A screen grab on Sky News Australia’s Outsiders during the election campaign showed Opposition Leader Peter Dutton saying words to the effect of, ‘I believe in climate change. That is why we are committed to Net Zero by 2050…’

Net Zero by 2050 is not an end in itself. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about reducing CO2 emissions to zero. Net Zero is a means to an end – to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in order to stop catastrophic climate change. That supposedly is the end game. And yet when was the last time you heard any Labor or Liberal politician mention ‘1.5C’?

The Bowens, the Albaneses, and the Bandts of this world will smugly tell you that they are driven by the science, specifically the series of Assessment Reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the Delphic Oracle of our post-truth world.

In fact, Net Zero by 2050 is not an artefact of the IPCC. Certainly, they advocate Net Zero emissions, but nowhere in their ‘science’ do they associate the year 2050 with this aim.

What they tell us, in their latest Assessment Report, in relation to limiting warming to 1.5C is that, in order to achieve this, the world can only emit a certain amount, in total, of CO2. They call this a carbon budget. It is based on a range of probabilities of limiting warming to either 1.5C or 2C.

The budget (GtCO2) starting from 2020, offers a range of probabilities, each associated with a specific quantity of CO2, of limiting warming to either 1.5C or 2C. There are 10 options.

There is no timeframe associated with these projections. Getting to Net Zero by 2050 makes no difference if we expend the carbon budget before we get there. As an example, the budget tells us that if we are content with only a 50 per cent chance of limiting warming to 1.5C, then we can emit no more than a total of 500 GtCO2. That is starting from 2020.

So how are we doing? Let’s just look at the 83 per cent option to limit warming to 1.5C. After all, if we are going to replace our perfectly functional energy system as well as decimate our transport, farming and mining sectors, and wantonly destroy our natural environment, we would want at least an 83 per cent chance of succeeding, wouldn’t we? That gives us a budget of 300GtCO2.

Since 2020, globally, we have emitted on average 36 GtCO2 per year. It went up from 37 to 37.4 in 2024. That is a total of about 180 GtCO2 or over half the 83 per cent budget, in five years. Even if we were to reduce emissions, starting today, to an average of, say, 20 GtCO2 (a herculean task) over the next decade we, the world, would have exhausted the remaining budget by 2031. Missed it by that much, Chief!

Let’s take a look at China. The latest commitment I can find is that China aims (claims) to reach Net Zero by 2060. Using an (admittedly simplistic) linear annual reduction of 0.02GtCO2, I estimate that by 2036, China alone will have emitted 384GtCO2, totally blowing the ‘best case’ global budget (83 per cent) well before the magical date of 2050. And by 2050 it will have emitted a further 225GtCO2 bringing its total to 609GtCO2 and blowing the 37 per cent probability budget.

Add to that India, the USA, Russia, Canada, and Japan, and 2C is out the window as well.

I have covered this in more detail here…

Where did Net Zero by 2050 come from then, if not the IPCC? Well of course, it came from the vaunted rules-based order that President Trump is doing his damnedest to reform.

It is not about saving the planet but about redistributing wealth from the West to the developing world. The gnomes of Davos realise that if they put too short a time-frame on the process – one that would conform with the IPCC ‘science’ – people will realise it’s just not achievable and will look for alternatives such as adaptation. The beauty of Net Zero by 2050 is that it lulls people into thinking we can reduce emissions incrementally over a long period of time and ease ourselves into the new world. In fact, the IPCC is calling for deep and immediate cuts. That is totally at odds with Net Zero by 2050 which is nothing more than a marketing slogan. The Australian people are being led to believe that, if we can achieve zero emissions by 2050, we will have averted climate disaster. They are effectively being deceived by politicians.

To summarise, Labor and, to a lesser extent, the Coalition are bankrupting us to implement a strategy that has no chance of achieving its putative goal – even if you think that goal is worthwhile. Most conservative commentators, routinely point out that ‘we can’t get to Net Zero with renewables only’. That is true, but it is also beside the point. Even if we get to Net Zero by 2050, with or without nuclear, it will be too late. According to the IPCC ‘science’, we will have missed our chance to limit warming to 1.5C – it will be irreversible according to them – and therefore its malign effects, whatever they are, will be unstoppable. In the worst case, which country is going to fare better? One with a secure coal, gas, and nuclear grid or one with a nationwide network of poles, wires, solar panels, and wind turbines?

Ministers of the Crown have an overarching duty to protect the interests of Australia. In no way does Net Zero by 2050 serve that interest. In fact, it works against it, impoverishing us at the same time helping to enrich China. In my view, the deception being perpetrated about Net Zero is a clear example of misfeasance in public office.

I don’t know if the Coalition apparatchiks know that they are contributing to a Marxist agenda. I accept they have to play the hand dealt them, and a complete push back at this stage is likely to be counterproductive. But they would have been in a better position to prosecute their case if they hadn’t had Net Zero by 2050 hung around their neck by Scott Morrison. Thanks a lot, Scott.

Conservative commentators seem content to push the line that a) CAGW is a scam, b) what Australia does won’t make a difference to the climate, and c) we can’t get to Net Zero with renewables alone. The recent total blackout in Spain and Portugal tells us that in spades. But not everyone is buying that. There is the lingering acceptance among many voters that climate change might be real, and we should be doing something.

That something, Net Zero by 2050, is, as I have explained, a sham to begin with. It shames the media that no one has called this out. Why haven’t the big names in conservative media prosecuted the case? It may not be a game-changer on its own but it surely enhances the argument.

On last week’s Outsiders, our Editor-in-Chief Rowan Dean again called (for the umpteenth time) for the Coalition to abandon the Paris Agreement. If they are going to restore the Liberal Party to its traditional values – and indeed avert financial ruin for this country – that is the first thing they must do. And pointing out the fraud of net zero by 2050, as I have outlined here, is the logical place to start. They have three years to propagate the case. But the signs are not good. Even before the dust the dust has settled, even before the post-mortem has really begun, Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic, in advocating dumping the nuclear policy, told ABC Radio:

Australians believe in climate change. Young Australians believe in climate change and they don’t see this as a legitimate climate policy. In the previous Liberal government we committed to Net Zero by 2050 and we need to find ways to achieve this expeditiously.

Repeat after me, Coalition bedwetters: IPPC science does not tell us that achieving Net Zero by 2050 will avert dangerous warming.