The Claim
“Withdrew from Australia's commitment to limit global temperature rises to two degrees.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is MISLEADING. The Coalition government did not "withdraw" from a formal commitment to limit global temperature rises to 2°C. Rather, they submitted an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the Paris Agreement in August 2015 that was widely criticized as insufficient to meet the 2°C target [1].
On 11 August 2015, the Abbott government announced Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030 [2]. This target was formally submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as Australia's INDC under the Paris Agreement [3].
The critical distinction is:
- Australia did not withdraw from the Paris Agreement's goal to limit warming to "well below 2°C"
- Australia submitted a target that independent analysis showed was inconsistent with achieving the 2°C goal
The Climate Action Tracker rated Australia's 2015 INDC target as "inadequate" and noted it was equivalent to only around 5% below to 5% above 1990 levels after accounting for land use factors [4].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical facts:
Australia never formally committed to a specific 2°C-compatible domestic target. The 2°C goal was a global aspirational target agreed at Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015), not a legally binding domestic emissions target that Australia could "withdraw" from [5].
Australia's INDC was comparable to some other developed nations. Prime Minister Abbott stated the target was "fairly and squarely in the middle of comparable economies" - similar to Canada and New Zealand, though below the EU and US [2].
The government claimed per-capita and emissions intensity reductions were significant. The government highlighted that the target would see Australia "halve emissions per person" and achieve "equal cuts in emissions intensity with China" [2].
Australia did not leave the Paris Agreement. The Coalition remained committed to the Paris Agreement framework and the 2°C goal in principle, even while setting a target judged insufficient by experts [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
New Matilda is an independent Australian online media outlet founded in 2004, known for progressive/left-leaning investigative journalism [6].
- Political alignment: Left/progressive - has been critical of both major parties but generally favors Labor/Greens positions
- Journalistic standards: Publishes original reporting and analysis, but with an advocacy-oriented approach
- Reliability: Generally factual in reporting but uses loaded language and framing consistent with its editorial stance
- Potential bias: The headline "inadequate emissions reductions" reflects subjective assessment rather than objective fact
The source appears to conflate Australia's submission of a weak target with "withdrawing from a commitment," which overstates the situation. The article's framing supports a particular political narrative rather than presenting a neutral factual account.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government climate policy 2 degrees Australia"
Finding: Labor's record on climate was also marked by policy failures and inadequate targets:
Rudd Government's CPRS failure (2009): The Rudd government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) - its flagship climate policy - was abandoned after failing to pass the Senate. This scheme was criticized by climate advocates as too weak, with targets that would not have put Australia on a 2°C pathway [7].
Gillard government's carbon price (2012-2014): While Labor implemented a carbon pricing mechanism, it was accompanied by compensation measures that diluted effectiveness. The scheme was designed to transition to an emissions trading scheme linked to the EU, but was repealed by the Abbott government before this could occur [7].
Labor's own weak targets: The Gillard government set a 5% reduction target by 2020 (below 2000 levels), which was widely criticized as insufficient for 2°C alignment - a target the Coalition inherited and maintained [5].
Historical context: Australia has had a bipartisan pattern of setting climate targets below what experts recommend for 2°C alignment. Both major parties have faced criticism from the Climate Change Authority and independent experts for inadequate ambition [4].
Key comparison: The Coalition's 2015 target (26-28% by 2030) was criticized as inadequate for 2°C alignment, but Labor has never set a target that met the 40-60% by 2030 recommendation either. The Climate Change Authority recommended a 40-60% reduction below 2000 levels by 2030 - a target neither party has adopted [4].
Balanced Perspective
The full story:
The Coalition's 2015 INDC target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030 was widely criticized by climate experts and international observers as insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal [4][8]. The Climate Action Tracker rated it "inadequate" and noted it would put Australia on track for over 2°C warming [4].
However, the claim that Australia "withdrew from a commitment to limit global temperature rises to two degrees" is misleading because:
- Australia remained party to the Paris Agreement and its 2°C goal - there was no formal withdrawal
- Australia submitted a target (even if weak), rather than refusing to submit one
- No Australian government has set a 2°C-compatible target - the Coalition's target was inadequate but not uniquely so
- The target was comparable to some peer nations like Canada and New Zealand, though below EU and US ambition
Legitimate government justifications presented at the time:
- The government argued the target was "fair" considering population growth and economic factors [2]
- They emphasized per-capita reductions and emissions intensity improvements [2]
- They positioned it as comparable to other developed economies with similar economic profiles [2]
Key context: The claim conflates inadequate ambition with withdrawal from a commitment. Australia has consistently underperformed on climate across both major parties, with neither achieving the emissions reductions experts recommend for 2°C alignment [4][8].
MISLEADING
5.0
out of 10
The claim misrepresents what occurred. Australia did not "withdraw from a commitment to limit global temperature rises to two degrees." The Coalition:
- Remained committed to the Paris Agreement and its 2°C goal in principle
- Submitted an INDC target (26-28% by 2030) that was widely criticized as insufficient for 2°C alignment
- Was comparable to some peer nations but below what experts recommended
The Coalition's target was inadequate and inconsistent with the 2°C goal, but this is different from "withdrawing" from a commitment. Both major parties have failed to set 2°C-compatible targets, making this a systemic Australian political failure rather than a unique Coalition action.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim misrepresents what occurred. Australia did not "withdraw from a commitment to limit global temperature rises to two degrees." The Coalition:
- Remained committed to the Paris Agreement and its 2°C goal in principle
- Submitted an INDC target (26-28% by 2030) that was widely criticized as insufficient for 2°C alignment
- Was comparable to some peer nations but below what experts recommended
The Coalition's target was inadequate and inconsistent with the 2°C goal, but this is different from "withdrawing" from a commitment. Both major parties have failed to set 2°C-compatible targets, making this a systemic Australian political failure rather than a unique Coalition action.
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.