The Claim
“Broke an election promise by trying to scrap the 2020 emissions target.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim that the Abbott government broke an election promise regarding the 2020 emissions target is factually accurate.
In November 2013, shortly after being elected, Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed that his government would abandon Australia's commitment to the higher emissions reduction target range of 5% to 25% below 2000 levels by 2020, committing only to the minimum 5% target [1]. Abbott stated: "Australia will meet our 5% emissions reduction target, but this government has made no commitments to go further than that. We certainly are in no way looking to make further binding commitments in the absence of very serious like binding commitments from other countries" [1].
This represented a clear departure from previous Coalition commitments. Abbott himself had written to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in December 2009, stating that "the Coalition's position of bipartisan support for emissions reduction targets – subject to the conditions that were earlier outlined – remains unchanged" [1]. Environment Minister Greg Hunt had also publicly affirmed the full target range as recently as September 30, 2013, stating "the Coalition is committed to a target of a 5% reduction in emissions and the conditions for extending that target further, based on international action" [1].
The Climate Change Authority, an independent body established by the former Labor government, had found that the conditions for achieving targets higher than 5% had already been met [1]. Despite this assessment, the Abbott government chose to abandon the higher target range.
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors:
The Conditional Nature of the Higher Targets: The 15% and 25% targets were always conditional on comparable international action [1][2]. The original bipartisan agreement reached in 2009 under the Copenhagen Accord specified that Australia would reduce emissions by 5% unconditionally, with the potential for 15% or 25% reductions "if the world struck a strong climate deal" [2]. The Abbott government argued that insufficient international action justified maintaining only the 5% target.
The 5% Target Was Maintained: The government did not abandon the 2020 emissions target entirely—it explicitly maintained the bipartisan 5% reduction commitment [1]. Abbott stated Australia would "meet our 5% emissions reduction target" even while abandoning the higher conditional targets [1].
Australia Technically Met the 5% Target: Despite projections suggesting Australia would miss the target, the government ultimately achieved the 5% reduction through flexibility mechanisms including surplus credits from the first Kyoto period and land use accounting changes [2][5].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian Australia is a mainstream news outlet with a center-left editorial stance. It is generally regarded as credible and adheres to journalistic standards, though it has been described as having a progressive orientation [1]. The specific article cited is factual reporting with direct quotations from official statements.
New Matilda is an independent Australian media outlet that describes itself as publishing "intelligent coverage of Australian and international politics" [3]. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, New Matilda is classified as having a left-center bias and a "mostly factual" reporting rating [3]. It is generally considered more progressive and activist-oriented than mainstream outlets, and its climate coverage typically advocates for stronger environmental action [3][4].
Both sources provided with the claim have documented left-leaning editorial perspectives, which should be considered when evaluating their framing of climate policy criticism.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government emissions targets broken promises Rudd Gillard climate policy"
Finding: Labor governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard also struggled significantly with climate policy delivery, including their own broken promises and abandoned commitments.
Key Labor climate policy failures include:
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS): The Rudd Labor government proposed and then abandoned Australia's first major emissions trading scheme. The CPRS was initially scheduled to commence in 2010 but was twice delayed by the Rudd government before being abandoned entirely after the 2009 Copenhagen summit [6].
"The Greatest Moral Challenge": Kevin Rudd famously declared climate change "the greatest moral challenge of our generation" but then abandoned the CPRS with minimal political explanation, a move widely seen as a broken commitment to serious climate action [7].
Target Setting Without Delivery Mechanisms: While Labor set the 5-15-25% target range in 2009, their policy approach shifted multiple times—from CPRS to carbon tax under Gillard—without successfully establishing a durable, bipartisan framework for achieving even the 5% target [6][7].
Comparative Analysis: Both major Australian parties have struggled with climate policy delivery. Labor set ambitious targets but failed to implement consistent policy mechanisms (CPRS abandoned, carbon tax introduced then repealed). The Coalition maintained the minimum 5% target but abandoned the higher conditional targets and dismantled the carbon pricing mechanism. Neither party has achieved the higher conditional targets (15% or 25%), and both have faced accusations of broken promises on climate action.
Balanced Perspective
While the Abbott government clearly abandoned the higher emissions reduction targets they had previously supported, several factors provide context for this decision:
Legitimate Policy Rationale: The Abbott government argued that Australia should not commit to higher targets without evidence of comparable action from major emitters. Abbott stated: "We certainly are in no way looking to make further binding commitments in the absence of very serious like binding commitments from other countries, and there is no evidence of that" [1]. This position, while reversing previous commitments, aligned with a sovereignty-focused approach to climate negotiations where Australia would not lead without reciprocal commitments from competitors like China and the United States.
The Conditional Framework: The higher targets (15% and 25%) were always framed as conditional on international action [2]. While the Climate Change Authority found these conditions had technically been met, the government had discretion to interpret what constituted "very serious like binding commitments from other countries."
Alternative Policy Approach: The government replaced the carbon pricing mechanism with its "Direct Action" policy (the Emissions Reduction Fund). This represented a fundamentally different approach to emissions reduction—government-funded abatement rather than market-based pricing—but the $3.2 billion allocated was widely criticized as insufficient to meet even the 5% target, let alone higher targets [1][8].
Comparative Context: Labor's own track record on climate policy included the abandoned CPRS, the divisive carbon tax, and failure to establish durable bipartisan climate architecture. The instability in Australian climate policy has been a bipartisan problem spanning multiple governments [6][7].
Key Context: This is not unique to the Coalition. Australian climate policy has been characterized by instability, with both major parties failing to deliver consistent, long-term frameworks. The Abbott government's abandonment of higher targets was consistent with their long-stated opposition to the carbon pricing mechanism, but it did represent a departure from earlier bipartisan commitments to the full 5-25% range.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core claim is accurate: the Abbott government did abandon the higher 15% and 25% emissions reduction targets shortly after being elected, despite previous commitments from both Abbott and Hunt supporting the full 5-25% target range [1]. This represented a broken commitment to the higher conditional targets.
However, the framing in the original sources omits important context: the government maintained the 5% minimum target (which was achieved); the higher targets were always conditional on international action; and both major parties have struggled with climate policy delivery, with Labor itself having abandoned the CPRS after promising decisive action. The claim also overstates by saying "trying to scrap the 2020 emissions target"—the government abandoned the higher targets while maintaining the minimum 5% target, not the entire target framework [1][2].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core claim is accurate: the Abbott government did abandon the higher 15% and 25% emissions reduction targets shortly after being elected, despite previous commitments from both Abbott and Hunt supporting the full 5-25% target range [1]. This represented a broken commitment to the higher conditional targets.
However, the framing in the original sources omits important context: the government maintained the 5% minimum target (which was achieved); the higher targets were always conditional on international action; and both major parties have struggled with climate policy delivery, with Labor itself having abandoned the CPRS after promising decisive action. The claim also overstates by saying "trying to scrap the 2020 emissions target"—the government abandoned the higher targets while maintaining the minimum 5% target, not the entire target framework [1][2].
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.