The Albanese government has unveiled its 2035 emissions reduction target, setting a range of a 62% to 70% cut in emissions from 2005 levels. This decision is a carefully calibrated effort aimed at navigating the complex and often conflicting demands of multiple domestic and international audiences, including business groups, environmental advocates, and political opponents. By opting for a wide range rather than a single figure, the government has created significant flexibility for itself, a move described as pragmatic in the face of economic uncertainty and the rapid evolution of technology. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated of the decision, “we think we’ve got the sweet spot,” although acknowledging that in a policy area as fraught as climate change, a perfect solution that satisfies all parties is likely unattainable. This approach allows different stakeholders to focus on the end of the spectrum that best aligns with their interests; business can plan for the 62% floor, while those advocating for more aggressive climate action can aim for the 70% ceiling. The strategy reflects the inherent difficulties of addressing what is often termed a “wicked problem,” where policy choices involve navigating between the least-worst options over long timelines with uncertain outcomes. The government’s path is one of calculated pragmatism, designed to demonstrate commitment while retaining maneuverability.
A Highly Choreographed Rollout
The announcement of the new target was the culmination of a highly choreographed strategic exercise. The government deliberately postponed the decision, which was certain to be controversial, until after the election. The timing and process were managed to build a foundation of support and justification for the final figures. The Climate Change Authority played a key role, having previously announced it was consulting on a target between 65% and 75%. The authority formally delivered its advice on a Friday, and the government adopted its recommendations precisely, lending an air of expert consensus to the policy. This was preceded by a series of related releases designed to frame the narrative. On the Monday prior, the government published its National Climate Risk Assessment, which painted a stark and dramatic picture of the dangers Australia faces from changing weather patterns. This assessment served to underscore the urgency of the climate crisis. The target announcement on Thursday was then bundled with a substantial package of supporting measures valued at more than $8 billion, aimed at bolstering the nation’s energy transition. To complete the picture, the release was accompanied by Treasury modelling that documented the economic advantages of pursuing an orderly and planned path toward lower emissions, framing the policy not just as an environmental necessity but as an economic benefit.
- The government has set a 2035 emissions reduction target range of 62% to 70% from 2005 levels.
- The chosen range precisely follows the formal advice provided by the Climate Change Authority.
- The target is unlikely to be legislated due to a lack of support from the Greens and the Coalition in the Senate.
- The announcement is timed as Australia pursues a bid to co-host a United Nations climate conference.
- A support package of over $8 billion for the energy transition was announced alongside the target.
Domestic Political Landscape
The government anticipates that its 2035 emissions reduction target will be received reasonably well by the majority of voters. It presents as a credible and substantial commitment to action, which aligns with public sentiment. Recent Newspoll data indicated that while 25% of people believed Australia should maintain its current level of climate action, a larger plurality of 37% felt the country should increase its efforts. However, the path to enshrining this target in law appears blocked. Unlike its 2030 target for a 43% reduction, which was legislated with considerable fanfare, the government has acknowledged it likely cannot secure the necessary votes in the Senate for the 2035 goal. Support would be required from either the opposition or the Greens, both of whom have denounced the new range. The Greens have labeled the target a “capitulation to coal and gas corporations” and are expected to use this position to attract progressive votes from Labor, particularly in inner-city electorates. The opposition, meanwhile, was always expected to reject whatever figure the government proposed, making their criticism a matter of preparing attack lines rather than engaging with the policy on its merits. The domestic reaction underscores the deep partisan divides that continue to characterize Australia’s climate policy debate, leaving the government to implement its policy without the durability of legislation.
The Coalition’s Position
The opposition’s reaction has been carefully managed by Deputy Leader Sussan Ley, who is navigating an existential battle within her party over its commitment to the net zero by 2050 goal. Ley’s primary line of attack has been to question the government’s ability to meet its existing 2030 target, thereby casting doubt on the feasibility of the more ambitious 2035 goal. While the government maintains the 2030 target is achievable, some experts have expressed significant skepticism. Ley also criticized the announcement for a perceived lack of detail on the financial impact, stating there was nothing in it “that demonstrates to Australians how much it will cost.” Before articulating this position, she was careful to secure the backing of the shadow cabinet, indicating a coordinated, if critical, response. Ley is caught in a difficult position, attempting to qualify the party’s net zero commitment to appease a restless internal faction without completely abandoning a symbol that is important to many voters, especially younger Australians. When pressed on the future of the net zero pledge, she stated, “we have to play our part in reducing emissions but not at any cost.” This statement reflects her effort to find a middle ground.
I’m dead against targets that hurt Australians and hurt the Australian economy and I always have been.
Background and International Context
The government has emphasized that its 2035 target is consistent with the commitments made by comparable countries, a key consideration for its international standing. Prime Minister Albanese will be keenly watching the global reaction to the announcement, especially as it relates to a significant diplomatic prize: hosting the United Nations climate conference (COP) next year. Australia is bidding to co-host the event with Pacific nations, and the conference, which would be held in Adelaide, is a massive undertaking requiring extensive preparation. While Australia reportedly has the necessary support for its bid, the other contender, Turkey, has thus far refused to withdraw its candidacy. This delay has been a source of extreme frustration for the government. The announcement of a credible 2035 target is partly intended to bolster Australia’s climate credentials on the world stage and potentially increase pressure on Turkey to step aside. The Prime Minister’s upcoming attendance at the United Nations’ leaders week in New York, where he will engage in climate discussions with other nations, will be a crucial opportunity to advance this diplomatic objective. The international reception of the new target is therefore as important as its domestic political viability.
What’s Next on the World Stage
Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to New York and Britain will be a pivotal moment for Australian diplomacy on several fronts. Beyond his address to the UN General Assembly and discussions aimed at encouraging Turkey’s withdrawal from the COP hosting race, his agenda is packed. He will participate in talks with a range of like-minded countries regarding the future of Gaza and will also see Australia fulfill its commitment to recognize the state of Palestine. However, the centerpiece of the trip is the anticipated meeting with United States President Donald Trump. High on the agenda for this crucial bilateral meeting will be discussions on the AUKUS security pact and trade tariffs. Diplomacy is a delicate and unpredictable business, as evidenced by the recent failure to sign a major defense treaty with Papua New Guinea that had seemed a done deal. The meeting with President Trump presents a unique set of challenges. Albanese must prepare to engage with a leader who is famously fickle and unpredictable. The source material notes that Trump demands flattery while exercising power ruthlessly, whether over individuals, his own government, or other countries, creating a difficult dynamic for any foreign leader. The encounter will require careful diplomatic management, balancing Australia’s interests with the need to maintain a positive relationship with its most important ally. [Source]
