Why wont the PM commit to a 2050 net zero target?
Share Canberra's trusted news:  Not all the Nationals oppose the 2050 target but enough of them do  and very strongly  to create a serious obstacle for the Prime Minister, writes political columnist MICHELLE GRATTAN  MANY observers have been assuming the Prime Ministers strategy is to creep towards endorsing the 2050 target of net zero emissions, finally embracing it before the Glasgow climate conference in November. But this weeks developments suggest the prime minister might have to adopt another course. He could stay with his present position, which has the target as an aspiration he surrounds with a web of subsidiary policies, such as the multiple bilateral technology agreements he announced while he was overseas. Morrisons present commitment, reiterated in his major speech in Perth before leaving Australia, is to reach net zero as soon as possible, preferably by 2050. In London British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in an intriguing but unexplained moment at their joint news conference, stated Morrison had declared for net zero by 2050. Of course he hadnt, and Johnson was aware of that  he has been urging him to do so. We dont know whether there was intent in Johnsons comment, or just sloppiness. In the mouth of a politician, the word preferably is like that handy phrase the government plans to  (or has no plans to ). It is cheap coinage. It certainly wouldnt buy much in Glasgow. But it is useful and it may be the coinage Morrison will need to continue to deal in. Remember we are talking here about political reality, not what is the best policy, which clearly would be to sign up to the target. Weve thought Morrison would want to shift before Glasgow so Australia would have a more credible position internationally, respond to the pressure from the US and Britain, and minimise isolation. Thats apart from the electoral implications surrounding an issue many voters feel strongly about. But Morrison this year has already worn the awkwardness of taking Australias weak position through Joe Bidens virtual climate summit and maintaining it during his trip to the G7 meeting. And even if he changed for Glasgow, other countries wouldnt be convinced. Thered be no foreign applause. The sharp point of the debate has moved from 2050 to the medium term, and Morrison wont make Australias 2030 targets more ambitious (though hell argue it will exceed them and possibly even project to 2035). The US and the UK have leaned on Morrison, and he hasnt firmed his 2050 stand. Now, at home, its increasingly looking dangerous for him to do so, even though work is under way to map out Australias emissions technology plans and what that means for reductions. Its a risk-benefit judgment for Morrison, and the risk of moving could be high. Not all the Nationals oppose the 2050 target but enough of them do  and very strongly  to create a serious obstacle for the PM. The opponents within the minor party are bolshie and willing to fight. Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie was a minister until she became the fall girl in the sports rorts affair. She doesnt owe anything to Morrison or her leader, Michael McCormack. McKenzie was on Sky with Alan Jones this week. The National Party is the second party in this Coalition government. [It] has not signed up to net zero anything at any time and well take a lot of convincing that that is actually the destination we need to get to, she said. Because we know itll be our miners, our farmers, our manufacturers that will be paying the price for all this posturing. We will not let our people be put under the bus to chase some fake ambition to appease overseas masters.  In normal circumstances, Morrison might expect the Nationals leadership to be able to get a desired result  by pointing out there could be benefits for farmers  regardless of noisy dissidents. But nothing is normal in the Nationals. Its a wasps nest. Poke a stick in and anything could happen. McCormack, with a tenuous grip on the leadership, could easily be stung to death. McCormack knows this. Pressed in a Wednesday podcast with The Conversation, he said the Nationals wouldnt be agreeing to the target this year. When it was put to him, we can be sure that the Nats would not embrace that target?, he replied, Correct. Resources Minister Keith Pitt told the ABC on Thursday that for the government policy to change to endorsing net zero by 2050 would require the Nationals agreement and that agreement has not been reached or sought. Asked what the mood of their party room would be now, he said: I think theyd be unsupportive, but we are yet to have that discussion.  If Morrison wants to trigger that discussion, it could be very messy and divisive in the latter months of this year. Failing to embrace the target would not do the Coalition any harm in regional seats in Queensland  in fact it would maximise the difference with Labor. It would obviously be unhelpful. But many of those for whom climate is a major vote-changing issue may have shifted their vote anyway. The prospects of independent Zali Steggall retaining Warringah would probably be assisted by the government failing to endorse 2050. But the Liberals are not reckoning on regaining this seat unless former NSW premier Mike Baird runs, and he has resisted that. So while there would be clear costs in staying with the weasel words, as soon as possible and preferably, they are arguably not as great as a potential blow-up in the Nationals that could have unforeseen consequences. Greater if he were there than if he just sent Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who wouldnt be noticed. Hed remember Kevin Rudds presence at Copenhagen in 2009 played badly for him. Hed note Tony Abbott did not attend the 2015 Paris conference. Julie Bishop, as foreign minister, led the Australian delegation. Morrison has said he hopes to go to Glasgow. It would be a matter of scheduling. Hell be in Rome for the G20 at the end of October. The Glasgow conference, which runs from November 1-12, is expected to have a leaders segment at the start, facilitating them going straight from the G20. If he attends, Morrison will be armed with a heap of policy on technology and how it will cut emissions. But he still mightnt have that hard and fast 2050 target in his kit bag. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra. This article was originally published on The Conversation.