Nationals‘ $9tn Net Zero cost Claim Draws Fire From Academics
CANBERRA – Academics behind the modelling used to inform the Albanese government’s net zero policies have accused the Nationals party of misrepresenting their work after the opposition repeatedly cited a $9 trillion price tag for achieving the target.Researchers say the figure, amplified by Nationals leader David littleproud, is a selective and inaccurate interpretation of their findings and doesn’t account for the economic benefits of transitioning to a green economy.
The dispute centres on modelling conducted by researchers at the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University, which assessed the costs and benefits of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. While the modelling did identify significant upfront investment requirements - estimated at around $9 trillion over the period to 2050 – it also detailed considerable economic gains from climate action, including increased employment and export opportunities. Academics argue the Nationals are focusing solely on the cost side of the equation,ignoring the potential for economic growth and avoiding a complete assessment.
“We’ve been very clear that our modelling shows a net economic benefit from reaching net zero,” said Professor Ross Garnaut, a lead researcher on the project. “To selectively quote the investment costs without acknowledging the substantial returns is deeply misleading.”
littleproud has consistently used the $9 trillion figure to attack the government’s climate policies, arguing they will cripple the economy. He reiterated the claim in a recent interview, stating the figure represented an “enormous burden” on Australian households. “This is a massive cost that will be borne by everyday Australians,” he said.
Researchers have pointed out that the $9 trillion figure includes investments that would be made regardless of climate policy, such as replacing aging infrastructure. They also emphasize that the economic benefits of transitioning to a green economy – including new industries, jobs, and export markets – were not fully factored into the Nationals’ framing of the data. The academics have requested the Nationals cease using the figure without providing the full context of the modelling.
