Australia's Emissions Reduction Targets: Pledged But Not On Track

Australia stands at a familiar crossroads: bold climate commitments announced on the international stage, and a domestic policy reality that tells a very different story. Both Labor and the Coalition have spent years pledging emissions reductions while simultaneously protecting the fossil fuel interests that make those reductions harder to achieve. The result is a gap between what Australia has promised and what it's actually doing - and ordinary Australians are paying the price.

What Australia Has Promised

Under the Climate Change Act 2022, the Albanese Labor government legislated a target of 43% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, and net zero by 2050. These targets were a significant step up from the Coalition's previous 26–28% target, and they were welcomed by climate advocates as a sign of genuine ambition.

But legislation is not action. Having a target written into law is meaningfully different from having the policies in place to achieve it.

The Gap Between Target and Reality

According to the Climate Council's 2024 Climate Score Card, Australia is not on track to meet its 2030 target. The independent analysis found that current policies - even accounting for the Safeguard Mechanism reforms and the Rewiring the Nation program - are projected to deliver only around 32–35% reductions by 2030, leaving a substantial shortfall.

Meanwhile, Australia remains one of the world's largest exporters of coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG). In 2022–23, fossil fuel exports were worth approximately $237 billion - a record high. The federal government collected billions in royalties and taxes from these industries while simultaneously promising to reduce the emissions they produce.

The uncomfortable truth is that Australia is exporting emissions at scale while counting only domestic production in its national targets. Scope 3 emissions - those produced when our exported coal and gas are burned overseas - are not included in Australia's official accounting.

The Safeguard Mechanism: Reform or Loophole?

The centrepiece of Labor's emissions reduction strategy is the reformed Safeguard Mechanism, which requires Australia's 215 largest industrial emitters (facilities producing more than 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year) to reduce their emissions intensity over time.

On paper, this sounds meaningful. In practice, critics have identified several significant problems:

• Credits and offsets: Companies can purchase Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) to offset emissions rather than actually reducing them. The integrity of the ACCU system has been seriously questioned, with a 2022 independent review led by Professor Ian Chubb finding significant problems with how credits were being issued - particularly for vegetation projects that may not represent real carbon sequestration.
• New project exemptions: New or expanded fossil fuel projects can apply for exemptions and higher baseline limits, effectively giving greenfield LNG and coal operations a free pass during their early years.
• Slow decline rates: The required annual reduction in emissions intensity is set at 4.9% per year - a figure that critics argue is too slow to meet the 2030 target, let alone align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C pathway.

Who Benefits - and Who Pays

The fossil fuel industry's influence over Australian climate policy is not subtle. According to the Australia Institute, fossil fuel companies spent over $13 million lobbying the federal government between 2021 and 2023. The industry employs thousands of Australians directly and tens of thousands more in related industries - which creates genuine political complexity.

But the beneficiaries of weak climate policy are concentrated, while the costs are spread broadly:

The Insurance Council of Australia has warned that climate-related disasters are making home insurance unaffordable or unavailable in many parts of the country. The 2022 floods across Queensland and New South Wales caused over $6.35 billion in insured losses - a figure that will grow as extreme weather intensifies.

Why Does This Policy Persist?

This is the critical question. If the policy isn't working, and if polls consistently show that Australians support stronger climate action - a 2023 Lowy Institute poll found 63% of Australians see climate change as a critical threat - why don't we have stronger policies?

The answer lies in who has access to policymakers. Fossil fuel companies have direct lines to ministers, seats at consultation tables, and the financial resources to mount sustained lobbying campaigns. Everyday Australians do not. The electoral system rewards parties that can secure large donations and media coverage - both of which the fossil fuel industry can provide.

Both major parties have accepted donations from coal, oil, and gas interests. According to the AEC's electoral funding disclosures, the resources and energy sector donated millions to both Labor and the Coalition in the 2022 federal election cycle. Neither party has legislated a ban on fossil fuel donations.

This Is Exactly Why Direct Democracy Matters

When ordinary Australians are asked what they want - through polls, citizens' juries, and community consultations - they consistently support stronger climate action, greater investment in renewables, and an honest transition away from fossil fuels. The policy we actually get reflects the preferences of a much smaller, much wealthier group of stakeholders.

Direct Democracy changes that equation. When members vote directly on policy and elected representatives are bound to follow those instructions, the gap between public preference and government action closes. There are no backroom deals to cut, no donor relationships to protect, no internal party factional trades to make.

Climate policy is one of the clearest examples of a field where representative democracy has failed ordinary Australians - not because the science is unclear, but because the political incentives point in the wrong direction.

If Australians had a direct say in our emissions policy, the evidence strongly suggests we'd choose differently.

---

Want to have a real say on issues like this one? [Take our policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au/quiz) to see where you stand on Australia's biggest challenges, or [join Direct Democracy](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join) to become a member and vote directly on the policies that shape your future. Your voice shouldn't stop at the ballot box.