon-constrained global economy, abandoning climate commitments would make key export sectors vulnerable to punitive tariffs and trade barriers.
As the world reacts to the US election result, the Coalition seems determined to maintain its own direction on emissions reduction, even if it remains critical of Labor’s targets and methods. This internal position will likely face ongoing pressure from pro-coal and gas forces within the party. Still, Littleproud’s intervention suggests the economic risks of a wholesale about-face are too high for the leadership to accept – at least for now.
