News Desk

Glasgow: High-profile Australian business executive Andrew Liveris is preparing to lead a new push for a price on carbon, arguing that neutralising emissions by 2050 will require political consensus to finally swing behind the polarising policy.

Liveris, a former chief executive and chairman of the Dow Chemical Company and co-architect of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s so-called gas-led recovery, recently entered discussions with John Kerry, US President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, over how the world should design and implement carbon-pricing regimes.

“Pretty much everyone in the business community has realised that the best way to make the most of the proclamations and progress here in Glasgow is to align behind a common way to price carbon, AKA an emissions trading scheme.”

The corporate heavyweight’s remarks echo those of former Australian finance minister Mathias Cormann, who has offered to help create an international carbon pricing system through his new role as the secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Liveris said Australia would have the best chance of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 if an emissions trading scheme complemented the federal government’s focus on new technology.

“Can technology road maps scale new affordable, reliable energy without [a] carbon price? I give it a good chance, but a carbon price will make it even better.”

“If a carbon price is interpreted as increased cost to the consumer, that’s a non-starter. Or if a carbon price mechanism is seen as enriching bankers, that’s a non-starter, too.

Unless foreign producers pay a carbon price like the one in Europe, the EU will impose a carbon price on their goods as they come in – a so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or “carbon tariff”.

The tariffs could also be avoided if Australia were to introduce a carbon price or something similar, and collected the money itself.

This makes a compelling case for another look at an Australian carbon price. If Australian emissions are on the way down anyway, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison contends, it needn’t be set particularly high. If he is wrong, it would need to be set higher

Richie Merzian, who was a lead climate negotiator for Australia for most of the time between 2011 and 2018, says the carbon price “was a really solid example of Australia taking climate change seriously”.

Former Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is now at the helm of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has used his platform to call for countries around the world to adopt more “stringent” and “coordinated” carbon prices.

“We ought to have, in the same The increased takeup of electric vehicles — a prospect lustily belittled in 2019 by the Prime Minister, his campaign spokesman Mathias Cormann and the above-mentioned Murdoch papers last election as a deep insult to the Aussie tradition of pulling heavy things with one’s vehicle — is now a part of the national plan.

(Just for completeness, Mathias Cormann himself now runs the OECD — thanks to an Australian campaign fuelled by taxes, not technology, hussshhhhh — and is calling for a global carbon price, as well as organisationally reproaching for climate laggardliness the country whose previous carbon price he was personally instrumental in dismantling.)

John Howard also went to the 2007 election offering an emissions trading scheme. He was convinced to do so by his departmental secretary Peter Shergold and the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which in a 2006 report recommended early action on carbon abatement would be a prudent choice. That report argued prompt action would secure a better GDP outcome than putting it off until — ahem — 2022.

The hip-pocket factor — for both companies and individuals — has shifted significantly. The fear of a “Great Big New Tax” is no longer most strongly associated with a carbon price or other emissions reduction mechanisms; it’s shifted to fear of the punishment incurred for doing nothing.

Former Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is now at the helm of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has used his platform to call for countries around the world to adopt more “stringent” and “coordinated” carbon prices.

“We ought to have, in the same way as we’ve had an inclusive framework approach for tax, bringing all of the G20 countries and 136 countries around the world onto the same page on tax — which was very difficult — we need a similar approach to the pricing of carbon emissions,” said Mr Cormann.

OECD head Mathias Cormann will urge the Morrison government and other G20 nations to adopt stricter carbon pricing, after releasing new data showing Australia lagging wealthy economies in taxing emissions.

Mr Morrison is also set to be reunited with former colleague Mathias Cormann, who is likely to press Australia to adopt stronger climate targets – including a carbon pricing scheme.

In a statement overnight, Mr Cormann said progress across G20 nations remained “uneven”. “G20 economies are lifting their ambition and efforts, including through the explicit and implicit pricing of carbon emissions,” the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development secretary-general said.

“Carbon prices and equivalent measures need to become significantly more stringent and globally better coordinated to properly reflect the cost of emissions to the planet, and put us on the path to genuinely meet the Paris Agreement climate goals.

OECD analysis found Australia ranked 11th out of 18 countries for carbon pricing, which Australia imposes through fuel excise. Australia does not have a carbon pricing scheme following the repeal of the Gillard government’s carbon tax in 2014.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development boss Mathias Cormann is pushing the Morrison government and other nations to adopt stricter carbon pricing and has released new data showing Australia lagging wealthy economies in taxing emissions.

“G20 economies are lifting their ambition and efforts, including through the explicit and implicit pricing of carbon emissions,” Mr Cormann said.

“Why wouldn’t you have a carbon pricing mechanism, based on a market? If emissions rise above what you’re promising, then the price goes up from zero. But if your policy works, the price would be zero,” said Warwick McKibbin, ANU economist.

Firstly, we need to reverse the count in the motto: it should read: ’technologies (plural) not tax (singular)“. There are many more of the former than the latter. We are on target to reach a 26-28% reduction by 2030 (you could say exceed it, although it’s not true) by a range of technologies (almost all by the Sates and private industry) and not by tax (because the Labor government’s hugely successful carbon pricing, that made such an impact, wasn’t actually a tax).

We love tax - as a political wedge. We won several elections by accusing our opposites of wanting to introduce a carbon tax. But it was an ETS – an Emissions Trading Scheme - to enable carbon trading, not a tax (thanks Peta Credlin). We got rid of it, but not before we used its success to reach our 2030 targets, (we love that tax, but it’s a forbidden love). Now that the rest of the world has carbon pricing, we too will have one, but in the Australian way (that is, wide open to rorting and greenwash).

The biggest way in which Morrison’s “technology, not taxes” line is deceptive is that it pretends our taxes are not already funding the government’s modest efforts at reducing emissions. When it abolished Labor’s carbon price, the Abbott government substituted a regime by which polluters are paid to pollute less. Variants of the scheme have gone by various names – Direct Action, the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Climate Solutions Fund – and the government has spent billions on it.

The most succinct and cynical description of the shift from Gillard’s carbon-pricing scheme to the current model was given to the ABC’s business editor, Ian Verrender, by an unnamed government minister a few years back.

“The difference between Labor’s policy and ours is that Julia Gillard introduced a scheme where big polluters paid Australian taxpayers,” the minister said. “Tony changed it so that Australian taxpayers pay big polluters.”

Hosted by News Corp journalist Joe Hildebrand, the forum did not shy away from some controversial topics, with both “blue carbon” entrepreneur Mark Carnegie and Nicky Ison from WWF Australia among the panelists who suggested a price on carbon will be necessary in order to reach net zero.

‘I was wrong on climate change’ - In 2007, Kevin Rudd swept Labor to its last majority victory. Luntz had a ringside seat, working in Australia conducting focus groups for Sky News and News Corp.

Rudd was elected to deliver an emissions trading scheme, but the campaign waged against it by Tony Abbott, who reversed Coalition support for a carbon price, contributed to the downfall of four prime ministers, including Abbott, and the government’s reluctance thus far to sign up to net-zero reduction targets ahead of the global climate negotiations next month.

Abbott relied heavily on the work of Luntz to destroy political support for a carbon price; in 2001, Luntz advised George W. Bush to refer to global warming as climate change.

“I was trying to say the science wasn’t settled – prove it,” Luntz says. He says this is now his biggest regret.

As many of us now realise, we wouldn’t be trembling in our boots over the enormity of getting our emissions down to net zero by 2050 – and making big strides long before then – had we not abolished after only two years the perfectly good carbon pricing scheme the Gillard government introduced in 2012.

But almost all economists recommend using a carbon price to decarbonise the economy also because they think it’s the policy instrument likely to achieve the objective with the least disruption to the economy and least loss of growth in the production of goods and services.

That’s what economists really mean when they say a carbon price is the cheapest way to get to net zero. They know that sufficiently large changes in relative prices will change people’s use of fossil fuels.

“On climate change, the party supports a carbon price”, said Lyn Allison, the new president of the Australian Democrats, former parliamentary leader and senator.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an organisation comprising of 38 countries, including Australia.

It’s not known for diehard environmentalism, but it has nevertheless criticised Australia’s climate change policies over the years.

“The least-cost approach to meeting these emission targets would involve an economy-wide carbon price,” the organisation said in a report in September.

Indeed, they mount the case that it’s pointless for us to do anything about emissions when China is such a big emitter. This tired argument is merely an excuse for consistently doing nothing and taking no position. It deliberately ignores just how much the Chinese are actually doing in response to the climate challenge – such as pricing carbon in major industrial centres, accelerating the electrification of the vehicle fleet, and moving beyond coal. Most recently, China has committed to pulling back on its investments in new coal-fired power projects in the developing world, under the auspices of the Belt and Road Initiative.

If the Morrison government is at all serious about a commitment to net zero, Morrison needs to begin by telling the truth about exactly where we sit relative to our carbon budget and what transition possibilities will give us the emissions reductions we need. He will not be able to get away with accounting tricks. As an economist, I have to back the most cost-effective transition strategy: putting a price on carbon and making the polluters pay.

As well, the biannual report provided a nudge for Australia to adopt a market mechanism and a net-zero emissions target by 2050. Setting a “time-bound net zero emissions” objective would help boost investment in the transition towards a clean energy future.

“While politically challenging, implementing broadbased carbon pricing, along with measures to mitigate transition risks for impacted industries and regions, would be the most effective way to achieve emissions reductions and complement the investment strategy,” the IMF said.

In the topsy-turvy world that has been our politics over the past decade and a half, we were one of the first countries to put a price on carbon, then removed it, and now have a government that has tied itself to the slogan “technology not taxes”. And we have a Labor opposition so burnt by its recent history that it can’t bring itself to talk about a price on carbon.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Glasgow. After the Trump administration backed out of the Paris Agreement, Europe decided it would contemplate a “border adjustment tax” on carbon. If implemented it would mean goods exported from countries without a price on carbon similar to Europe’s would have those goods taxed upon entry, levelling the playing field between European companies paying a carbon tax and companies from countries that don’t.

Europe’s big, but by itself that idea didn’t seem to be going anywhere fast. Then Joe Biden — running on a serious climate action and jobs agenda — was elected president of the US. A natural thing for the US to do is to also introduce a carbon border tax. That would put it and Europe on a level playing field.

It’s pretty easy to see how this unravels so that Japan, South Korea, and a host of other countries in Latin America and elsewhere end up following suit.

If most of our trading partners have a carbon border tax, Australia will either have to enact a price on carbon or have a price on carbon anyway — but only for our exporters.

Worse still, Australia has little credibility on climate change with the international community. We have removed our internal price on carbon (don’t be hoodwinked that the so-called safeguard mechanism is the same thing).

The most difficult policy resistance and intransigence, however, is on climate change. The science is irrefutable. It is widely peer-assessed and agreed by more than 90 per cent of climate scientists. There is very strong and widespread community support for action as revealed in almost every recent poll or survey, by statements made by major industry and civil society groups and many of our key institutions.

But the essential climate change transition to more low-carbon activities and processes is stalled in this country. It has recently been complicated by government commitments to fund new gas-fired power generation and hints of new coal-fired power stations. This comes after decades of denial and misrepresentation on the significance and urgency of the issue and the disruption of the carbon pricing system, which could have been the most cost-effective response to climate.

They have also supported the need for a market-based carbon price to drive investment in low and no-emissions technology.

Unlike Australia, where lobby groups have pushed to expand coal production, Spanish corporations have embraced the change. Angeles Santamaria, CEO of the energy giant Iberdrola, says there is not a single coal project in the world she would invest in.

Australia has shielded its domestic industry from such pressure by scrapping the carbon pricing scheme in 2014. But seven years later, pressure is building from outside our borders.

For all the challenges of transition, Spain sees itself as being on the right side of history. It’s hoping the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow in November will make life easier for countries embracing a green future - and harder for countries clinging to Old King Coal.

Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) clients, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action (BSCA) is celebrating today’s ruling from the NSW Land and Environment Court that the NSW Environment Protection Authority has a duty to take serious action on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

“This is a very significant legal decision,” EDO Director of Legal Strategy Elaine Johnson said. “This is the first time an Australian court has ruled on a government agency failing to perform a statutory duty to address climate change.”

“As our lead environmental regulator, the EPA has the power to take immediate action on climate change, for example, by putting a price on carbon, or requiring industry to reduce emissions to safe levels through the licences. Now, the EPA has been ordered to take action.”

In a landmark ruling, a NSW court has ordered the state’s environmental watchdog to take action to address climate change.

In a judgment on Thursday, Chief Judge of the Land & Environment Court Brian Preston ordered the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) “to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection from climate change”.

While Justice Preston did not specify the action the agency should take, the steps could range from putting a price on carbon to placing caps on pollution or setting safe levels in pollution licences, Elaine Johnson, a director of EDO’s legal strategy, said.

For getting to net zero emissions by 2050, Tony Wood and his team at the Grattan Institute begin where everyone with any sense begins: by noting that the best way to reduce emissions at minimum cost to the economy - and all the people in it - would be to introduce a single, economy-wide price on carbon emissions.

Following the release of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last week, Essential also gauged voter views on the risks arising from climate change.

About two-thirds (63%) said they would support the introduction of a carbon emission levy on high carbon emitting industries – such as the price signal abolished by Tony Abbott when he came to power in 2013 – including 54% of Coalition voters.

Australian coal workers and businesses face a difficult future. Europe and other jurisdictions are moving towards taxing goods from nations without strong carbon price mechanisms. Investors are shunning coal and, increasingly, gas.

Showing up in Glasgow, in the glare of the world’s cameras, with nothing in his show bag will inevitably see Morrison cast as a laggard and a freeloader.

Granted, the Prime Minister might be able to pivot that into a nativist retort: Australia won’t be lectured to by foreigners. But that’s a strategy that ultimately misses the opportunities for Australia, richly endowed with natural resources and renewable energy options.

Part of the economic story is we need to resolve the “carbon tax” issue and get the right carbon market mechanisms in place, many of which are still there, John Connor says, chief executive of the Carbon Markets Institute.

“They’re remnants of the removal of the Gillard [government] pricing mechanism, but we have the structures there. It’s an evolution not a revolution. And we need to get back in the game.”

But right now, he says, we’ve got this “phoney war” of whether we call it carbon pricing or not, he says. But the $2 billion spent on the carbon reduction fund is public money, right?

Associate Professor Ancev notes that imposing a price on carbon is a cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Numerous countries around the world, such as the EU member states, Canada, New Zealand, parts of the US, and now China use this method of emissions reduction. This has led to significant reduction of carbon emissions in these jurisdictions, especially in the EU, where carbon pricing via a tradable permit scheme has been in operation since 2005.

“COVID-19 pandemic is a small challenge compared to climate change, and if we are going to address it to avoid an even bigger future crises, we can’t go at it without having a carbon price,” adds Associate Professor Ancev.

This country does have a carbon price, which business is using. And it’s the key to success after the Glasgow climate summit.

While all the government manoeuvring takes place, private financiers are increasingly refusing to invest in new fossil-fuel projects. Businesses are imputing a high carbon price in their cash-flow analyses of investment proposals. And businesses, including farmers, are finding ways of making money out of carbon storage.

Rather than trying to replace markets, governments should state their policy ambitions clearly and harness the power of markets to reduce carbon emissions quickly and decisively.

In Australia, the Morrison government has adopted a ‘technology not taxes’ approach to climate policy, saying that by focusing government resources on a selection of handpicked priority technologies, it may be able to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without imposing a price on carbon.

In a new research paper, published in the academic journal Nature, researchers from Europe, the UK and Australia challenge the presumption that wealthier nations can continue to chase uninterrupted economic growth while maintaining a realistic chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

The researchers argue that technology alone will not be enough to address climate change – rebutting the rhetoric of the Morrison government’s preferred ‘technology not taxes’ approach.

Global Head of Responsible Investment at Cbus Super, Nicole Bradford, points to a pertinent May 2021 report from the International Energy Agency, a global body funded by industry, that maps the global energy transition to net zero emissions by 2050 under different scenarios.

The key takeaway from the report was that no new oil, gas or thermal coal developments are needed to transition the economy.

It’s about applying climate risk metrics to decision making, which means considering the price on carbon, the ability of the asset to genuinely transition and the prospect of alternatives.

University of Sydney senior lecturer Dr Thomas Newsome, a co-author of the new report, said the lack of a hard carbon price has “isolated us from the rest of the world”.

The group has highlighted three-short term goals to shape a climate-friendly economy: the introduction of a global carbon price, the permanent transition away from fossil fuels, and a suite of safeguards to protect biodiversity.

The EU has announced its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism threatening to create a domino effect as the US has also made a similar proposition and Canada, Japan and the UK are considering to follow suit. The impact of a US carbon border tax adjustment on Chinese imports will have great repercussions on the Australian economy.

Carbon pricing has been recognised as the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions since 1980s by economists. The effect of enacting a carbon price in Australia between 2012 and 2014 had a clear impact. The prospect of spreading border adjustments might force the government to rethink the ideology behind the toxic climate wars that repelled carbon pricing.

The corporate community is racing ahead of Australian climate policy, creating a de-facto price for greenhouse gas emissions despite the federal government’s insistence that a carbon price is a damaging tax on business. Corporate commitments to reach net zero emissions is driving Australia’s carbon market up to 20$ a tonne and could rise to 50$ by 2030.

The Lowy Institute’s 2021 climate poll reveals that 64 per cent of Australians said they would back either a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Among respondents aged 18-44 per cent, the support for a carbon price was 71 per cent, while 57 per cent of those over 45 backed such a policy.

Government-enacted carbon pricing schemes are widely accepted as the most efficient methods to decarbonise an economy.

US President Joe Biden is raising the pressure at an international climate summit, stating the US will consider a carbon border tax adjustment as part of its climate package. The EU is also preparing a similar scheme with an introduction planned in 2023.

The US also pushed their climate ambition forward with a target to cut emissions by 50% by 2030.

Former chair of the Australia Coal Association, Ian Dunlop, claims that regulations will have greater value than the market alone. In his words, “... you don't let sewage flow down the street. You price that, you stop people doing it, you regulate against it. We haven't done that with carbon which we should have done.”

Without having anything remotely similar to carbon pricing, it would set the country back further in reaching net zero emissions.

The Technology Investment Roadmap provides little incentives for businesses to decrease their carbon emissions. The determination to invest in low-carbon innovations is diminished when emitting carbon is free. A price on carbon would encourage investment in low carbon innovations and technologies that will bring Australia closer to reaching net zero emissions.

Carbon pricing is expected to be the key policy proposed by China in order to achieve its 2060 net zero emission target. Laura Cozzi, Chief energy modeller of the International Energy Agency, and her team has had meetings with Chinese ministers to establish the government emission reduction plan.

The NSW electricity infrastructure roadmap has been delivered. It aims to drive up private investment in clean energy by developing three Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) in regional areas. The plan is good in the short term to provide the certainty the market need. To increase investments further in the long term, national policy such as a carbon price will a more efficient and effective way.

A carbon border tax is coming our way with the European Union having already announced it is considering a carbon border adjustment. It is also part of the US Climate Leadership Council’s proposal for a “carbon dividend”.

There is a better way: enact our own carbon dividend plan. It would also give the Australian government’s Technology Investment Roadmap (to accelerate the use of low-emissions technology) a chance of working.

What is needed is government policy to drive private sector investment. Putting a price on emissions is and will remain the best way, especially in industry. If uptake of carbon capture and storage (CCS) were an important goal, then strong price signals or direct regulation would be needed. CCS cannot become “competitive” without policy, because it is an additional process with extra cost purely for the sake of reducing emissions.

Solar and wind are already "mature" technologies, are significantly cheaper and offer lower or negligible emissions. A carbon price would not only accelerate the closure of existing, ageing coal and gas generators but would also make it indefensible to contemplate building new ones if government wants to ensure "cheap power".

The message to governments is that carbon pricing almost certainly works, and typically to great effect. While a well-designed approach to reducing emissions would include other complementary policies such as regulations in some sectors and support for low-carbon research and development, carbon pricing should ideally be the centrepiece of the effort.

It should be remembered that Australia’s two-year experiment with carbon pricing delivered emissions reductions as the economy grew. It was working as designed.

From an economic theory, placing a price on carbon emissions would result in a reduction in emissions. At least that’s been the case when analysing 43 countries over a span of twenty years that had some form of a carbon price. These countries had a trend of around two percentage points lower than counties without having a price on carbon. Economic organisation from around the world, counting the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, support the use of carbon pricing.

From a study that observed 30 countries with a carbon price between 2007-2017, resulted in a 2 percent decrease on carbon dioxide emissions per year. That is a 20 percent decrease within a decade, and at the same rate it can result in a 45 percent decrease by 2050.

Carbon pricing policy is regarded popular in other governments, such as Britain and Germany. Dr Rohan Best of Macquarie University, Associate Professor Paul Burke, and Professor Jotzo of Australian National University paper indicates carbon pricing is efficient to reduce emissions. Australia’s experiment with carbon pricing for two years had an emission reduction while growing its economy.

The constant tug-o-war on climate policy has stalled Australia from placing a proper carbon price. A study of 142 nations shows that countries with a carbon price have observed a reduction of their emissions. The countries that didn't adopt have seen emissions increased.

With a proper political narrative and community buy in, a carbon price could be reinstated in Australia.

For Shahana McKenzie, the chief executive of Bioenergy Australia, we can increase progress on developing bioenergy by implementing the right economic incentives such as a carbon price.

The Australian Carbon Dividend Plan is not just an economically and environmentally viable response to the challenge of climate change. The evidence suggests that it is a politically viable solution.

An interview with NAB Chair Ken Henry, believes this generation of business leaders will drive the market to 100% renewable energy in the near future, and shareholders would back business leaders based on what is best for the community. In due time, with enough support, the debate on carbon pricing would be brought up as policy remediation without heated discussion. Emissions will go down with cleaner energy, but it would better with a carbon a price.

Business leaders affirmed they had a duty to prepare for the financial risks associated with climate change and the need for carbon policy certainty.

ExxonMobil Australia chairman Nathan Fay said carbon pricing is the simplest and easiest way to reach our Paris climate commitments.

Chief executive of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), Melinda Cilento, says that business leaders are speaking out to the federal government on the benefits of setting a carbon price. Having the conversation open about a carbon price is key into getting what is best for Australia.

The chair of Shell Australia, Zoe Yujnovich, has affirmed that Australia needs to set a price on carbon as soon as possible. Government has the role of encouraging and implementing a carbon price.

The point of “putting a price on carbon” is to “internalise the externality”. To get it into the prices charged and paid by private sellers and buyers. Why? To give them a monetary incentive to find ways to reduce the social cost their polluting activity is imposing on us.

In the absence of a carbon price, polluting coal-fired electricity has an undesirable price advantage over non-polluting renewables electricity. This is the economic justification for government subsidy schemes for renewables electricity and household solar power systems.

If we introduced their Robin Hood carbon tax, those subsidies would no longer be needed, saving governments (and often, other power users) about $2.5 billion a year.

Today, as part of the UNSW Grand Challenge on Inequality, a study entitled A Climate Dividend for Australians was released that offers a practical solution to the twin problems of climate change and energy affordability.

It’s a serious, market-based approach to address climate change through a carbon tax, but it would also leave around three-quarters of Australians financially better off.

It is the sort of policy that politicians who believe in both the realities of climate change as well as the power and benefits of markets ought to support.

Co-founder of software company Atlassian, Mike Cannon-Brookes, has created a movement to push forward policy suggestions around renewable energy. The first one would be to is to put in place a carbon price.

BHP’s head of sustainability and climate change, Fiona Wild, describes Australia and the world being accountable for climate change, and calls for a price on carbon to drive the development of low-cost emissions technologies. BHP, one of the largest miners in the world, has been supportive of setting a price on carbon for several years. Stronger actions and policies are needed to limit global warming temperatures to 1.5 degree, as warned by the IPCC.

Younger Nationals have rejected federal leadership decision to not support a carbon trading scheme. Young Nationals are concerned about the impacts on renewable energy investments needed to ensure energy security and affordability.