Academics say their net zero costing is being ‘misrepresented’ after Nationals repeat $9tn claim | National party

University energy researchers say the model for Australia’s economy to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions – used by the National Party and some Liberal MPs as part of the rationale for abandoning that target – is misrepresented.

Nationals leader David Littleproud has repeatedly claimed that achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions “will cost Australians $9 trillion”, pointing to the work of Net Zero Australia (NZA).

This week the National Party confirmed they would no longer support the target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, and the Coalition faces internal pressure from some MPs to follow suit.

But on Wednesday, NZA, which includes academics from Princeton University, the University of Melbourne and the University of Queensland, issued a statement stating that cost estimates were misrepresented.

Sign up to receive climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter

“Different individuals and groups misrepresent basic cost estimates [our] He described the Australia Project as ‘the cost of Australia reaching net zero’. “These misrepresented costs typically range from $1.5 trillion to $9 trillion.”

The group said the $9 trillion figure relates to work carried out in 2023 and is an estimate of the cumulative capital investment that would be needed by 2060 “for both domestic and export energy systems” under a scenario in which Australia targets net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

But NZA said the “vast majority” of this capital was also there. Referenced by Liberal MP Andrew Hastie – It will come from “overseas customers, not Australians”.

“Operating costs and fuel costs are in addition to capital investments and are most significant in fossil fuel-intensive energy systems,” the group said.

“These forecasts assume that current energy export levels are replaced by zero-emission energy carriers, which is a gross assumption and may not occur,” the group said.

Coalition figures, including Littleproud, described this amount as the price to be paid by Australians; The National leader even claimed it would put pressure on Medicare and the NDIS.

Senator Matt Canavan also noted the NZA modelling, claiming in an interview with the ABC last week that the “estimated cost of getting to net zero in Australia is seven to nine trillion dollars”.

Simon Smart, an associate professor at the University of Queensland and a member of the NZA’s steering group, said the group recognized “there are a number of individuals and groups using our results and characterizing what it will cost for Australia to get to net zero”. [that work] “It was discussed.”

He said investments “typically do not come from government and by extension Australian taxpayers” but largely come from overseas.

A more recent analysis by NZA looked at energy system costs in Australia alone and found the cumulative cost of meeting the net zero target by 2050 was $309 billion compared to building an energy system that ignores the need to cut greenhouse gases.

Among those identifying the $9 trillion figure as a cost to Australians are: right-wing think tank Institute of Public Affairs and signatories Open letter distributed by Rainforest Reserves Australia – a charity known for its stance against renewable energy.

The Guardian has contacted Littleproud’s office for comment.