2035 Emissions Reduction Targets (2024)

Policy Engagement Overview

InfluenceMap's database covers over 500 companies and 250 industry associations globally, with the most engaged entities updated on a weekly basis. The current state of corporate advocacy on this regulation is summarized below. The graph to the right of this page indicates InfluenceMap's capture of corporate positions on the policy, ranging from strong opposition to strong support.

InfluenceMap’s analysis of responses to the Climate Change Authority’s (CCA) 2024 Issues paper: Targets, Pathways and Progress reveals that opposition to ambitious 2035 emissions reduction targets was concentrated among companies and industry associations representing the energy and metals and mining sectors. In contrast, support for ambitious 2035 targets was expressed by entities across a wider range of sectors.

Of the 28 companies and industry associations in InfluenceMap’s database that submitted a response to the 2024 Issues paper, 8 entities (29%) either supported the CCA’s proposal to reduce emissions by 65–75% by 2035 or advocated for more ambitious targets. 11 (39%) communicated an unclear position on Australia’s 2035 targets or supported the CCA’s proposal with some exceptions, while 9 entities (32%) appeared to advocate for less ambitious 2035 targets than proposed by the CCA.

Policy Engagement Trends

• Support for the CCA’s proposal to reduce emissions by 65–75% by 2035 was expressed by companies and industry associations across a broad range of sectors. Tesla (transport) advocated for Australia to adopt 2035 targets of at least 80% below 2005 levels, while the Clean Energy Council (energy) and the Carbon Market institute (cross-sector) both called for Australia’s 2035 targets to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal.
• In addition, a small coalition of companies from the metals and mining sector and the energy sector, including Fortescue Metals Group, BHP, AGL Energy and Origin Energy, appeared to express broad support for ambitious 2035 emissions targets. For example, Fortescue advocated for emissions reductions of at least 75% to be achieved without carbon offsets, while Origin stated that it was “pleased to see” the CCA propose relatively ambitious 2035 targets.
• These positive positions from metals and mining companies and energy companies stand in contrast to the wider engagement trends of industry associations representing both sectors, including the Minerals Council of Australia, Australian Energy Producers, Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and Energy Networks Australia. These associations appeared to support the CCA’s proposal with various exceptions that risk undermining the ambition of Australia’s 2035 targets. Common exceptions included the call for Australia’s 2035 targets to be aligned with the availability of technological development, and arguments that overly ambitious 2035 targets could result in unrealistic emissions reduction requirements for facilities under the Safeguard Mechanism and also undermine the country’s international competitiveness.
• Most companies and industry associations (39%) that responded to the 2024 Issues paper communicated top-line support for emissions reduction targets, yet provided no clear position on the CCA’s proposal to reduce emissions by 65–75% by 2035 and often emphasized the need to balance ambition and achievability in target setting. Entities in this group include the Business Council of Australia, Chevron and Qantas Airways, as well as the Australian Institute of Petroleum, which stated that ambitious targets should be based on a “realistic assessment” of the opportunities for businesses and households to cut emissions.
• Notably, several entities that communicated unsupportive positions on the CCA’s proposal to reduce emissions by 65–75% by 2035 also used their submissions to advocate a prolonged role of fossil gas in the energy mix. For example, the APA Group stated that Australia’s 2035 targets must “account for the appropriate role of fossil gas”, while Woodside Energy appeared to suggest that policies to support increased supply of fossil gas could enable a greater level of ambition in target setting. The Australian Energy Producers and Australian Pipelines and Gas Association likewise appeared to oppose the exclusion of fossil gas from Australia’s Capacity Investment Scheme. These positions appear to be misaligned with IPCC guidance on the global use of fossil gas in 1.5°C decarbonization pathways.