The federal government’s commitment to a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is a major breakthrough in Australia’s climate war, and it should be warmly welcomed. The long-term emissions reduction plan announced today is a solid update on the government’s commitment to developing low-cost, low-emission technologies. But it is not a policy platform to hit the emissions reduction target.

The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the Minister for Industry, Energy, and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, have been consistently clear that there would be no new policies or priorities – and they have stuck to that position.

The government also released its updated projections for Australia’s emissions through to 2030. They show that the target of a reduction of 26-28 per cent below the level in 2005 by 2030 will be exceeded, with an expected reduction of 30-35 per cent. The improvement at the bottom of this range is due to further reductions in emissions from electricity generation, almost entirely driven by state-based policies.

The first difficulty with the Prime Minister’s plan is that a continuation of the projected trend in greenhouse gases to 2050 will mean 195-290 million tonnes a year will still be emitted in 2050. The plan provides no detail that connects the projected technology developments with tackling that substantial 2050 shortfall. This detail may yet be published, but to depend on a rapid improvement in emissions reductions in the 2040s due to technological innovation is a highly questionable strategy.

There are two major concerns with the credibility of the plan. First, it seems to assume that all low-emission technologies can be brought to a point of cost parity with their current high-emission equivalent. This is largely true of renewable energy today. However, getting to this point was not a cost-free journey, and all Australians are still paying for it through their electricity bills. It was also a mandate imposed on electricity retailers, and the government is determined to avoid such policies in future.

Adding carbon capture and storage to a supply chain to remove emissions, or green hydrogen to provide zero-emission energy or chemical feedstock, will both add cost, even if the government’s target for the latter of $2 per kilogram is achieved. There will need to be some form of policy to deploy these technologies: either payment by governments, regulation, or market-based obligation.

The second concern arises because there are many actions to reduce emissions that will not depend on technologies. In the coming years, tens of thousands of small businesses and a couple of hundred big businesses will need to decide whether to switch from processes that produce emissions to those that do not – for example switching from gas to electricity for heat. Every one of these decisions will have a capital equipment replacement cost. If the businesses do not choose the low-emission alternative, then emissions will be locked in for many years, regardless of how cheap new technologies might be in the future.