Those in the Coalition who are opposed to targeting net zero carbon emissions, argue that it will cost too much. But that claim is false and not supported by the evidence. How can they get away with it?

A repost from 12 November 2025

In the last week or so, since the Nationals dropped their commitment to net zero carbon emissions, the Liberals have been tearing themselves apart over what should be their policy response. The Liberal members of parliament are now expected to meet in Canberra on Wednesday to discuss net zero, with the Shadow Cabinet to finalise the Liberal Party position the next day.

There is much speculation as to whether the Liberals will split over this issue, or whether a compromise will be found. Certainly, the leader, Sussan Ley, has made it clear that there “cannot be net zero at any cost”.

Ley then went on to castigate Labor for what she claimed was a 40% increase in Australian electricity bills since Labor was elected, a bit over three years ago. Ley’s clear implication is that this increase is excessive and is due to Labor’s support for switching to renewable energy, in pursuit of its net zero target.

In effect, Ley is inviting us all to believe that there is a trade-off between reducing carbon emissions and the cost of electricity, and thus the cost of living. But where is the evidence to support this presumption that mitigating climate change may well involve an unacceptable cost to the economy and living standards?

Certainly, Ley and the Liberal Party have provided no evidence in support of this critical contention. But what is even more strange, and disturbing, is that neither the Labor Party nor the commentariat have thought to examine the evidence as to whether renewable........

© Pearls and Irritations