The Liberal Party's decision to abandon its net zero emissions target has been described as a triumph of ideology over pragmatism, drawing comparisons to the hardline tactics of 1960s Labor zealots. The move, forced by conservative factions, has been criticized as ill-judged and politically dangerous, especially given that the 2050 timeframe is a generation away.
Liberal federal director Andrew Hirst warned the party room that net zero has become a 'proxy' for climate action among voters, and that ditching it is high-risk politics. Despite this, the leadership opted to scrap the commitment, offering only a vague statement that achieving net zero would be 'a welcome outcome' if it happened.
The party is in a dreadful state, with a primary vote of just 24 per cent in Newspoll. Analysts believe the Liberals cannot return to power for at least two elections, and the new policy risks alienating key demographics including young voters, women, urban dwellers, and those in teal electorates.
Former Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian, who narrowly lost the Sydney seat of Bradfield to a teal independent, warned in an email that retreat from net zero is an 'electoral liability'. She argued that a credible, technology-focused climate policy is essential to winning back urban and suburban seats.
The policy shift leaves the Liberals with a messy energy strategy that will be difficult to sell. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley struggled to explain the contradictions at a press conference, while energy spokesman Dan Tehan appears out of his depth. The Nationals, who pushed for the change, are seen as leading the Coalition by the nose.
