University energy researchers say their modelling of the economics of Australia reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions – used by the Nationals and some Liberal MPs as part of a justification to drop the goal – has been misrepresented.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, has repeatedly claimed that reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions would “cost Australians $9tn”, pointing to the work of Net Zero Australia (NZA).
The Nationals this week confirmed they would no longer support the target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and the Coalition is facing internal pressure from some MPs to follow suit.
But on Wednesday, NZA – which includes academics from Princeton University, the University of Melbourne and the University of Queensland – released a statement saying its cost estimates had been misrepresented.
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter
“Different individuals and groups have been misrepresenting key cost estimates from [our] Australia Project as ‘the cost of Australia reaching net zero’,” it said. “These misrepresented costs have typically ranged from $1.5 trillion to $9 trillion.”
The group said the $9tn figure related to work carried out in 2023, and was an estimate of the cumulative capital investment that could be needed by the year 2060 “for both the domestic and export energy systems” under a scenario where Australia was aiming for net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
But NZA said the “large majority” of that capital – also referenced by the Liberal MP Andrew Hastie – would come from “overseas customers and not by Australians”.
“Operating costs and fuel costs are additional to capital investments and are most significant in fossil-fuel intensive energy systems,” the group said.
“These projections assume that current levels of energy exports are substituted with zero-emission energy carriers, which is a major assumption and may not eventuate,” the group said.
Sign up to Clear Air Australia
Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Coalition figures, including Littleproud, have characterised this amount as the price to be paid by Australians, with the Nationals leader even claiming this would put pressure on Medicare and the NDIS.
Senator Matt Canavan has also pointed to the NZA modelling, claiming in an ABC interview last week it had put “the estimated cost of reaching net zero in Australia at seven to nine trillion dollars”.
Simon Smart, an associate professor at the University of Queensland and a member of the NZA’s steering group, said the group had noticed “a range of individuals and groups using our results and the characterisation being it’s the cost of Australia reaching net zero. That isn’t what [that work] discussed.”
He said the investments “were not coming from the government, typically, and by extension not the Australian taxpayer”, but were largely coming from overseas.
More recent analysis by NZA looked only at energy system costs in Australia and found the cumulative cost of reaching a net zero target by 2050 was $309bn when compared to building an energy system that ignored any need to cut greenhouse gases.
Others to have described the $9tn figure as a cost to Australians include the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs and the signatories of an open letter distributed by Rainforest Reserves Australia – a charity that has become known for its opposition to renewable energy.
The Guardian has approached Littleproud’s office for comment.
