As the Nationals abandon their commitment to achieving net zero by 2050, leader David Littleproud has cited a stunning $9 trillion dollar price tag on the policy as a key reason for the move.
Mon 3 Nov 2025 15.00
Photo: AAP Image/Lukas Coch
David Littleproud: “It’s [Net Zero] an expensive way. It’s going to cost $9 trillion. It’s going to put things like Medicare at risk.”
The problem? This is a misrepresentation at best, and simply dishonest at worst.
The figure, now commonly cited by right-wingers like the IPA, originally came from a 2023 report from Net Zero Australia, a partnership of three universities that conducts research into net zero pathways.
While their 2023 study did say that achieving net zero required Australia to “attract and invest $7-9 trillion of capital to 2060 from international and domestic sources”.
It is nonsensical to use this number in the way Littleproud has, for three main reasons:
What does that mean? First, it’s an investment, not simply consumption. It’s the difference between spending $1 million on a holiday or $1 million on a house. In the second option, you get a new asset on the other end, the house. The trillions of dollars in ‘cost’ would also mean trillions of dollars in new assets for Australia.
Secondly, this is all investment, from private companies to individuals, and local, state, territory and federal governments. The $7-9 trillion figure includes a private company building a wind-farm for a profit, but also the cost of a homeowner putting solar power on their roof or switching to an electric vehicle when they’re due for an upgrade.
Overall, it’s clearly misleading to pretend this will cost government budgets $9 trillion.
Net zero will not, as Littleproud claimed, “put things like Medicare at risk”.
And, ironically, this figure is the gross cost of moving to net zero, not the net cost, meaning it does not measure the cost of moving to net zero compared with alternatives. In the status quo, trillions of dollars are already spent on energy infrastructure, including both renewables and fossil fuels. The $7-9 trillion figure is only the “cost” of net zero if the alternative is zero spending on energy infrastructure, by anyone. That would mean no spending on energy generation, power lines, or even cars (including petrol) – not a realistic scenario.
Even on current trends, the study estimated that capital investment in renewables will cumulatively reach almost $2 trillion by 2060 – meaning the “extra” investment required is actually more like $5-7 trillion. But this also doesn’t account for capital investment reductions into fossil fuels, which would save trillions of dollars – so most of that money can come from redirecting investment rather than requiring any more.
Perhaps realising that their $7-9 trillion figure was easy to use in bad faith by those opposed to renewable energy, Net Zero Australia updated the figure in their 2025 report. Now accounting for the alternative option, they estimate that “$1.6 trillion capital investment must be unlocked to achieve net zero by 2050”. This is a fraction of the number Littleproud has been using.
According to the 2025 figure, Australia would only need an additional $64 billion in investment per year – an eminently achievable task in a country with a $1.8 trillion GDP and $735 billion government revenue annually.
Even this price tag does not take into account the costs of inaction, such as managing climate disasters. The National Climate Risk Assessment released earlier this year estimated that increased natural disasters alone would cost the Government $40 billion dollars annually.
This week, the Prime Minister announced $1.1bn in funding for the Kwinana Westport container terminal proposal. But while this project has long been argued by Western Australian governments as necessary, it relies on assumptions that have not materialised and would result in billions of dollars committed to an unecessary project rather than to the urgent and visible crises in housing, healthcare, and education infrastructure.
At the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, conversations are circling back to first principles — what the science says, and what it would mean to act accordingly.
