The polling shows a clear political impact if the Albanese Government fails to address climate change in its environment law reforms: four in five Labor voters think it would be the wrong decision, and almost half of Labor voters say they would be less likely to vote for Labor.

Here are the key findings at a glance:

• 68% agree Australia’s national environment law should protect our environment from the impacts of climate change (10% disagree). 
• 70% agree the law should consider the impacts of climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects (12% disagree). 
• 61% agree the federal government should retain the power to prevent coal and gas mines harming water resources (12% disagree).
• 65% of voters think it would be the wrong decision for the Prime Minister to not include climate change in our national environment law.
• 44% of Labor voters say they’d be less likely to vote Labor if the Government does not address climate change in the new law.

Download the full results

Now let’s dig a little deeper.

Australians want our environment laws to consider climate change

See what voters in your electorate want:

Australians back strong climate safeguards in our environment law

Australians expect the national environment law to protect people and nature from climate harm, not wave through more climate pollution. Nearly seven in ten (68%) agree Australia’s national environment law should protect our environment from the impacts of climate change, with only one in ten (10%) disagreeing.

Considering climate when assessing fossil fuel projects

Australians want decisions about new fossil fuel projects to account for climate impacts. Seven in ten (70%) agree the law should consider the impacts of climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects; 12% disagree.

Political signal to decision‑makers

The research indicates clear electoral consequences if climate is left out of the environment law reforms: 41% of voters say they would be less likely to vote Labor if the Government doesn’t address climate change in the new national environment law.

Among people who voted Labor at the 2025 federal election, 44% are “at risk on climate” – they report being less likely to support Labor if climate is not addressed in the law.

What this means

• Australians want climate built into our new environment law. The public expects the law to both protect from climate impacts and consider climate when assessing fossil fuel projects.
  
• There’s a consequence for ignoring climate. Almost half of Labor’s 2025 voters (44%) say they’re less likely to vote Labor if climate is left out of the reforms.
  
• Support spans the political spectrum. Agreement is strong across voter groups, and is overwhelmingly strong among climate‑motivated Labor voters.

The good news

There’s still time for the Government to deliver on the public’s expectations and strengthen its environment law reforms to address climate change. Learn more about how they can do that here.

Methodology & credits

• Commissioned by: Climate Council, the Sunrise Project and Lock The Gate
• Provider: YouGov Polling & Public Affairs Team
• Fieldwork & sample: National sample n=3,783 adult voters, representative of the voting population by age, gender, region, income, education, 2023 Voice and 2025 Federal Election vote.
• Segments used in reporting: 2025 Labor voters (n=1,400); climate‑motivated Labor voters (n=615); non‑Labor voters (n=2,383)

The post New polling a clear warning for Government to address climate in environment laws appeared first on Climate Council.

The Albanese Government has an opportunity to fix this through its environment law reforms, currently being considered by Parliament. However, the Government’s proposed reforms fail to meaningfully protect our environment from the ravages of climate pollution. This means that the 42 coal and gas projects already lined up for approval under our environment law could go ahead with no consideration of their climate impacts. 

These projects would add to the 32 new or expanded coal, oil and gas developments already approved by the Albanese Government since 2022. In total, these projects have disclosed expected annual emissions of nearly 13 million tonnes, equivalent to an extra 6 million cars on Australian roads every year.

Learn more about the fossil fuel projects the Albanese Government has already approved.

More polluting projects in the pipeline

There are at least 42 coal and gas projects currently in the pipeline for environmental assessment, with most of these actively seeking approval, and more than half of these applications made since 2023. Most are seeking approval to operate for decades, with about a third seeking to operate even beyond Australia’s 2050 net zero target. 

Unleashing millions of tonnes of climate pollution 

Estimated emissions are available for just 23 of the 42 projects in the queue for approval. These projects alone would emit an average of 8.7 million tonnes of pollution every year in the 2030’s. This is nearly equal to the pollution from all of Australia’s domestic flights every year (more than 600,000).

These estimates do not take into account downstream emissions which are released when the coal and gas from these projects is burnt – largely overseas. For every tonne of climate pollution released in Australia, the coal and gas industry ‘exported’ 12.8 tonnes of climate pollution in 2023*. Whether pollution is released in Australia or overseas, our environment suffers the same consequences.

*Climate Council analysis based on Climate Analytics 2024 and DCCEEW 2025.

Mega-polluting projects up for approval

The list of projects waiting for approval includes highly-polluting projects like:

• Browse gas project, on Scott Reef in WA, which would run for up to 44 years – to 2070. Browse would produce an average of 4 million tonnes of climate pollution in Australia every year, and up to 6.8 million tonnes at its peak – more than the annual climate pollution of Gladstone, Queensland’s oldest and largest coal-fired power station.
• Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) Coal Continuation Project, NSW, which would extend the life of one of Australia’s largest coal mines for up to 19 years, directly releasing more than 1.2 million tonnes of climate pollution every year in Australia. This is equal to more than 500,000 extra cars on the road in Australia every year.
• Winchester South coal mine in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, which is the largest new coal project proposed in Australia. Its environmental impact assessment documents reveal it would directly release more than half a million tonnes of climate pollution every year for up to 26 years. This is around 20 times the gross annual emissions of our Pacific neighbour Tuvalu, which is acutely vulnerable to sea level rise caused by climate change and is leading an international campaign to end the burning of fossil fuels. 

Greenlighting more climate pollution

The Government’s proposed reforms to our national environment law fail to curb climate pollution. Under the proposed reforms, the Environment Minister is not required to consider climate impacts when approving a new project – no matter how polluting or long-running it is. This is a major climate loophole that would enable more polluting projects to go ahead.

The proposed reforms also don’t require the Minister to consider whether a project is aligned with Australia’s climate targets, policies and international commitments.

Learn more about the climate loopholes in the proposed legislation – and how the Government can still fix them

Putting Australia’s climate targets at risk

Australia has just set a target of a 62-70% cut in climate pollution by 2035, compared with 2005 levels. The Government’s own modelling shows that achieving this target is dependent on a large decline in fossil fuel production. However, the Government’s proposed environmental law reforms could directly undermine our ability to reach this target, by enabling more coal and gas projects to go ahead, and millions more tonnes of climate pollution to be released. 

Even a handful of highly polluting projects, like NSW’s HVO coal mine or the Browse gas project could make or break Australia’s 2030 and 2035 targets. 

Climate Council analysis has found that if Australia does not cut its fossil fuel production, we will fall short of our 2035 climate target, if other sectors like transport and agriculture do not pick up the slack. 

The Safeguard Mechanism won’t fix this

The Government claims domestic climate pollution from new or expanded fossil fuel projects is already managed under the Safeguard Mechanism. But the Safeguard Mechanism only kicks in after a project is operating – it doesn’t decide which projects go ahead. Effective policies are needed at both steps: limiting pollution from new and expanding fossil fuel projects, and reducing emissions from existing projects over time, if and when they are approved. 

Australia currently has no mechanism to limit pollution from new projects, meaning even projects that are incompatible with Australia’s climate policies, targets, or international obligations can be waved through. 

No new coal or gas 

With nearly all of Australia’s ageing, unreliable coal-fired power stations expected to close by 2038, Australia does not need new coal supply for our own energy needs. Most of the coal from these new or expanded projects would be exported. 

Gas has a small, shrinking and short-term role to play in Australia’s energy mix, and the vast majority of gas from most recently approved or proposed projects – including North West Shelf and Browse – will be exported. Gas from Australia’s existing projects through to 2035 would be enough to meet our domestic energy needs for more than 64 years, so there’s no reason to drill for more. Expensive, polluting as is a key driver of high power prices in Australia – we need to prioritise reducing our gas use as much as possible, delivering energy bill savings for households and businesses while cutting climate pollution. The expansion of gas extraction in Australia would only add to our climate pollution and increase profits for multinational fossil fuel companies.

Now is your chance to have a say

Right now, the Australian Senate is holding an official inquiry into the Government’s proposed reforms to our national environment law – the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This inquiry will review the proposed reforms in detail, hear from the public and experts, and make recommendations to the Government before the laws are finalised.

Making a submission to the Senate inquiry is easy – and it’s the most effective way to have your say right now.

Appendix: The 42 coal and gas projects in the pipeline for environmental approval

Coal projects

Gas projects

The post Will Australia’s environment law reforms deliver more pollution than protection? appeared first on Climate Council.

What you may not realise is that all Australians are effectively paying a climate disaster penalty today: whether it’s sky-rocketing insurance, higher construction costs or decreasing property values.

Flood risk alone is putting a $42 billion dent in property values across the country.

Climate change is exacerbating floods and bushfires, causing more intense and frequent disasters. This is having a huge social, and emotional toll on our communities. But what’s becoming clearer is the material, financial cost we’re also wearing.

Climate risks are rising

Recently, the Australian government released a report detailing the biggest climate impacts on our country, and the risks we face unless we cut climate pollution further, and faster. So far, efforts to cut pollution from coal, oil and gas have been too meagre and slow, which means the world is on a course to heat up by 2.7ºC by the turn of the century.

Already, global heating is leading to more frequent and intense extreme weather events, causing billions of dollars worth of damage to property and infrastructure.

What’s climate change got to do with floods?

After decades of burning coal, oil and gas, climate pollution now blankets the world, trapping heat. That heat leads to more evaporation and an atmosphere that holds more moisture. As a result, flood risk has grown in Australia.

2024 was the second hottest year on record in Australia, while the annual sea surface temperature was at a record high. Higher sea surface temperatures increase evaporation and add more moisture to the atmosphere over the ocean. This extra water vapour boosts the intensity of rainfall dumped on coastal areas. 

A supercharged climate, from the burning of fossil fuels, provides more energy for powerful storms and intense rainfall.

We are also experiencing more of our rain in the form of short, intense downpours, which leads to a greater risk of floods. These events occur because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and more energy to fuel storms.

In Australia, the latest research shows for every degree of global warming, we will experience about 7–28% more rain for hourly or shorter duration extreme rainfall events, and 2–15% more rain for daily or longer duration extreme rainfall events. This range is much higher than the 5% figures that are commonly used in existing flood planning standards that are relied on by policy makers, engineers and urban planners.

How is climate change endangering properties in Australia?

When it comes to properties, floods are Australia’s most damaging type of extreme weather.

Over the past decade, flood events made up the greatest proportion of economic damage from extreme weather in Australia, followed by tropical cyclones and droughts. Immediate impacts of floods include property damage, destruction of crops and livestock, clean up costs and emergency response.

Assess the climate risks to your home, and community using our risk map tool.

No matter where we live, the climate risks to our homes are increasing. Already, more than 650,000 properties (homes and businesses) in Australia are at high risk from one or more climate hazards, like fires and floods. That’s one in 23 properties nationally.

Climate change is reshaping Australia’s housing market

Extreme weather, exacerbated by climate change, is reshaping Australia’s housing market. 

The Climate Council partnered with property data firm PropTrack to analyse what this flood risk means for the individual and collective value of our properties. We found that today, flood-prone homes in Australia are worth $42.2 billion less than they could have been without the risk of flood.

The bulk of these properties are in Queensland, where a third of properties are affected by flood risk, costing homeowners $19 billion in foregone value. The Gold Coast ranks highest within the state, with a collective $4.5 billion in value foregone across the region. NSW follows closely behind, with $14 billion loss in value.

Nationally, the largest drops in property value due to flood risk today are concentrated in lower-income areas, which is deepening economic inequality.

Meanwhile, insurance and construction costs are rapidly rising

According to the Insurance Council of Australia, the impact of extreme weather on the Australian economy has more than tripled over the past three decades – averaging $4.5 billion in claims annually throughout the 2020s.

Three events alone in 2025 generated almost $1.8 billion in claims, most of which related to extreme weather impacting housing: the North Queensland floods in February, ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred in March, and mid-North NSW and Hunter region floods in May 2025. 

Residents in some flood zones are already facing very limited insurance options, or policies that are extremely expensive. If people can’t get or afford insurance then they are more likely to underinsure, or go without. One in five people in northern Australia don’t have any home insurance, compared to 11% nationally. 

Many standard insurance policies exclude coverage for the most significant climate hazards such as ‘actions of the sea’, erosion, subsidence, and certain types of flooding. There is an increased risk of insurers withdrawing entirely from the market in the most-vulnerable areas. Without access to insurance, many Australians will be unable to get a mortgage. For example, Suncorp stopped offering coverage in Roma, QLD, after floods in 2012. They only resumed coverage over a year later after construction of a levy started.

More frequent and intense extreme weather increases demand for construction workers, and materials – and that leads to higher construction costs. This is factored into rising insurance premiums, and comes on top of a national housing shortage and concern that there aren’t enough construction workers to meet existing demand for housing and repairs.

How can home buyers make informed decisions?

Assessing the risks and hazards from climate disasters such as flooding is becoming an increasingly critical factor to consider when buying property, as disasters become more frequent and severe.

Buyers may pay less for otherwise similar homes in higher risk zones – but may find they pay much higher insurance costs, or end up with major bills for home repairs and damaged contents following a disaster.

Every Australian deserves to understand the climate risks that their home and neighbourhood are already facing, as well as how those risks could rise due to worsening climate impacts like flooding.  

The insurance and banking industries are already embedding these climate risks into their business decisions, but there’s limited detail available for individual homeowners.

• Our Property Value Report in partnership with PropTrack sheds light on the risk to home values due to flood risk 
• Our Climate Risk Map is a free tool which provides Australians with the information they need to assess the climate risk for any property in the country. It’s an interactive map that allows you to find out the potential damage risk to properties in your local area, and see how these risks could increase over time for various levels of global heating.
• Many local governments provide public, flood mapping, like Brisbane City Council
• The Resilient Building Council brings together Australia’s leading independent experts to measurably increase community resilience to extreme weather and disasters. 
• Your Home is Australia’s independent guide to designing, building or renovating homes to ensure they are energy efficient, comfortable, affordable and adaptable for the future.
• The Climate Council’s ‘Tents to Castles’ report showcases how you can make your home energy efficient and unpacks the benefits.

How can we reduce climate risks to our homes?

Australians should brace themselves for more climate impacts in the years to come. The collective steps that Australia and other nations take to cut coal, oil and gas global climate pollution further and faster will determine how many more homes are put at risk over the coming years.

Deep, rapid cuts to climate pollution and a rapid shift to renewable energy are essential to protect Australians from escalating heatwaves, floods, bushfires and other extreme events.

Sign our petition to call for stronger climate action from the government

As more properties become exposed to extreme floods, the costs of climate change will mount. We must transition from disaster response or management, to a resilience focus. We also need a climate-informed housing market, backed by clear data, with coordinated adaptation policies is essential to safeguard economic stability and vulnerable communities.

The post How is climate change affecting the property market? appeared first on Climate Council.

Pollution from coal, oil and gas is overheating our planet, and putting Australians in harm’s way. Our communities are now suffering through more frequent and intense extreme weather events, like the Black Summer Bushfires of 2019-20, devastating, back-to-back floods that hit Queensland and New South Wales, and more frequent, intense and longer lasting heatwaves, and intensifying storms like tropical cyclones. 

By slashing global climate pollution we can help limit the worst impacts and keep Australians safer, while creating new jobs and industries.

Australia has set a legislated target to reach net zero by 2050. To help drive the transition to net zero, the Australian Government has set a target to reduce climate pollution by 62-70% below 2005 levels by 2035. 

Net zero is a goal to cut climate pollution.

In the 2015 Paris Agreement, which in addition to its well-known temperature target of holding “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, also added a complementary goal:

“To undertake rapid [emissions] reductions … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”

In other words, net zero essentially means reaching a state in which climate pollution going into the atmosphere is balanced by removal out of the atmosphere. It’s like a bath tub (which represents the atmosphere) being filled up with water (climate pollution from burning coal, oil and gas as well as land clearing). The tap has been on high since the industrial revolution, causing the tub to fill rapidly. Climate pollution can be reduced by ending fossil fuel use, and reducing deforestation can help us turn down the tap so that less water fills the tub. But it’s unlikely that we can turn the tap off completely or stop all climate pollution in the time required. For the small amount of climate pollution remaining, we will need to deploy carbon removal approaches that remove climate pollution from the air to counterbalance any emissions still entering the atmosphere. This is net zero. 

Reducing climate pollution and achieving net zero as soon as possible is the only solution to the climate crisis. Moving too slowly, or abandoning this goal altogether, would have deadly consequences.

What are carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets are used by a company or organisation to compensate for what they are emitting and thereby decrease their net emissions. While this sounds like a fair balance, offsets never effectively account for the harmful greenhouse gases created by burning fossil fuels.

At the moment, corporate and government plans to reach net zero rely far too heavily on offsetting, and we must do much more to cut climate pollution at its source, this decade. For households and small businesses, it is also important to prioritise actions which genuinely and permanently reduce emissions – like electrifying buildings or installing solar panels – instead of buying ‘carbon neutral’ products based on offsets.  

What about the pollution that’s already in the atmosphere? 

Climate pollution has been building up in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, overheating our planet, and supercharging devastating extreme weather and other climate impacts. All of it is doing us harm.

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C  – as called for in the Paris Agreement – global climate pollution needs to be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Once net zero is reached, global mean surface temperature will likely stabilise. However, more substantial cooling of the planet can be accomplished by striving for net negative emissions, which will reduce climate risks further.

Global climate pollution is not reducing fast enough and it will be difficult to eliminate all emissions, like methane from cows and rice paddies or some industries like cement or aviation. And so there will be residual emissions, which will need to be removed out of the atmosphere. We will need technologies that are designed to remove the historic build-up of carbon from our atmosphere – known as drawdown or carbon dioxide removal.

There are two approaches: 

• Nature-based.
• Novel approaches.

Nature-based approaches rely on doing things like planting trees, improving soil carbon levels and increasing carbon stores in coastal ecosystems such as mangroves or kelp/seaweed forests. These approaches are also critically important for conserving ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. 

But unfortunately, many of these natural carbon stores or “sinks” are already becoming saturated. They will also become increasingly vulnerable in a warming, more volatile climate. For example, forest fires are releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere annually. And wet rainforests in Queensland have switched from absorbing carbon to emitting it as they die from the effects of climate change and rising temperatures.

To reach net zero emissions, the world will need to find more durable ways to remove climate pollution at scale from the atmosphere. Novel carbon dioxide removal is associated with storage timescales from centuries to tens of millennia. Examples being considered include adding crushed carbonate or silicate rock to the ocean or farmland to absorb climate pollution. While other approaches, such as direct air capture and storage, currently face technical challenges in extracting climate pollution from the air without consuming high amounts of energy. And some are downright fanciful, like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). They are not genuine solutions because they do not stop large amounts of carbon pollution being released into our atmosphere. Often, this is used as a reason for coal, oil and gas projects to keep polluting. 

Drawdown or carbon dioxide removal will play an important role in limiting global average temperature this century and beyond. But they must not be a substitute to the end of extracting, and using fossil fuels.

A net zero goal on its own, gets us nowhere

It’s important to point out that if you only have a “net zero” goal then you won’t get anywhere. You also need a plan to reach this goal, as well as the policies and resourcing to drive cuts to our emissions in specific areas. All of this is needed to reduce our pollution as quickly as possible.

Every additional fraction of a degree of warming increases climate risks, therefore reaching net zero as soon as possible is critical.

What are Australia’s climate targets?

Both the ALP and Coalition have introduced climate targets for 2030 and committed to net zero by 2050 while in government. 

Australia’s current targets are:

• 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 (legislated in 2022)
• 62-70% below 2005 levels by 2035 (announced in 2025, not yet legislated by the Govt)
• Net zero by 2050 (legislated in 2022)

According to Climate Council analysis, Australia’s targets are not high enough to be aligned with what the science recommends is necessary to contribute towards keeping global temperature rise to well below 2°C. This raises the level of risk for our families, community, economy and national security to potentially catastrophic levels. 

Can we meet our targets?

Yes, and we can go further. 

The Climate Change Authority’s advice clearly articulates that Australia’s new climate target of 62-70% reduction in climate pollution by 2035 should be considered the bare minimum. 

There are opportunities to do more, which the Government should take. 

Independent analysis from four different organisations have shown that climate pollution cuts of at least 75% by 2035 are technically possible and will be economically beneficial. Economic modelling by Deloitte Access Economics has demonstrated that a cut of 75% would deliver $227 billion in greater GDP, compared to a 65% target.

There are several ways the Government can achieve stronger targets, while saving Australian families thousands of dollars, growing our economy by up to $227 billion, and keeping all of us safer from climate impacts. Electrifying homes can save Australian families $600 per year on energy bills by 2035, while switching to an Electric Vehicle can save households over $2,000 per year in fuel costs. The Albanese Government must also stop undermining our targets by approving new and expanded fossil fuel facilities. Since 2022, Labor has approved 31 new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, impacting Australia’s 2035 target. The starting point for Australia’s 2035 target could have been up to 2% higher (closer to net zero), had they not approved these projects.

But the good news is, there is strong momentum towards shifting our economy to clean energy: 43% of our electricity comes from renewables, the costs of batteries and EVs are dropping, and new industries in clean metals are drawing in huge levels of investment. 

Twenty years ago, there were a few thousand homes with solar panels – now it is more than four million. We often underestimate our capacity to change to new technology. We should aim to ratchet up our targets to what is necessary as technology improves.

Reaching net zero, as quickly as we can, will benefit all Australians

As the sunniest country in the world and one of the windiest, Australia is forecast to have the world’s third-cheapest renewable power by 2030 and 2050 relative to other regions. Our power is expected to be particularly cheap when compared to many of our neighbours and trading partners, including South East Asia, Japan, and other Asian nations (Graham and Havas 2023). With this comparative advantage, combined with our ample land, world-class resources of metal ores and critical minerals, and our proximity to some of the world’s fastest growing economies in East and Southeast Asia, Australia has an enviable set of advantages and opportunities. 

The economic opportunity of these new industries is extensive.

• The Superpower Institute has estimated that the market for Australian exports of zero-emission commodities could approach $1 trillion per year by 2050. Australia’s clean exports potential is eight times greater than our combined annual coal and LNG export revenues, so seizing even a fraction of the potential market could see Australia’s polluting exports entirely replaced.
• Accenture has estimated that Australia’s green export opportunity could create over 400,000 jobs by 2040, growing the economy by $100 billion per year. Notably, this includes more than 80 thousand jobs in renewables-related services, including engineering, ICT, and education, representing $80 billion per year in economic value added by 2040.

The choices we make today will shape the climate future of every Australian. The evidence is stark and urgent: climate change is accelerating, its impacts are deepening, and current global efforts – including those by Australia – remain dangerously inadequate. 

As a country, Australia must strive towards reaching net zero as quickly as possible, to keep our communities safer and reap the benefits associated with transforming our economy to being powered by clean and abundant renewable energy. 

The post What does net zero emissions mean? appeared first on Climate Council.

The ALP Government has struck a deal with the Greens to pass reforms to our main environment law.

The Climate Council congratulates Labor and the Greens for passing laws that strengthen protection for native forests and accelerate environmentally responsible renewable power. But the Council warns the Albanese Government is failing the climate test by continuing to give new coal and gas projects a free pass on climate pollution.

Here’s our analysis of what the new laws mean for climate:

Key inclusions		Labor’s initial bill	Greens/Labor negotiated outcome
Accelerate critical projects like responsible renewables, not polluting ones		Measures to streamline project approvals	Measures to streamline project approvals
		Could also speed up fossil fuel approvals.	Fossil fuel projects blocked from fast-track.
		Allows the coal and gas “water trigger” to be delegated to states.	No changes to the water trigger.
Measure and manage climate pollution in approvals		Direct emissions (scope 1 & 2) must be disclosed, but aren’t verified	Direct emissions (scope 1 & 2) must be disclosed, but aren’t verified
		Full emissions (scope 3) not disclosed.	Full emissions (scope 3) not disclosed.
		Climate pollution never considered in decisions, so coal and gas projects can be approved unchecked.	Climate pollution never considered in decisions, so coal and gas projects can be approved unchecked.
End land clearing and native forest logging loopholes to protect important carbon sinks		Native logging allowed without assessment.	Closes native forest logging loopholes within 18 months.
		Loopholes allow continuing land clearing without assessment.	Exemptions for high-risk land clearing will end.

Climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is the biggest threat to our environment. It puts at risk the complex ecosystems we depend on for healthy and prosperous lives, damages the habitats of important animal, insect and plant species, and threatens iconic natural places like the Great Barrier Reef. 

Our national environment law doesn’t directly address climate change, so it isn’t adequately protecting our environment (or us!).

The Government introduced its reforms to the lower house on 30th October, and the Bill was referred to a Senate standing committee that same day, with submissions open until 5th December. While there is a long way to go for these reforms to be credible, there is still an opportunity for the Government and all parties in the Senate to strengthen the laws and better protect our environment from climate harm.

Here’s everything you need to know about our environment laws and climate change: what we know about the reforms so far, how we can improve them, and what happens next.

WHAT IS THE EPBC ACT?

The Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act is the main environmental protection law that’s meant to shield Australia’s unique plants, World Heritage-listed places, ecosystems and endangered species from further harm.

The EPBC Act determines whether the Federal Government gives the thumbs up or thumbs down to projects that will impact our natural environment. It names things that need special protection – like endangered species, important habitats and culturally significant landscapes. Any new project that could impact on these things needs to get assessed under the law, and be approved by the Federal Environment Minister. Right now, that’s Labor’s Murray Watt.

SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH OUR NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAW AT THE MOMENT?

There are three key climate failures in our current national environment law:

1. The EPBC doesn’t tackle climate pollution – the greatest threat to the environment

Climate change is already devastating our environment, from six mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef in the past decade to the Black Summer bushfires that killed or displaced 3 billion animals and insects.

2. It gives polluting fossil fuel projects the green light

At the moment, fossil fuel projects get the green light because Australia’s national environment law doesn’t require the Environment Minister to consider climate pollution, or its impacts. It ignores the damage that any new coal, oil or gas project built anywhere does to people, places and wildlife everywhere. In total, under the existing national environment law, more than 750 coal, oil and gas projects have been approved, and no project has had its climate pollution meaningfully assessed.

Find the full list of fossil fuel projects that the Albanese Government has approved under our  environment law here. 

3. It slows down much-needed renewable energy projects

Under the EPBC Act, it can take years to assess projects and decide if they should proceed. This is a problem for the new renewable energy projects we need, like wind and solar farms. We need a stronger national environment law that says a quick yes to environmentally responsible projects, and a quick no to projects that cause more climate harm and will damage Australia’s special natural places.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED REFORMS?

Here’s our assessment of how the Government’s proposed reforms measure up on climate:

What our national environment law needs to do on climate	Albanese Government’s proposed reforms
Developers to fully disclose their climate pollution and a plan to reduce it	Only some climate pollution and a  reduction plan to be disclosed
Decision-makers are required to consider climate impacts	No requirement for decision-makers to consider or curb climate pollution
Speeds up the approval of important projects, like renewables	Measures to streamline project approvals  Could also speed up fossil fuel approvals
Decisions align with Australia’s climate targets, policies and commitments	No consideration of how a project will impact our climate targets, policies and commitments
Protect our forests from logging and land clearing	Nothing to fix loopholes that allow  land clearing and logging to go ahead without assessment

DO THE PROPOSED REFORMS ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AT ALL?

The government’s current reform proposals include no material changes to protect our environment from climate harm. 

One minor change under the proposed reforms would require projects to disclose some (but not all) of their expected emissions, provide a plan to reduce them and state how they’re consistent with other federal laws – but none of this information would be verified or be factored into approval decisions. That means polluting projects can get the green light despite clear evidence of their climate harm.

Failing to count the full climate cost The proposed reforms would not require projects to disclose their full emissions. They would only require projects to disclose: Scope 1: The direct, on-site emissions released by a project – like the gases released when fossil fuels are extracted from the ground, or when diesel is burned in mining equipment. Scope 2: The emissions released while generating electricity to power a project.   The reforms would not require projects to disclose what is often the largest share of their climate pollution: Scope 3: emissions when the fossil fuels produced are burned in Australia or overseas This paints an incomplete picture of a project’s climate harm, and also relies on fossil fuel companies to accurately estimate their emissions without independent assessment.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR AUSTRALIA’S CLIMATE TARGETS?

The Government’s proposed environment law reforms would do little to stop polluting coal and gas projects from going ahead – even if they breached Australia’s climate targets, policies like the Safeguard Mechanism, or international commitments like the Paris Climate Agreement. 

In total, more than 750 fossil fuel projects have been approved under the EPBC Act over the past 25 years. The Albanese Government alone has approved 32 coal and gas projects, unleashing more than 10 million tonnes of domestic climate pollution per year – more than all domestic flights in Australia. This pollution will have a direct impact on Australia’s ability to meet our new emissions reduction target of a 62-70% reduction by 2035. Climate Council analysis shows that the climate pollution from these approved developments is equivalent to 1.6 to 2.1 percentage points in 2035. 

As if this wasn’t enough, at least 42 further coal and gas projects are in the pipeline, including the Browse gas project in WA, which could run for 44 years and release up to 6.8 million tonnes of climate pollution in Australia annually. Put simply, approving these projects – when we should be focused on reducing pollution – makes it harder to reach our 2035 target.

If the Government is serious about addressing climate change and reducing climate harm, it must cut pollution at the source by curbing new fossil fuel projects.

Learn more about the fossil fuel projects already lining up for approval under our national environment law.

DOESN’T THE SAFEGUARD MECHANISM DEAL WITH EMISSIONS FROM BIG POLLUTERS?

The Government claims domestic climate pollution from new or expanded fossil fuel projects is already covered under the Safeguard Mechanism. But the Safeguard Mechanism only kicks in after a project is operating — it doesn’t decide which projects go ahead. New developments don’t need to fit within Australia’s climate pollution budget or national targets. That means highly polluting projects can still proceed, even if they blow our legislated carbon budgets. Expert legal analysis confirms that nowhere under federal law is the Government required to assess a project’s climate impact. 

HOW DO WE FIX IT?

The Albanese Government can still deliver credible environment law that protects the places we love from climate harm. Our new environment law should:

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Right now, the Australian Senate is holding an official inquiry into the Government’s proposed reforms to the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This inquiry will review the proposed reforms in detail, hear from the public and experts, and make recommendations to the Government before the laws are finalised.

While there is a long way to go for the reforms to be credible, the Climate Council is calling on the government and all parties in the Senate to strengthen the laws.

That means this is your chance to have a direct say in how these laws are shaped. This is the most important moment for our community to be heard before Parliament decides.

Read the Climate Council’s submission to the inquiry to learn more about how Parliament can fix our broken environment laws.

Making a submission to the inquiry is easy – and it’s the most effective way to have your say right now.

• Visit the official inquiry page: Senate Environment & Communications Legislation Committee
  • This inquiry is moving quickly, so make sure to get in as soon as you can – ideally before the week of 24 November – this is the critical window to be heard.
• Write your submission (it can be short!): In your own words, explain why it matters to you that Australia’s environment laws address climate change, and that you want the reforms to include:
  • Ask for: Australia’s environment laws to require full disclosure of all emissions (Scope 1,2 and 3), ensure projects face an independent assessment to ensure they align with our national climate targets and policies (like the Safeguard Mechanism), and speed up approvals for responsible renewables, not fossil fuels.
  • Remember: professional, warm, and encouraging submissions are always welcomed by Parliamentary inquiries – so please keep it kind.
  • If you need a starting point, you can use what we’re calling for here
• Send it in.
  • Upload your submission on the Parliament website, or
  • Email it to:
    • ec.sen@aph.gov.au
  • Or post to:
    • Committee Secretary
    • Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
    • PO Box 6100
    • Parliament House
    • Canberra ACT 2600

Together, we’ve helped secure a stronger 2035 climate target. Now, let’s make sure our laws enable us to deliver on it.

The post New EPBC reforms: Wins for forests, responsible renewables but climate sidelined appeared first on Climate Council.

This Briefing investigates the consequences for Australia and the world were Australia to take this course of action.

Key findings:

1. Abandoning net zero and Australia’s other climate targets could increase Australia’s climate pollution by 6.3 billion tonnes more over the next 25 years compared to current targets. That’s equivalent to the annual climate pollution of 3.2 billion Australian cars.
2. Abandoning net zero is aligned with global temperature rise well above 3°C. Australia would face a future of relentless disasters and economic upheaval:
   – 4 times the number of severe and extreme heatwave days
   – 1.5 million Australians exposed to coastal flooding by 2050, and 3 million people by 2090.
   – Double the number of extreme fire days
   – Vast regions becoming uninsurable
3. Reneging on our climate commitments would damage Australia’s global standing and strain ties with Pacific nations that expect us to do more – not less – on climate change.
4. Abandoning net zero would be an enormous risk to realising the broad benefits of the global clean energy transition, deterring investment in renewables and green exports.

What is net zero?

Net zero is a goal to cut climate pollution.

Climate pollution has now formed a massive blanket of heat-trapping gases around the world, raising global average temperature. The extra heat and energy is driving more extreme weather and other serious consequences for humanity. Climate pollution is primarily the burning of coal, oil and gas, fossil fuels. The only solution is to stop the problem at the source by driving down pollution from coal, oil and gas and moving rapidly to other energy sources.

While ideally climate pollution should be reduced to zero to prevent ongoing harm to the global climate, instead global governments, scientists, business and environmental organisations have widely adopted a goal of reducing pollution to “net zero” by 2050. Net zero is considered more realistic as it anticipates that while we can entirely cut most of our climate pollution, in some sectors (e.g. aviation) it’s not possible to do today. Net zero is about balance. Ensuring that the amount we are polluting is balanced by the amount we are taking out (e.g. by planting trees).

Net zero in the Paris Agreement

The 2015 Paris Agreement – adopted by 195 countries in 2015 including Australia – set a central goal
of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial
levels” and pursuing efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” It
also added a complementary goal on net zero:

“To undertake rapid [emissions] reductions … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”

In other words, net zero means reaching a state in which climate pollution going into the atmosphere is balanced by removal out of the atmosphere. It’s like a bath tub (which represents the atmosphere) being filled up (primarily climate pollution from burning coal, oil and gas). The tap has been on high since the industrial revolution, causing the tub to fill rapidly. Reducing climate pollution from fossil fuels turns down the tap. But it’s unlikely that we can turn the tap off completely or stop all climate pollution in the time required. For the small amount of climate pollution remaining, we will need to deploy carbon removal approaches that remove climate pollution from the air to counterbalance any emissions still entering the atmosphere. The most common form of removal is planting trees which absorb carbon as they grow. This is net zero.

Slashing climate pollution to net zero as soon as possible is the only solution to the climate crisis. Moving too slowly, or abandoning this goal altogether, has deadly consequences.

Global and national commitment to net zero

As of June 2024, 107 countries, responsible for approximately 82 percent of global climate pollution, had adopted net-zero pledges. More than 9,000 companies, 1,000 cities, 1,000 educational institutions and 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate
action to halve global emissions by 2030.

Australia has set a legislated target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and every state and territory in Australia has a target of net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. Net zero was backed by former Liberal-National Coalition Governments led by Malcolm Turnbull (by supporting the Paris Agreement in 2015) and Scott Morrison (by adopting net zero by 2050 as policy in 2021). Business and industry have consistently adopted net zero, for instance Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council, the National Farmers Federation.

Climate disasters are already impacting Australians

Climate pollution from the burning coal, oil and gas is supercharging our climate system. Australia is already experiencing more intense heatwaves on land and sea, rising seas and storm surges, more dangerous bushfire conditions, and more powerful storms and intense flooding. Climate pollution is deeply affecting our regions, our communities, our economy and industries like farming and tourism.

In 2025, Australian communities have already experienced back-to-back flooding in New
South Wales and Queensland, unprecedented marine heatwaves devastating reefs in Western Australia and Queensland, and deepening drought in southern Australia affecting vast areas of farming land. Disasters cost the economy $2.2 billion in just the first half of 2025. These climate consequences are the result of past policy failures to curb climate pollution. Climate pollution is endangering our homes and risking the biggest asset of many Australians.

Flood risk has cost Australians $42.2 billion in property values, with one in six Australian homes at risk of flooding. Insurance costs have risen significantly for Australians as extreme weather risk has increased, with over 650,000 homes now either unavailable or unaffordable.

Abandoning net zero means catastrophic climate impacts

Scientific analysis, commissioned by the Climate Council, demonstrates that abandoning our net zero target would align with global temperature rise well above 3°C. A 3°C world would be catastrophic for Australians and industries like tourism and agriculture. There is simply no other solution to the climate crisis than slashing global climate pollution to net zero as quickly as possible.

Accelerating Australia’s climate pollution will increase climate risks and undermine global action

Abandoning net zero would see Australia’s climate pollution soar by more than 6.3 billion tonnes over the next 25 years, and see higher climate pollution continue beyond 2050. This is equivalent to the annual climate pollution of 3.2 billion Australian cars.

Australia, as a stable middle power and the 15 largest polluter in the world, has an important role to play in both tackling our own climate pollution and participating in the global effort. If Australia wer to abandon net zero, 180 other countries that pollute less could ask why they should act without Australia. Global action is only strong when countries cooperate and do their part. It would be a damaging set back for Australia to renege on its commitment to tackle climate change. In particular, it would be vastly damaging for Australia’s Pacific relationships, a vital region for our security, where nations expect Australia to do more, not less.

Costs of net zero are vastly exaggerated, whereas the benefits of action are often diminished

Many arguments about the cost of cutting climate pollution disingenuously ignore the fact that costs will be incurred no matter what our policy is. For example, the Net Zero Australia study found that 96% of the costs across our energy system – from generation to cars, appliances, and industry – will be incurred with or without a net zero policy.

With or without a climate pollution target, Australia will still need to produce energy, buy new cars and trucks to move people and freight, and invest in machinery and equipment for businesses. The question is not whether Australia invests at all – it is whether it should seek to invest in lower climate pollution options.

In many cases, the cleanest option is also the cheapest. For example, renewable power backed by storage and firming is the cheapest way to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations – 90% of which is expected to close in the next 10 years. In other cases, the incremental cost is modest, and outweighed by economic and environmental benefits.

Net Zero Australia found that reaching net zero would cost only 4% more over 25 years than abandoning Australia’s climate targets, an average of $12 billion per year. In contrast, setting up Australia’s LNG industry required more than $33 billion per year, which is 2.5 times more than the incremental cost of reaching net zero.

This cost of action pales in comparison to the costs of inaction, including more frequent and severe disasters, a weaker economy and lives and livelihoods lost. In Australia, unchecked climate change could cost the economy $4.2 trillion over the 50 years to 2070, a 6% impact on GDP.

The post Consequences of Abandoning Net Zero appeared first on Climate Council.

This is an Australian-first report that analyses more than 20 years of historical property data alongside flood risk. It finds that today, flood-prone homes in Australia are worth $42.2 billion less than they could have been without the risk of flood.

Climate pollution from coal, oil and gas now blankets the world, trapping heat. This heat means more evaporation and an atmosphere that holds more moisture. As a result, flood risk has grown in Australia.

Climate Council partnered with PropTrack, Australia’s leading source of property insights, to analyse what this flood risk means for the individual and collective value of our properties. We found flood risk has cost Australians $42.2 billion overall, with one in six homes at risk of flooding today.

The bulk of these properties are in Queensland, where flood risk has cost homeowners $19 billion as at April, 2025. The Gold Coast ranks highest within the state, with a collective $4.5 billion in value foregone across the region. NSW follows closely behind, with more than $14 billion foregone in flood-related value.

Overall rising property prices are masking the fact that flood-prone homes are starting from a lower base and rising at a slower pace. Nationally, since 2000, the price growth gap between flood-prone homes in Australia – and those without such risks – has reached 22 percentage points. For a typical three-bedroom, two-bathroom house that equates to being valued $75,500 less. As climate-driven floods become more frequent and severe, more properties could face steeper penalties. 

Concerted action in Australia and around the world to cut climate pollution from coal, oil and gas can limit how many more homes are put at risk in the future. The insurance and banking industries are already embedding those climate risks into their business decisions. However, to date, there has been limited detail available to individual homeowners on what the risk to their greatest asset already is, as well as how that might worsen over time. Every Australian deserves to understand the climate risk that their home is already facing, as well as how those risks might increase.

No matter where we live, all Australians are paying a heavy price due to climate change. That might be because our own home is at direct risk of worsening extreme weather – like floods – or through rising insurance premiums and recovery costs. 

We have a choice about how much worse we allow this to get – and therefore, how many more Australian homes are put at risk, or lost. This is why the Australian Government must stop making this problem worse by continuing to approve new coal and gas projects by overhauling our environment laws so they are fit for purpose. Because every tonne of climate pollution is doing us damage.

Key Findings

This report presents the first national-scale evidence of the property market’s response to increasing flood risks, combining historic hazard data from the Geoscape Planning and Insights dataset with PropTrack’s real estate data.

Flood risk has cost Australians $42.2 billion, with 1 in six Australian homes at risk of flooding

• In Australia there are just over two million flood-prone homes. Of those, at least 70% experienced a reduction in value due to flood risk.
• In regions where flood risk reduces values:
  • Homes exposed to flood risk are collectively worth $42.2 billion less than they would be in the absence of flood risk.
  • A disproportionate share of this foregone value is borne by only a few regions; reflecting the geographic concentration of risk.
  • As of April 2025, the median value of a *typical home at risk of flooding is valued $75,500 lower than a typical home without flood risks.
• While prices of flood-prone homes rise over time, they often do so from a lower base and at a slower pace.
• Nationally, since 2000, the price growth gap between flood-prone and flood-free homes in Australia has reached 22 percentage points.

Queensland and New South Wales homeowners face the largest flood impacts on property value

• The bulk of properties at risk of floods are in Queensland (40%) and New South Wales (30%).
• In Queensland, the total dollar value foregone due to flood risk exceeded $19 billion as at April 2025. The Gold Coast ranks highest within the state with a collective $4.5 billion in value foregone across the region.
• NSW follows closely behind, with flood-related value of more than $14 billion foregone.
• Even high-value areas and prestigious innercity or coastal communities can see losses of more than $500,000 per home compared to nearby and comparable flood-free properties.
  • Known for its prestige beachfront properties, flood-prone houses in QLD’s Mermaid Beach – Broadbeach experience a 48% reduction in value due to flood risk, despite just 16% of houses being in flood zones, reflecting a market highly sensitive to risk perception.
  • Houses in NSW’s Bellevue Hill and Balmain show large average dollar value losses per flood-affected house.

Market behaviour and perceived vulnerability drive price outcomes

• In some regions, the risk of flooding is outweighed by features like coastal views and beachside lifestyle. For example, houses in flood zones within the Sunshine Coast’s Noosaville and Noosa Heads, Brisbane’s Cleveland, and Gold Coast’s Hope Island are typically valued higher than comparable risk-free homes.
• In regions where flood risk reduces values, price impacts appear to be shaped by perceived vulnerability with recent events having a higher impact on price than the share of homes exposed to flood risk.
• In some suburbs with a lower share of floodprone properties, property level flood penalties are much larger than suburbs with a higher share of properties that are floodprone. This may reflect the impact of recent disaster memory, insurance challenges or property-level vulnerability.

*Typical home, three-bedroom, two-bathroom house

The post Property Value Report: How climate change could worsen Australia’s $42 billion flood risk appeared first on Climate Council.

This briefing paper outlines the context behind the energy roadmap, and what this means for Queenslanders and Australia.

What’s the Energy Roadmap?

The Energy Roadmap is intended to provide a five-year plan for Queensland’s energy sector. The plan is expected to reflect previous announcements, including a pledge to scrap Queensland’s legislated renewable power targets, the cancellation of renewable power and storage developments, and delays to the closure of coal-fired power stations. The roadmap is also expected to outline new, smaller pumped hydro projects to replace the cancelled Pioneer-Burdekin project.

Coal and gas fired power stations pollute – and that harms all Australians 

Extending or expanding coal and gas power stations will lock in more harmful climate pollution for longer, driving more frequent and extreme weather events. 

Queensland is already bearing the brunt of more frequent and severe storms, fires and heatwaves, and the Great Barrier Reef has been severely damaged by a series of marine heatwaves; experiencing six mass bleaching events in the last decade. 

If polluting coal power is relied upon for longer, it’s not clear how the Crisafulli Government can meet its election commitment to retain Queensland’s legislated 2035 climate pollution target, of a 75% cut on 2005 levels.

Queensland’s coal-fired power stations are breaking down, and need to be replaced

Like most Australian states, Queensland is facing the need to replace its ageing and increasingly unreliable coal-fired power stations. While some of Queensland’s coal plants are younger than others in Australia, this does not overcome the significant commercial, environmental or engineering challenges the state is facing:

• About two-thirds of Queensland’s coal-fired power capacity is at least 30 years old.
• Almost half (47%) of Queensland’s coal capacity can be expected to close in the next six years, based on the average closure age for previous Australian coal-fired power stations (42 years).
• Even Queensland’s younger stations are struggling to keep up. For example, this summer, Millmeran’s coal units broke down a collective seven times, and one unit faced a week-long unplanned outage. 

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) most recent system plan expects all of Queensland’s coal-fired power stations to close within the next decade, because these costly generators can not compete with cheaper renewable power and storage – like the rooftop solar on more than half of Queensland’s houses. This is already playing out on the ground, with the coal-fired Gladstone Power Station bringing its potential closure date forward six years to 2029.

How might delaying coal closures impact Queensland?

Slowing the development of renewable power and storage and delaying coal-fired power station closures would only hold Queensland back from a more reliable, affordable and clean electricity system. Relying on coal-fired power for longer means:

Higher costs and power bills

Modelling commissioned by the Clean Energy Council shows that if we delay the expected roll out of renewables and continue our reliance on coal and gas nationally, power bills could increase by $449 a year for households, and $877 for a small business this decade. In QLD, this is also costing taxpayers, with the Queensland Government having to invest $1.6 billion in simply maintaining existing coal power stations. 

Australia’s independent science agency, CSIRO, has found that building solar and wind power backed by storage is the lowest-cost way to meet our electricity needs. Meanwhile, unplanned outages at ageing coal plants have contributed to four of Australia’s most severe price spikes in the last seven years. 

Lost jobs and investment

By sticking with outdated coal infrastructure instead of scaling up renewables and storage, Queensland risks losing out on billions in clean energy investment and thousands of regional jobs, which would be more likely to flow to other states with clear plans to switch to cleaner, cheaper energy.

Modelling undertaken under the previous Queensland Government indicated that achieving a 70% renewable power target by 2032 could create 64,000 jobs and unlock $25.7 billion in economic growth, while reducing power prices. In contrast, continuing to fund ageing coal-fired power stations is not likely to be an effective use of taxpayer funds that could be better spent elsewhere to benefit Queenslanders.

Less reliable power

Australia’s coal-fired power is increasingly unreliable, and is prone to unplanned outages, especially during extreme weather. Therefore, extending dependence on coal can make the power system more unstable. A modern, flexible system that runs on renewables, storage and limited peaking capacity is reliable, and does not rely on only a handful of large generators to keep the lights on.

Analysis of the grid over recent years has revealed that both planned and unplanned coal outages have been a primary driver of power outage risk. The majority of recent power outage risk conditions have occurred in New South Wales and Queensland – the states most dependent on coal generators. During periods with the highest power outage risk, coal availability has been 10-20% lower than is typical.

The Crisafulli Government has cancelled three major renewable energy and storage projects

Since coming to power in October 2024, the Crisafulli Government has taken the unusual step of  blocking two previously approved wind farms – Forest Wind Farm and Moonlight Range Wind Farm – citing community opposition. These projects could have powered up to 750,000 homes. In addition, the nationally significant Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project was cancelled. 

Renewables backed by storage is the best option for the sunshine state

All around Australia, the data shows that more renewable power in the grid puts downward pressure on power prices. In Queensland, wholesale prices dropped 40% in 2023-24, with increased solar and wind energy in the grid playing a key role. Increasing solar and wind generation, backed up with storage like batteries, can keep power prices in check, improve the reliability of our power system and keep Queenslanders safer from worsening climate change. 

Households, businesses, investors and governments all around the world are embracing renewable energy because it’s affordable, clean and can be rolled out fast – the Queensland Government should do the same.

The post Everything you need to know about Queensland’s upcoming Energy Roadmap appeared first on Climate Council.

This rapid analysis explains Australia’s 2035 climate target, where it came from, and what it means for our future.

What is a climate target, and why do we need one?

Climate pollution from burning coal, oil and gas has formed a thick blanket of heat-trapping gases around the world. The world has already heated by 1.3ºC above pre-industrial levels. The excess heat is driving more ferocious and frequent fires, floods and heatwaves, rising sea levels, and more volatile and unpredictable weather. The future scale and severity of the climate crisis will depend on how quickly and deeply we slash global climate pollution.

Climate targets are an opportunity to keep Australians safer from climate impacts, by setting a goal for cutting our climate pollution further and faster. Australia has already committed to reducing climate pollution to net zero by 2050, and is targeting a 43% reduction in our climate pollution by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels). Now, the Albanese Government has set our 2035 target.

What makes a strong climate target?

To keep Australians safer from climate impacts, we need to set targets that cut climate pollution as deeply and quickly as possible. To be strong and credible, our target should:

• Contribute to keeping heating well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, after which climate impacts become especially catastrophic and severe. To have a strong chance of meeting this goal, Australia would need to set a net zero target for 2035.
• Make genuine cuts to climate pollution across the board, including by building solar, wind and batteries, switching to electric vehicles sooner, getting more homes and buildings off gas, and electrifying mining and manufacturing. It should prioritise real and permanent cuts to climate pollution, not offsets.
• Be embedded into Australian law, along with plans and policies to reach net zero. This provides an important signal and the certainty required across government, business, and the community. 

The further away a target is from net zero by 2035, the higher the level of risk being accepted for our families, community, economy and national security. Every fraction of a degree of avoided warming matters, and will be measured in lives and livelihoods saved, fewer families forced from their homes, and a safer future for our children. 

Setting as strong a 2035 target as possible today is the best way to secure a safer future for our kids.

What has the Albanese Government announced?

The Albanese Government has set Australia’s 2035 climate target as a 62-70% reduction on 2005 levels. They’ve also released other documents, including Australia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (which provides information to the UNFCCC on the target and other actions we will take), and Australia’s Net Zero Plan, which charts a path to Australia’s 2050 net zero target.

Is this target strong enough?

Overall, the announced target is too weak.

A target within this 62-70% range falls short of what’s needed to protect Australians and our way of life. The range is weaker than:

• What the science says is necessary to contribute to avoiding the worst climate impacts (net zero).
• What four independent analyses show is possible (at least 75%).
• What the majority of Australians support, along with over 500 businesses, and a range of civil society groups support (at least 75%).

The top end of the range (70%) is closer to what is needed to protect Australians, and a greater step up compared to our current trajectory: 

• Every tonne of climate pollution matters, and this target would result in less climate pollution over the next decade, and make it easier to reach net zero.
• Compared to 62%, achieving a 70% reduction by 2035 would reduce Australia’s climate pollution by 490 million tonnes by 2050; equivalent to the annual climate pollution from 213 million cars.
• Achieving a stronger target of 70% and above would unlock investment and greater economic growth, with modelling by Deloitte Access Economics indicating that a 75% target would result in a $227 billion increase in GDP over the next decade, relative to a weaker 65% target.

In the face of catastrophic risks, setting a timid target is not sufficient to protect Australians. To keep Australians safer, we must now urgently put in place the policies to deliver and power past the top-end of this target.

Can we meet the target?

Yes, and we can go further. 

The Climate Change Authority’s advice clearly articulates that Australia’s new climate target of 62-70% reduction in climate pollution by 2035 should be considered the bare minimum. 

There are opportunities to do more, which the Government should take. Independent analysis from four different organisations have shown that climate pollution cuts of at least 75% by 2035 are economically and technically possible. In addition, economic modelling by Deloitte Access Economics has demonstrated that a cut of 75% is not only possible, but could also deliver $227 billion in greater GDP, compared to a 65% target.

There are several ways the Government can achieve a stronger target, while saving Australian families thousands of dollars, growing our economy by up to $227 billion, and keeping all of us safer from climate impacts. Electrifying homes can save Australian families $600 per year on energy bills by 2035, while switching to an Electric Vehicle can save households over $2,000 per year in fuel costs. The Albanese Government must also stop undermining our targets by approving new and expanded fossil fuel facilities. Since 2022, Labor has approved 31 new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, impacting Australia’s 2035 target. The starting point for Australia’s 2035 target could have been up to 2% higher (closer to net zero), had they not approved these projects.

How does Australia compare to other countries?

Different climate targets are not necessarily comparable, as each country uses different baseline years and methodologies, and has different circumstances. To provide a meaningful comparison, climate pollution per person has been estimated.

At a 2035 climate target within the 62-70% range, Australia’s climate pollution will still be amongst the highest in the world, and almost double the current emissions per person globally. Australia’s emissions target would be higher than nations in Europe and Asia, and far exceeding many low-income nations.

Note: Climate Council estimates excluding the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, using historical data and projections from official government sources.  

Despite this, Australia is much better positioned than many other countries to make deep, rapid cuts to climate pollution with massive renewables potential, a skilled workforce, and abundant critical minerals and metal resources.

What are Australians calling for?

Two-thirds of Australians support a target of 75% or above and they’re backed by several unions, over 500 businesses including Canva, IKEA, and Unilever, dozens of social service organisations, community and religious groups, and climate and environment organisations like WWF, ACF, and us – the Climate Council. In fact, most organisations that have publicly named a desired target, have called for a target of at least 75%. 

Where to from here?

Next week, world leaders including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are heading to New York for the UN General Assembly, where leaders will have a platform to present their new 2035 climate targets. With Australia seeking to host COP31 – next year’s annual international climate conference – in partnership with Pacific Island Nations, all eyes will be on Australia.

To keep Australians safer from worsening climate harm, and unlock Australia’s economic opportunity, the Australian Government must set our target in law, put in place the policies today to meet 70% reduction and power past it. 

Of course, we must also deal with our polluting fossil fuel exports. When burnt overseas, Australia’s coal, oil and gas exports release climate pollution equivalent to 2.5 times our own annual climate pollution. Phasing out these polluting exports would keep all of us safer. The first step is to end new and expanded fossil fuel projects.

Australia has a new 2035 target, now we need to put our shoulder to the wheel to achieve it.

¹  Climate Analytics, 2025 (>77% reduction); Climate Council 2024 (75% reduction); CSIRO, 2024 (75% reduction); Climateworks, 2023 (>75% reduction)

The post Everything you need to know about Australia’s 2035 climate target appeared first on Climate Council.

The report comes as the Australian Government sets a 2035 climate target. In doing so it is making a choice on how much harm to Australia it is willing to accept, as Australians experience increasingly catastrophic impacts on our way of life.

This briefing paper explains the National Climate Risk Assessment (NCRA) in context, and summarises its key findings. 

This summary was prepared based on the NCRA Overview. Climate Council researchers will analyse the NCRA’s detailed technical reports over coming days.

How bad will climate change get for Australians?

Australia is already experiencing more intense heatwaves on land and sea, rising seas and more frequent and severe flooding. What happens next depends on what we collectively do now.

Existing global efforts – including Australia’s – are insufficient to limit global heating to safer thresholds. Based on current policies to cut climate pollution, the world is estimated to heat up by 2.7ºC by 2100. This means the NCRA’s 3ºC scenario is most likely to occur based on the choices we’re making.

The NCRA has assessed climate risks and impacts in Australia at three levels of global heating: 1.5ºC, 2ºC, and 3ºC above pre-industrial levels. At these levels, it identifies severe risks with catastrophic impacts for Australians if we don’t do more to cut climate pollution. It notes that:

• Climate change will disrupt our very way of life. “Changes in Australia’s climate will not occur gradually or smoothly. Reaching potential climate and ecological tipping points is very likely to result in abrupt changes” (p.10).
• Communities will be slammed in many, severe ways. “It is likely we will experience more compounding, cascading and concurrent hazards”, like heavy flooding after a tropical cyclone, or bushfires and increased air pollution after extreme heatwaves (p. 10).

Quadruple the time spent in heatwaves (p.12)

The average number of severe and extreme heatwave days per year across Australia would:

• Double at 2ºC of warming
• Quadruple at 3ºC of warming

Deaths due to extreme heat could quintuple (p.35)¹

Heat-related deaths could increase dramatically (under a 3ºC scenario):

• Sydney: 440% more deaths
• Melbourne: 260% more deaths
• Perth: 300% more deaths
• Launceston: 140% more deaths
• Darwin: 420% more deaths
• Townsville: 330% more deaths

$135+ billion drag on productivity (p.31)

Exposure to heat would harm worker productivity, reducing overall economic output by $135-423 billion by 2063. 

Agriculture, construction, manufacturing and mining would be the worst hit, losing the equivalent of 700,000 additional days of work every year by 2061 under a 3ºC scenario.

Our bill for climate-driven disasters seven times bigger (p.26)

Average Australian Government spending on disaster recovery could be almost seven times higher by 2090 under a 3ºC scenario.

Marine heatwaves for half the year (p.12)

Marine heatwave duration would increase dramatically, which would have catastrophic consequences for coral reefs: 

• Quintuple to 95 days at 2ºC of warming
• Increase ten-fold to 179 days at 3ºC of warming

Millions more Aussies at risk of coastal flooding (p.39)

Sea-level rise could reach one metre, leading to:

• 18 times more coastal flooding, from an average of about 15 days per year in different coastal locations to around 272 days per year under a 3ºC scenario.
• Doubling the number of Aussies exposed to coastal hazards to 1.5 million by 2050, and exposing 3 million people by 2090.

Property values could take a half-trillion dollar hit (p.31)

Losses to property values could increase to: 

• 2050: $611 billion
• 2090: $770 billion

Who is most at risk?

The report finds that the extreme weather events of today are likely to resemble the average experience of Australians in the future if we don’t cut climate pollution much further, and faster. (p.22)

All Australians will be at greater risk, with the most significant and rapid increase in risks identified for Queenslanders, Tasmanians, and those in NSW and the ACT (p.26).

With sea levels rising around Australia, and more frequent extreme events increasing, the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities in low-lying areas are a major risk, including in major cities and external territories (p.22). If populations remained static, then that puts 597,000 people at direct risk of coastal hazards by 2030.

Those living in remote communities are vulnerable today because of limited telecommunications and weak supply chains (p.22). In the future, climate impacts could exacerbate this vulnerability, doubling freight costs for some regional areas in QLD, WA, and the NT (p.51). 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are already experiencing the adverse impacts of climate change, which exacerbate existing health and social disparities. Displacement from Country due to climate change can have severe health and wellbeing consequences, including increased homelessness and weakening of family and social connections, identity, and belonging. Other climate risks to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be driven by reduced air quality, extreme heat, flooding, interrupted health services, and energy insecurity (p. 34).

What can we do about it?

Today’s choices are shaping the kind of world we will live in for decades. Burning coal, oil and gas is causing global heating, driving climate disruption and a more dangerous future.  Rapidly cutting climate pollution can keep all of us safer. That’s why the climate targets we are about to set are so important. 

The Climate Change Authority publicly drafted a target range of 65-75% reduction in climate pollution by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. Scientific analysis commissioned by the Climate Council shows that a 75% target aligns with below 2.3ºC of warming above pre-industrial levels – which means this is insufficient to keep Australians safer from many of the catastrophic climate impacts identified in this report. 

Net zero by 2035 is the only target available to Australia that provides a strong chance of contributing to holding global heating below 2°C.² The higher the Government sets our climate target, the more they will be doing to help keep Australians safer.

Climate Council has launched a petition calling on the Australian Government to set the strongest possible 2035 climate target – and take urgent action to meet it.

The Climate Council is doing everything in our power to fight for the climate solutions our kids and communities deserve. That’s our job. If you’re in a position to do so, please consider chipping in to power this fight.

Download this briefing paper.

¹ Data sourced from Figure 4, p.35. Rounded to nearest 10%.
² For Australia, reaching net zero by 2035 and a 75% reduction by 2030 is aligned with a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.9ºC above pre-industrial levels. Analysis is based on a per-capita fair share of the remaining carbon budget.

The post Compounding climate risk: New government report warns that Australia could face severe impacts appeared first on Climate Council.