Ley Says Abandoning Net Zero Emissions Target Still a 'Welcome Outcome'
In a move that has sent shockwaves through climate change advocates, Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley announced on Thursday that her party would formally abandon its legislated commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Despite this decision, Ley maintained that reaching the target would still be considered a "welcome outcome" for Australia.
Ley's statement was met with criticism from Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese, who described the Liberal Party's move as a rejection of the Paris agreement and a sign of "divided rabble" within their ranks. The Prime Minister pointed out that abandoning the net zero target would not only harm the environment but also damage Australia's relationships in the region.
However, Ley and her energy spokesperson Dan Tehan claim that they are committed to reducing emissions and will do so through various means, including supporting nuclear power and backing coal and gas. They argue that their approach is more focused on "doing our fair share" while considering the real performance of comparable countries.
The Liberal Party's decision to scrap its net zero target was made after a majority of MPs in the party room expressed support for ditching the original commitment. The Nationals also backed away from their previous commitment to uphold the target, leaving it uncertain whether Australia will meet its Paris agreement obligations.
While Ley defended her party's approach as "serious and credible," critics argue that abandoning the net zero target is a step back for climate change efforts in Australia. With the debate set to continue on Sunday, it remains to be seen how this decision will impact the country's energy policies and its position on the global stage.
In a move that has sent shockwaves through climate change advocates, Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley announced on Thursday that her party would formally abandon its legislated commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Despite this decision, Ley maintained that reaching the target would still be considered a "welcome outcome" for Australia.
Ley's statement was met with criticism from Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese, who described the Liberal Party's move as a rejection of the Paris agreement and a sign of "divided rabble" within their ranks. The Prime Minister pointed out that abandoning the net zero target would not only harm the environment but also damage Australia's relationships in the region.
However, Ley and her energy spokesperson Dan Tehan claim that they are committed to reducing emissions and will do so through various means, including supporting nuclear power and backing coal and gas. They argue that their approach is more focused on "doing our fair share" while considering the real performance of comparable countries.
The Liberal Party's decision to scrap its net zero target was made after a majority of MPs in the party room expressed support for ditching the original commitment. The Nationals also backed away from their previous commitment to uphold the target, leaving it uncertain whether Australia will meet its Paris agreement obligations.
While Ley defended her party's approach as "serious and credible," critics argue that abandoning the net zero target is a step back for climate change efforts in Australia. With the debate set to continue on Sunday, it remains to be seen how this decision will impact the country's energy policies and its position on the global stage.
like what about all the ppl who care about climate change? dont get me wrong, i'm all for bipartisan compromise, but abandoning net zero is a major bummer 
we need to be lead by example & show the world australia's commitment to sustainability 
instead of relying on nuclear power & coal, cant we invest in renewable energy like solar & wind? 
the lib party's decision is really confusing, hope they rethink this one ASAP 
to hear that the Liberal Party is abandoning their net zero emissions target 
. I think it's a huge step back for Australia in terms of reducing our carbon footprint 
. As someone who loves new tech like electric cars and solar panels, I feel like this decision goes against everything we know about innovation and sustainability 
. I mean, have they considered the impact of climate change on our energy infrastructure? It's not just about doing our "fair share" 
, it's about taking action to protect our planet for future generations 
. I hope the Opposition can keep pushing for a stronger commitment to reducing emissions 
.
I dont get why they're making such a big deal out of scrapping the net zero target 
. Its not like it was ever going to happen anyway 
. Theyre just trying to appease the coal lobby and keep their donors happy 
. The real issue is the lack of transparency in how they plan to reduce emissions 
. I mean, supporting nuclear power sounds good on paper, but have they actually thought through the long-term implications? And what about the impact on our relationships with other countries? 
But at the same time, it's hard not to feel like she's being super realistic about what Australia can actually achieve. I get why the Liberal Party is trying to "do their fair share" and all that jazz... but come on, isn't reducing emissions kinda the point of net zero? 
.
. It feels like we're taking two steps back instead of one step forward towards a cleaner energy future 
It's like we're taking two steps forward and one step back. I just wish politicians would think about the future before they make decisions that might harm us tomorrow. 
. If Sussan Ley and her party are really committed to reducing emissions, why not set a real target that everyone can work towards? And supporting nuclear power and coal and gas? That's just doubling down on old-fashioned thinking 
. How does that help the environment? And what about the Paris agreement obligations? Are we just going to ignore those too? 
. Are we really doing our fair share or are we just trying to fit in with what other countries are doing? And what does "doing our fair share" even mean, anyway? Is it about keeping up appearances or is it about making a real difference? I guess that's the thing that's got me thinking...
. I mean, who needs some arbitrary date in 2050 to tell us what's good for the planet? It's not like we can just magic our way out of climate change problems or something 
. Let's focus on the real issues and get back to making money 
. It sounds like they're trying to wriggle out of being held accountable for doing something about climate change. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing for the environment...I guess it's too early to tell