A Major Policy Reversal

GLOBAL – Australia’s main opposition, the Liberal Party, has officially abandoned its commitment to a legislated net zero by 2050 emissions target, a significant policy reversal that has fractured domestic political consensus and sent ripples of concern through the international community. The decision was confirmed on Thursday, 13 November 2025, following intense internal debates.

In a press conference, Deputy Liberal Leader Sussan Ley stated that while the party remains committed to the Paris Agreement, it would scrap the current government's legally enshrined targets, including a 43% emissions reduction by 2030, if it returns to power. The party argues for a focus on "affordable energy" and reducing emissions through technology and voluntary measures, rather than mandated targets that it claims impose costs on families and industry. This move aligns the Liberals with their coalition partner, the Nationals, who had already rejected the target.

The decision has been met with fierce criticism within Australia. Independent parliamentarians have labelled the move "reckless," while the Greens have accused the party of undermining both the economy and the environment. Critics warn that abandoning legislated targets, while claiming to adhere to the Paris Agreement, is a major contradiction, as the international pact requires nations to progressively increase their climate ambitions, not weaken them.

Implications for Kenya and East Africa

For Kenya and other East African nations on the front lines of climate change, the political shift in a developed G20 country like Australia is a deeply troubling development. Kenya, a strong proponent of global climate action, has embedded its commitments into national law through the Climate Change Act of 2016 and subsequent national action plans. The country aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 32% by 2030, a goal dependent on both domestic efforts and international cooperation.

The economic toll of climate change in Kenya is already severe. The National Treasury estimates that extreme weather events like droughts and floods cost the economy between 3-5% of its GDP annually. The agricultural sector, which employs over 40% of the population and forms the backbone of the economy, is particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures and erratic rainfall. A weakening of the global climate framework, precipitated by actions like that of Australia's opposition, threatens to undermine the collective action needed to mitigate these devastating impacts.

Furthermore, the move could erode trust in the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement, which calls on developed nations—historically the largest emitters—to lead in emissions reduction and provide financial support to developing countries for their climate efforts. Any backsliding by wealthy nations sends a negative signal and could weaken the resolve of the international community to meet its climate finance commitments, which are critical for Kenya's adaptation and mitigation projects.

A Troubling Global Precedent

Analysts view the Australian Liberal Party's decision in the context of a wider trend of wavering climate commitments in some developed nations, often driven by domestic political pressures and economic anxieties. This backpedalling poses a significant threat to the fragile consensus underpinning the Paris Agreement, which relies on all parties progressively strengthening their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Australia's current government has a legislated target of reducing emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and reaffirmed its commitment to net zero by 2050. The opposition's new stance creates significant uncertainty for investors in the clean energy sector and for Australia's international partners who rely on policy stability.

As the world prepares for future climate negotiations, the actions of major economies are under intense scrutiny. A retreat from legislated targets by a key developed country could embolden other nations to dilute their own ambitions, making the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels increasingly difficult to achieve. For nations like Kenya, which contribute negligibly to global emissions but suffer disproportionately from their effects, such a development would represent a profound and dangerous setback.