How the Federal Government Communicates Net Zero While Backing Resources
When governments say “net zero” and simultaneously invest in resource-sector projects, the message can feel contradictory. In Australia today, that tension is very real. Below is a deeper look at how the federal government is managing this balancing act — particularly around coal, copper, and the politics of energy transition.
1. The Glencore $600 million lifeline: a case in point
In October 2025, the Australian federal government — together with Queensland — announced a A$600 million package to keep Glencore’s Mount Isa copper smelter and Townsville refinery operating [1][2][3].
The package will be paid in tranches of up to A$200 million per year, contingent on performance.
The smelter complex employs roughly 600 people and represents about half of Australia’s copper-smelting capacity [1].
Officials justified the decision as protecting critical-mineral processing capacity essential to the clean-energy transition [1][2]. It illustrates how Australia’s industrial policy often blurs the line between decarbonisation and resource protection — funding carbon-intensive assets (4–5 t CO₂-eq per tonne copper[16-21]) in the name of sovereignty and jobs.
Current Smelting Emissions are High
Australia has two major integrated smelting-refining operations — Glencore’s Mount Isa–Townsville complex and BHP’s Olympic Dam.
According to CSIRO’s Life Cycle Assessment of Copper Production in Australia, cradle-to-gate intensities for domestic smelting and refining under fossil-fuel energy systems range from 3.8 to 5.2 t CO₂-eq per tonne of refined copper[16].
Facility-level data from the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) scheme show Glencore’s Mount Isa operations emit approximately 3–3.5 million tonnes of CO₂-e annually, translating to about 4–5 t CO₂-eq per tonne of refined copper[18].
The higher end of this range reflects Australia’s coal- and gas-dominated electricity mix, which inflates indirect emissions from electro-refining and auxiliary power use.
Marketing the Message
The seemingly conflicting messaging from the federal government in the Glencore Smelter case somewhat exposes a catch 22 moment in our ‘net zero’ ambitions, where our national strategic position (sovereign & economic) conflicts with our short-term emission reduction schemes.
From a marketing/PR perspective, more detail into the governments investment decision i.e. couple the smelters strategic importance for energy transition narrative with a very honest “this investment will go towards lowering the facilities reliance on coal power, make it more competetive globally - thus further enhancing our net zero position’ - instead of the tinly veiled attempt to market its job saving narrative.
2. Australia’s Net Zero framework
Under the Climate Change Act 2022, Australia has legislated a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, with interim goals including a 62–70 % reduction from 2005 levels by 2035 [4][8]. The federal Powering Australia plan frames the transition as both environmental and economic — “creating new industries, jobs, and regional resilience” [4].
The challenge is coherence: emissions targets are binding in law, yet many resource subsidies and project approvals continue under older frameworks.
3. On to Coal: easy target, hard reality
Coal still remains as the true emotional flashpoint of Australia’s climate debate.
Why it’s targeted:
Coal is still the single largest source of energy-sector CO₂ globally [5].
Methane emissions from Australian coal mines have been found to be under-reported in some basins [5].
Symbolically, coal represents the “old energy” narrative, making it an easy villain in climate communications.
Most Coal operations are closer to major population bases making it ‘visible’ to the general public
The other side of the story:
Coal exports remain a cornerstone of Australia’s trade balance and regional employment [5][6].
Domestically, coal-fired generation is only now being overtaken by renewables for the first time [7].
Many power-station retirements are constrained by grid stability and contractual lifetimes [5].
Coal royalties are a significant contributor to state budgets (yes, not federal budget) as mineral rights are state governed.
So while phasing down coal is critical for emissions goals, the pace must reflect economic and system realities — hence the government’s cautious messaging.
So where to the dominant federal political parties sit with regards to coal and its role in ‘net zero’ ?
Labor sees coal as a declining but still necessary bridge — something to manage responsibly while building clean energy and critical-mineral industries.
The Coalition sees coal as a strategic constant — to be maintained until replacement technologies prove equally reliable and cost-effective.
Both parties recognise coal’s near-term importance, but Labor’s policy assumes a managed exit, whereas the Coalition’s policy assumes a managed endurance.
4. Labor vs Liberal: contrasting policy lenses - or just same same, with neuance.
Labor (current government)
Legislated net zero by 2050 [8].
“Future Made in Australia” plan to onshore clean-energy and critical-mineral manufacturing [11].
Focus on orderly transition, regional jobs, and critical-minerals exports rather than rapid fossil-fuel shutdowns [9].
Avoided reinstating an explicit carbon-pricing scheme [9].
Coalition (Liberal/National)
Supports net zero “in principle,” but prioritises affordability, reliability, and technology neutrality [10].
Promotes nuclear feasibility studies and continued role for gas [10].
Warns that rapid coal exit could risk prices and reliability in regional Australia.
In short: Labor’s language emphasises transition and opportunity; the Coalition’s emphasises balance and realism. Both accept the destination — they disagree on the route and speed. Both parties are navigating the same global trend line toward net zero. The difference is that Labor wants to accelerate and brand the transition as a national growth story, while the Coalition wants to moderate it to protect affordability and energy stability.
So which route do you support?
5. How Australia compares internationally
United States: Industrial-scale incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act link subsidies directly to emissions reduction [14].
European Union: Operates a continent-wide carbon-price mechanism via the EU Emissions Trading System [13].
Canada: Nationwide carbon-pricing and “just transition” funds for coal regions [15].
Germany: Legislated coal phase-out dates paired with financial support for affected communities [15].
Australia, by contrast, has no national carbon-pricing mechanism and continues to subsidise some fossil-linked infrastructure — a structural gap between rhetoric and economic signal.
6. Looking ahead
Net-zero credibility will increasingly depend on policy consistency.
Resource support must be clearly linked to decarbonisation outcomes.
Industry (especially mining and METS) should position itself within the clean-industrial narrative — critical metals, electrified fleets, low-carbon processing.
Coal will remain politically sensitive; expect increased focus on carbon capture, methane abatement, and managed closures.
International investors will continue comparing Australia’s framework with peers that employ market-based mechanisms.
The tension between net-zero ambition and resource reliance isn’t going away soon — but acknowledging and communicating it honestly may be Australia’s most credible step forward.
References
Reuters (2025, Oct 8). Australia unveils $395 million support for Glencore copper smelter.
Financial Times (2025, Oct 8). Glencore secures $394 mn from Australia to keep copper smelter operational.
Mining Weekly (2025, Oct 8). Australia commits A$600 m lifeline to save Glencore’s Mount Isa smelter.
DCCEEW (Australian Govt). Powering Australia Plan and Net Zero by 2050.
Parliament of Australia – Briefing Book (47th Parliament). Coal, Gas and Decarbonisation.
ABC News (2025, Sept 18). Climate targets: Australia on path to net zero?
The Guardian (2025, Oct 13). Electricity from renewables overtakes coal in Australia for the first time.
Australian Government (2022). Climate Change Act 2022. Link
AIIA (2024). COP29 and Australia: Has the Labor Government Been Walking the Talk on Climate Action?
Liberal Party of Australia (2024). A Cheaper, Cleaner and More Consistent Energy Plan for Australia.
Australian Labor Party (2023). Future Made in Australia Policy Platform.
Harvard Business Review (2023). The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability.
European Commission (2024). EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Overview.
U.S. Department of Energy (2023). Inflation Reduction Act Guidebook.
World Bank (2024). Carbon Pricing Dashboard.
Northey, S., Haque, N., & Yellishetty, M. (2021). Life Cycle Assessment of Copper Production in Australia. CSIRO Mineral Resources. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?pid=csiro:EP2021-0010
International Copper Association (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of Copper Cathode Production – 2023 Update. https://copperalliance.org/resource/life-cycle-assessment-of-copper-cathode-production/
Clean Energy Regulator (2023). National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Public Data 2022–23. https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/Published-information/greenhouse-and-energy-information-2022-23
World Bank (2020). Climate-Smart Mining: Minerals for Climate Action. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/953011588875536384
Nuss, P., & Eckelman, M. J. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of Metals: A Scientific Synthesis. PLoS ONE, 9(7): e101298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101298
International Energy Agency (2023). The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions – 2023 Update. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions