On transport emissions:

Through its Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy, A$250 million has been committed to primarily support infrastructure, such as public electric vehicle charging and hydrogen. It has also made up to $1.3 billion available to provide low-interest finance for low and zero emission vehicles through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The government is forecasting an additional 330,000 electric vehicles on Australian roads in the next 2.5 years (up from around 50,000 today) and over 1.7 million by 2030.

These projections are well below the minimum numbers required for Australia to align with its net zero emissions by 2050 target, and there's little evidence to demonstrate how the Coalition would even meet these lower targets.

After more than eight years in government, it's not good enough to have no consumer incentives to reduce the cost of electric vehicles, no science-based strategy for bringing Australia's transport emissions down to net zero, and no fuel efficiency standards (as promised in 2015).

This further brings into question the credibility of the Coalition's commitment to net zero, and doesn't provide confidence of genuine support for kicking Australia's dependency on foreign fuel.

More broadly, there's little to no discussion on how the Coalition would decarbonise freight, shipping and aviation, or support other levels of government to enable a shift to public and active transport.

On emissions reduction targets:

It's difficult to have much confidence in the current government polices for emissions reduction, given the fundamental divisions within the Coalition.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor say they're committed to the national climate target of net zero emissions by 2050.

But already this election campaign, the candidate in Flynn Colin Boyce said the net zero promise has “wiggle room”, Nationals MP Matt Canavan said it is "dead", and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce promised a multi-million dollar subsidy to support gas exports from the Northern Territory.

The Coalition emphasises a "technology not taxes" approach to reach net zero emissions. Having successfully demonised the Gillard government's price on carbon as "a great big tax on everything", the Coalition continues to resist the most obvious way to reduce emissions. Even the Business Council supports the principle of financial incentives to decarbonise.

It also plans to use the so-called "safeguard mechanism" – a way to force major polluters to buy carbon offsets for their emissions.

The problem is the mechanism only applies to further increases in emissions above a negotiated baseline. This has led to their emissions actually increasing overall since the mechanism was introduced in 2016.

The Coalition's unimpressive 2030 climate target is to reduce Australia's emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels. This really is a do-nothing policy, since state government renewable energy initiatives will already achieve this.

Ultimately, the independent Climate Council finds the current policy settings in place won't achieve net zero emissions until almost 2100. The only defensible grade is F.

On international reputation:

That Australia is still committed to the same 2030 emissions reduction target then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced in 2015 is scandalous, given the (increasing) commitments of other nations and the scale of the climate crisis.

The Coalition's position on energy trade is also problematic. Its continued support – political and financial – for the fossil fuel sector is clearly at odds with declining international demand for coal, market trends and the net zero commitments of other countries.

What's more, the Coalition's belief in international demand for natural gas or "green hydrogen" appears dubious given the huge capacity for renewable energy in Australia's target markets, particularly in Asia.

The Coalition's climate targets have damaged Australia's international reputation. This is evident in international climate action rankings placing Australia at the back of the pack, and in criticisms from the UN and key allies such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the Pacific.

And that’s still assuming these climate commitments will actually be pursued: statements from Nationals colleagues suggest we should take any climate commitments with a grain of salt.

Ultimately, the Coalition’s climate policy lacks coherence, cost efficiency or any apparent concern with Australia’s obligations or its international reputation.

On climate change adaptation:

When it comes to adapting to the impacts of climate change, the Coalition has dedicated funding for post-disaster recovery, but has very little on long-term planning and resilience.

The most active initiatives in the Coalition's 2021 national adaptation strategy focus on disaster recovery, which is largely managed through the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.

In this regard, the government is spending big. For example, the Coalition announced more than $6 billion over four years for relief and recovery in New South Wales and Queensland after the recent devastating floods. It has also allocated over $2 billion to the National Bushfire Recovery Fund.

But the Coalition recently came under fire when, after the floods, critics pointed out that none of the $4.8 billion emergency response fund has been spent in the three years since its announcement, and has not completed a single disaster prevention project.

The Coalition has also pledged over $3 billion to help the Great Barrier Reef adapt to a changing climate, through improving water quality, fighting invasive starfish and conducting research into restoration. This funding, however, will be fruitless without deep cuts to emissions.

The Coalition is seriously lacking longer-term thinking on enabling communities to live in a rapidly changing climate. For example, Australia can learn from the United Kingdom, which has a Climate Change Act that mandates undertaking a Climate Change Risk Assessment every five years that feeds into key priorities for climate adaptation.

On gas:

The Coalition’s gas policy is outlined in its 2021 National Gas Infrastructure Plan. This provides a pathway to rapidly progress Australia's east coast gas market over the next 20 years by funding projects aligning with five key priorities.

These priorities include advancing the infrastructure of new basins, expanding the distribution of gas through pipelines up and down the east coast and coordinating gas priorities with the National Hydrogen Infrastructure Assessment.

The Coalition's framework for investing in gas infrastructure targets seven priority projects, such as the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory and the Gas Infrastructure Hub project in the Bowen Basin.

But this framework is justified on incorrect grounds. First, it ignores the directives of the International Energy Agency, which clearly state no new fossil fuel projects can be developed if the world is to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Gas projects risk leaking methane, a far more potent greenhouse warming gas than carbon dioxide. Further, new gas plant infrastructure can generate significant additional emissions.

Second, it suggests the energy security concerns in Europe and the United Kingdom, due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, make increasing gas supply imperative.

This is inaccurate. Australia does not need to open up new projects to create more gas for the export market, because Australia already has enough. What's needed is better regulation of the gas export market. Indeed, the gas supply problem on Australia's east coast is caused by exporting most gas overseas and not reserving a sufficient supply for Australians, causing significant price hikes.