 How did you grade the coalition on its climate policy and why? So I gave the coalition an F on climate policy. I graded the coalition with an F. Given a grade of E. I gave them a C. I graded the coalition's emissions policy targets as F. The government is actually still putting taxpayers' money into measures to encourage increased exports of fossil fuels. We are making the problem much worse by encouraging further export of coal and gas from Australia. The slogan technology not taxes is quite dishonest because the technology is being produced by taxes. And of course technology is part of the solution. I mean solar and wind energy are technology. Lithium iron storage or pumped hydro storage is technology. But where we've achieved significant change we've used every tool in the toolbox as well as financial incentives. We've used regulation and we've used education of the community. We also need a price on carbon. And everyone from the business council, environmental groups and card-carrying economists say the most cost-effective way of reducing emissions is to have a carbon price. And unfortunately the government is ideologically opposed to the idea of charging people. They have a very big focus on disaster recovery, which is actually something that they have also been criticised for. So not enough maybe focusing on their preventive measures. There is a lot of funding that has been promised for disaster recovery and that's such a crucial issue for many Australians right now. So when we talk about proactive adaptation so that is looking at the way that we are planning our cities. But also there's a whole heap of preventive measures that we could already start investing. I think we need overall a shift in how we think about living in a changing climate. And that really looks at the long-term protections of climate impacts. And I haven't really, having looked at their policies that I just don't see that kind of long-term vision of what well-adapted Australia should look like. The fact that they have been in power now for over eight years and not introduced fuel efficiency standards as they previously promised, not to have national incentives to bring down the cost of electric vehicles and to really not have a science-based national net zero transport strategy means that we really have to ask what have they been doing in this space to drive down emissions. So transport is a major contributor to both international as well as national greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Fortunately with transport, emissions continue to increase. And on current trajectories, they'll continue to increase for another decade or so. So we can't afford to wait another 10 years to start to reduce those emissions. Now, the government has indicated that concerns associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and possible problems with gas supply in Europe illustrate the importance of accelerating the supply. Of course, that doesn't apply to Australia because we've got plenty of gas. Problem is we're exporting most of it. Probably the best starting point isn't to accelerate gas production but to actually regulate the way in which gas is exported to take account of domestic needs as they change as we transition more towards renewable energy. Taking more account of the gas that we have got and using it wisely and making sure we give regard to domestic consumers would be a strategic approach. So we need to get our gas policy right. We need to make sure that we're transitioning swiftly away from fossil fuel. That in fact, if we want to stay within two degrees there can be no new fossil fuel projects. Ultimately, I think the coalition is going to be judged at least in terms of policy. What are our specific greenhouse gas emissions targets? Do we have a target for net zero? And how certain are we that we are committed to that target? Are the policy instruments in place going to actually reach those ends? Are we contributing to other sets of responses at the international levels? Our commitments are very low compared to other countries. There's also this frustrating doubling down on the fossil fuel sector at precisely the moment when all the international signals are that we should be transitioning away and helping to facilitate that transition away from fossil fuels. We are saying we are deeply committed to this region and to the Pacific step up, but at the same time we're deeply letting down those countries and undermining our diplomatic interests at the same time. So how did you grade Labor? Labor's not doing an incredibly better job. I graded Labor C. I, you know, graded them as a C. It's a pass. And I grade them big. So I gave Labor a C. I graded Labor D. I mean, it's still not nearly good enough, but it's much better than the coalition. I graded Labor D. I mean, it's still not nearly good enough, but it's much better than the coalition. Well, the most significant part of Labor's policies is the commitment to a 43% reduction by 2030. I mean, it's still not good enough, but it's much better than 26 to 28%. We need to decarbonise much more rapidly to avoid dangerous climate change. But the ALP is promising a more significant target. It's also promising to invest in technology, not taxes, dare I use that phrase, by improving the grid so we can make better use of renewables and by having an electric vehicle strategy. Climate change is already affecting Australia and how much it affects us in the future will be determined by how much more the climate changes. We're a significant contributor to that. Every country needs to be reducing its emissions. We can't expect others to be tightening their emissions belt if we refuse to. Labor's targets are better than the coalition and that can't be a bad thing in terms of international responses. I think internationally it would be seen as a positive step for Australia, but certainly it's far from being the case given Australia's ambitions under the ALP. If they were elected, it's far from the case that we would suddenly go from being a laggard to now one of the leading actors on climate change. The targets are relatively unambitious. There's no movement, fundamental movement away from subsidising the fossil fuel sector. They're clearly spooked by the idea of anything approaching a price on carbon, which is still the most obvious policy instrument available to other sort of politics. And so it's very difficult to suggest it should be worth anything more. There is this sense that all countries need to be and be seen to be acting substantively to address what is a fundamental transnational challenge. So Labor has had two commitments coming into this election to reduce transport emissions. So they are proposing primarily to put what they're calling an electric car discount, removing an import tariff from electric vehicles. They've also announced a commitment of $500 million to EV charging infrastructure as well as biofuels and hydrogen. So I see these as positive steps in the right direction, but there's still a lot more work to be done. Any commitment to net zero is incredible without a clear transition towards a low and eventually zero emission transport system. Again, it's a step in the right direction, but there's still a lot more work that would need to be done if they were elected into government to have a credible policy package in place to reduce transport emissions. And we'll have to see coming into the election if there will be greater commitments. The Albanian government's proposal is on disaster readiness, starting to fund actual initiatives that are preventative measures. So that would be in increasing investments in seawalls, on flood levees, on cyclone shelters, for instance, a fire breaks and telecommunication improvements because we have seen in the last just two years how crucial all of those would be. Having looked at that specific policy, I think there is the kind of marriage of short-term measures that we can start or short-term actions that we can start doing already. I think it's very clear for many Australians by now that they're increasing bushfires and floods that we've seen just in the last two years. It's something unprecedented. And the science is telling us that these kinds of events are likely to become actually more frequent. So it just makes economic business sense to look at proactive and preventative measures and start putting in long-term planning how we can live in a changing climate. Well, Labour's not doing an incredibly better job. It's the same policy with the added sort of kicker that, okay, we're going to connect it to net zero. I mean, their policy is powering Australia. They're connecting gas expansion with net zero, although it's not clear how that's actually going to operate. If you accelerate gas production, then you're increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It's not an improvement if just to say we're going to connect it to net zero and then not explain how that's actually going to be implemented. Gas, of course, is a fossil fuel and fossil fuels release greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes to the warming of the planet. It's extremely important that we transition away from fossil fuels. So we need to get our gas policy right. We need to make sure that we're transitioning swiftly. If we want to stay within two degrees, there can be no new fossil fuel projects. Nothing, we can't take anything more out of the ground.