The Coalition is repudiating its longstanding policy positions on climate, even to the extent of disowning many of the structures it created when in government. Such thinking is not from the conservative tradition and has more in common with the radical. In my view, it is an abandonment of the Liberal traditions and values that have long sustained the party’s success.

The Coalition wants to remove net zero targets from Australian law, abolish the Net Zero Economy Agency, reform (read diminish) the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as well as remove the electric vehicle tax concession, battery rebates and Scope 3 emission reporting requirements. It intends to cancel the annual Climate Change Statement to Parliament and remove the statutory mandate of the Climate Change Authority to advise on future targets.

The good news for those of us who want to hand over a better world to the next generation is that many of these extreme measures will have to navigate the Senate. Depending on the Senate’s disposition, the Coalition is unlikely to find much support.

It is the opposition’s role to question government spending. The institutions, policy settings and expenditures must always be questioned to ensure they are fit for purpose and public funds are invested wisely. In the name of reducing the cost of living and protecting the Australian way of life, the Coalition is walking away from any serious attempt to reduce pollution or invest in the natural world that sustains our lives.

The unabashed assault on longstanding measures to drive down emissions and facilitate decarbonisation seems almost pathological rather than rational. More concerning, it is implicit that a future Coalition government will not want to even understand the environmental impact of its policies.

Being of a conservative disposition myself, there is nothing in these announcements that finds any favour with me. I am committed to ensuring generations that follow will enjoy a healthier planet and sustainable economy. A deep love of nature, place and community demands that you ensure nature’s interests are at the heart of all decision making. This includes internalising the cost of carbon pollution into our economy, as we do with pollution more generally.

Sadly the longstanding tradition of conservation in the right in Australian politics has now been abandoned. It has been replaced with a deep dislike, even hate in some quarters, of all things considered “environmental”. The past achievements of the Liberal party in the environmental portfolio are now looked upon with embarrassment.

Leaving aside the fact that building a sustainable economy that is in harmony with nature is the moral path, such is the revolutionary zeal of the Coalition for tearing down the structures created to transition our economy, it appears little to no thought has been given to the very real adverse consequences of these policies.

Pacific nations are looking to Australia for leadership. The impact of climate change is existential for these beautiful island states. If the Coalition approach is adopted, we will not be a credible nation in our own region and this will allow other actors to increase their influence.

There are incredible economic benefits in the green industrial transformation. Recently the South Korean government invested 1,000 tn won (A$1.1 tn) into its transition. China is exporting up to US$30 bn per month of clean technology, up 100% year on year. All major economies are pivoting and we risk being left behind.

The desire of some in the Coalition to mimic One Nation or adopt the language of the Maga movement should not be allowed to prevent Australia from aligning with our key Asian trading partners. Nor should it prevent the EU trade agreement from coming into force. That deal is especially great for our exporters, yet is being criticised by the Coalition for mentioning the Paris agreement, which we are already a signatory to.

International capital primarily looks for the best returns on investment. When mainstream political parties float radical measures sovereign risk is heightened and, even if never realised, the impacts will be felt today. Fund managers seeking to invest for the long term and drive innovation will now hesitate, uncertain of the direction of our decarbonisation journey.

No government policy settings are perfect and all require review and adjustment from time to time. A wiser approach would have been to announce sensible reforms of extant structures in order to improve outcomes for the nation – both for its people and the natural world that sustains them.

However, to devise those policy advances or adjustments, you have to accept that climate change is real. Further, that it will be more expensive in the long term to respond to the consequences than to invest in prevention and adaptation now. Sensible national investment requires climate system knowledge and upgrading infrastructure ahead of time.

At its core, the Coalition plan suggests that to seek prosperity you must abandon the journey to net zero. Net zero is being used as a scapegoat to explain away our declining productivity and is wilfully blind to the impact of pollution. To blame net zero for every national woe might be easy to sell alongside One Nation, but it undermines the Coalition’s reputation of being serious economic managers.

The economic credentials of the Coalition are further diminished by wanting to muzzle the Climate Change Authority and dissolve any accountability frameworks such as setting targets and measuring performance against the same. The “shooting the messenger” approach can never be justified. Pollution will not magically disappear because it is not being reported upon.

There has never been a more important time for conservatives to stand up for nature and advocate for policy settings that support an economic transition to a cleaner economy through encouraging innovation and free markets.

All this brings to mind Giulio Boccaletti’s thesis in his book The Environmental Republic: the environmental challenges we face are not from a lack of scientific knowledge or understanding but are essentially political. He dreams of a society where caring for the natural world is the foundation of our freedom. My own vision for the future has no place for the political chainsaw. Rather I advocate for investment in our body politic and its institutions that will preserve, renew and enrich our world, especially for those that will come after us.