| Key points |
|
Australia’s States and Territories set different climate targets shaped by energy mix, politics and local economies.
Overview
Australia’s federation means climate policy sits across state and territory governments as well as at federal level.[1]
That division produces distinct targets, laws and programmes in each jurisdiction that reflect different economies and political choices.[1]
Understanding those differences explains why some states move faster on renewables while others prioritise gas, mining or adaptation measures.[5]
New South Wales
NSW has legislated interim targets and a long-term commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050 under its Net Zero Plan. [3]
Its policy mix pairs an electricity infrastructure roadmap with renewables zones and planning reforms designed to replace retiring coal generation. [3]
Political debates in NSW often focus on balancing rapid renewable build with regional impacts, approvals processes and grid upgrades. [9]
Victoria
Victoria has one of the most ambitious statutory frameworks, bringing forward its net-zero goal to 2045 and legislating strong interim cuts for 2025, 2030 and 2035. [2]
The state combines renewable energy zones, large-scale storage commitments and sectoral decarbonisation plans to meet its targets. [2]
Victoria’s targets are explicitly written as reductions below 2005 baselines and are backed by interim legislated percentages. [2]
Queensland
Queensland has committed to net zero by 2050 and publishes a net-zero roadmap that links emissions reductions to economic opportunity and energy transition. [3]
The state’s approach emphasises protecting jobs in regions exposed to coal and gas industries while growing renewable and hydrogen opportunities. [10]
Australia’s reef state faces specific adaptation pressures that shape its climate priorities and public debate. [10]
South Australia
South Australia long ago positioned itself as a renewable energy leader and has policies to transform its economy towards net-zero outcomes. [6]
The state has pursued large wind and solar rollout, battery storage and interconnection to support grid stability. [6]
South Australia’s climate strategy also explicitly frames the state’s ambition as an economic opportunity. [6]
Western Australia
Western Australia’s climate policy stresses resilience and a tailored transition given its resource-heavy economy and isolated grid. [5]
The state government has published a climate policy committing to net zero by 2050 but has been more cautious on 2030 interim targets and remains heavily engaged with gas and mining development. [12]
Recent political debates in WA highlight tensions between export-facing gas projects and ambition to decarbonise the domestic system. [98]
Tasmania
Tasmania has one of the earliest net-zero horizons and the state aims to maintain net zero greenhouse gas emissions from 2030 through to 2050 and beyond. [5]
The island’s large hydro base and lower industrial emissions profile make early net-zero trajectories more feasible than on the mainland. [13]
Tasmania supplements its target with short-term action plans that guide policy through 2025. [5]
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT has among the most ambitious territory targets, legislating net zero by 2045 alongside strong climate adaptation programmes. [6]
The city-state frames its policies around electrification, energy efficiency and urban resilience. [6]
Given the ACT’s small scale, many measures focus on leading by example in government operations and public services. [6]
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory published a long-range climate response towards 2050 but political change has produced volatility over near-term targets. [7]
The NT’s policy emphasises adapting to heat and supporting remote communities while exploring gas-led economic pathways. [15]
Recent party positions have shifted debate about whether to maintain or weaken interim 2030 commitments. [99]
What explains the differences?
Energy mix matters: states with strong renewable endowments or hydro capacity can adopt earlier net-zero dates. [13]
Economic structure and regional politics shape choices: resource-rich jurisdictions often prioritise a gradual transition to protect jobs and exports. [12]
Institutional design also matters — some states have legislated interim targets and clear roadmaps while others rely on policy statements and sector programmes. [2]
Implications for national climate policy
State and territory variation creates both opportunities for policy experimentation and friction in national coordination. [1]
Ambitious sub-national targets can push national ambition but cross-border electricity and industry linkages require coherent planning. [3]
Federal-state partnerships will be necessary to deliver infrastructure, grid upgrades and just transition measures for affected workers and regions. [3]
Conclusion
Australia’s states and territories vary in targets and policy instruments because of different economies, grids and political choices. [1]
Where some jurisdictions push early net-zero dates and strong interim targets others focus on gradual decarbonisation alongside continued resource development. [5]
Policymakers and communities will need to navigate those differences to translate sub-national ambition into national outcomes. [3]
References
- Net Zero Plan — NSW Government
- Climate action targets — Victorian Government
- Net zero roadmap — Queensland Government
- ACT Climate Change Strategy — ACT Government
- WA Climate Action — Government of Western Australia
- Government action on climate change — South Australia
- Northern Territory climate change response — NT Government
- Tasmania Climate Change Action Plan 2023–25 — ReCFIT
- Recent NSW progress and targets — NSW Government media release
- WA politics and gas debate — The Guardian
- Queensland and the net zero debate — ABC News
.jpeg)
