ºÚÁÏÍø´óʼÇ

Adapted excerpt from Net Zero Commission Chair Nick Rowley’s Keynote Speech delivered at the ºÚÁÏÍø´óÊÂ¼Ç Institute for Climate Risk & Response Industry Forum on October 23, 2025. The Net Zero Commission is an independent body tasked with monitoring progress and providing expert advice to the NSW Government on achieving its emissions reduction targets and climate resilience objective.

Back in 1999, while working in the NSW Premier's Office, Bob Carr walked in carrying a copy of Gail Christiansen's 'Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming'. He asked me to read it and brief him.

I did. And by the time I left the Premier's Office eight years later, New South Wales had introduced the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme - one of the world's first carbon pricing mechanisms - led efforts to establish a state-based emissions trading scheme, and created the Building Sustainability Index, setting minimum sustainability standards for all new residential buildings. 

I am proud that some of these policies remain and have been built on. And I know that (whatever you might think of the former Premier of NSW), on this 'wicked problem' of climate change he was utterly committed to being guided by science, attuned to the risks of climate instability for the economy, environment and people of NSW, and determined to navigate the politics to deliver effective policy. 

I stand here a climate veteran, new to the role of Chair of the Net Zero Commission. 

Much has changed. But these three elements are still vital for any politician or decision maker wanting to make a difference on this most challenging and complex of shared problems. And they are not too different to the purpose of the Net Zero Commission set out in the Climate Change (Net Zero Future) Act 2023.  

Achieving our purpose might be hard, but it can be easily described. 

The Net Zero Commission monitors, reviews, and reports on the state's progress toward emissions reduction targets and climate resilience objectives. It also provides expert advice and recommendations to the Minister and the wider government on how best to meet these goals. And, it educates the public -  enthusiastically -  to facilitate effective climate policy (granted, 'enthusiasm' isn't in the wording of the legislation, but it is important). We have the wisdom of my fellow Commissioners and a crack staff with a mix of skills and experience drawn from inside and outside government to help deliver on this legislated role. 

If there is one thing I have learnt in my time working in NSW, for two years at Downing Street and teaching on the practice of effective climate policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, it is that the 'what' questions,  are considerably easier than the 'how'.  

To illustrate, consider Gout Gout, the Australian sprinter originally from South Sudan. His ambition of winning a medal at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics is to be applauded. But it is only the early morning training, the relentless psychological and physical drive, outstanding coaches and complete commitment that will get him there. 

Put simply: the "what" is the politics. The "how" is the policy. 

At the Commission, we work with partners inside and outside government  to help inform policies that will measurably reduce emissions from energy and electricity systems; mining and industrial activity; planning and the built environment; transport systems; and new infrastructure. 

Have I missed something? No doubt. We also need to be clear about how to reduce and adapt to the risks that are already here.  

We don't and won't have all the answers. But I am confident the Commission will craft the right questions and work with our partners to encourage greater ambition: an informed, rigorous, supportive and critical friend to the NSW government and decision makers in wider society. 

And I am pleased that Ben Newell and Tim Neal from the ICRR are already doing fine work for us assessing the effects on the NSW economy of the warming and climate effects that NSW has already experienced. 

It is all too easy to forget the severity of recent climate events here and elsewhere. They occur, we are concerned and then the next global, national, local, or family 'crisis' or event diverts our attention from the risks associated with a warmer, more unpredictable and unstable climate. 

The people in this room, at the ICRR Industry Forum, are professionals in the field. You know this. The science of risk means we must reduce emissions at scale and focus on targets and timetables. But stating what we want to achieve is very different to achieving it.

As Nick Stern said in his Oxonia lecture prior to the completion of the seminal Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change we confront: "a complex, inter-temporal, international, collective action problem, under uncertainty. " 

That is a hard problem. It is beyond any single discipline. Now is not the time for me to list all the elements of how we need to think about and address it, but after nearly 30 years of working on the climate problem there are two things which I believe are true. 

Firstly, having the perfect political environment and policy settings for a few years followed by their rejection, will not work.

We are – at least in this over-governed, often muddled, yet vibrant democracy – never going to achieve policy 'certainty'.

I don't see it in health, economic, planning, security, environment or education policy so why seek it for climate response?  

What we can achieve is some measure of stability and continuity. And that can be promoted through legislation and institution building. 

These were the arguments we made in my time working at Downing Street. They led to the UK 2008 Climate Change Act and the establishment of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). Policy certainty? No. But climate response is always at the policy table and the CCC has responsibility for both establishing the UK's climate budgets and advising the government on how to get there. 

Nigel Farage might not like it. But to change it, reform must get the votes of the electorate, the seats and then the votes in Parliament. 

When I worked at Downing Street in 2004 around 34% of UK electricity came from the combustion of coal. Around 3. 6% from renewables. By last year 51% of UK electricity came from renewables, less than 1% from coal. Of course, there are many reasons for this, but one of them is the stability and continuity brought about by the 2008 legislation and the work of the CCC. 

So, do we just do what the 'mother country' has done? Do we just follow its lead? We do not.  

Already, the Net Zero Commission has done outstanding work looking at all the equivalent bodies in multiple jurisdictions to better understand what we might learn and apply ourselves.  

Yet, there's a second fundamental dimension we cannot ignore in our response. Climate policy remains immature.  

To put it in context, the Romans and the Persians had pretty effective transport and infrastructure policies a couple of thousand years ago. And at Baiame's Ngunnhu, at Brewarrina, the complex network of stone channels and ponds designed to catch fish as the river levels changed, is a sophisticated example of early engineering and sustainable food systems, and remains some of the oldest human-made structures in the world. 

In contrast, our environment policy has a history going back to 1872 and the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change only entered into force in 1994.

The history of how we meaningfully respond to this problem spans a mere 31 years. 

And if delinking energy growth from economic and emissions growth were anything other than an extremely difficult task, it would have been done by now.  

In addressing the climate problem we need to engage the best minds and ensure that all our policies are grounded in rigorous evidence. 

That is why I am so impressed by the ºÚÁÏÍø´óÊÂ¼Ç Institute for Climate Risk and Response, so pleased to be here today and so enthused to be working with my fellow Net Zero Commissioners and our fine team. 

We need stability and continuity: something which the Net Zero Commission and the support for the Climate Change (Net Zero Future) Act 2023 across the NSW political spectrum, helps achieve.  

And we need to think creatively and rigorously across disciplines through engaging with the people who have the social scientific and wider expertise to understand what interventions are likely to be most effective and attractive. 

That includes all the elements in today's rich agenda.  

We need to understand if Australia can demonstrate how a resource rich economy can decarbonise and demonstrate the feasibility and wisdom of doing so. How? Matt Kean, Richie Merzian, 'Alopi Latukefu, Wesley Morgan and Elizabeth Thurbon have given this more than a passing thought. 

We need to understand the nature of, and costs associated with, the climate risks we face now and into the future. How? Alison Drill, Tom Mortlock, Ben Newell and Kate Lyons work on these matters every day they turn up for work. 

We need to understand how we can keep growing the food we need in an ever hotter, unpredictable and unstable climate. How? Let's learn from Tim Neal, Dana Cordell, Adam Briggs and Arunima Malik. 

How do we account for climate change and achieve the measurable, reportable and independently verifiable emissions reductions that achieving even modest climate targets requires? Noel Harding, Rob Koh, Damian Ogden, Mary Stewart and Tanya Fiedler will share their perspective. 

And – finally – something we should all take heed of: the law. How climate accountability and director's duties are becoming more than what we should do. They are what we must do. Claire Snyder, Geoff Summerhayes, Jennifer Balding and Riona Moodley will help us understand this big step into the mainstream of professional practice. 

We have come a long way since 1996, when I first read 'Greenhouse'. I have read a number of books since then.

Our understanding of this problem, our experience of effective (and ineffective) policy and the availability of the technologies and approaches that will reduce emissions at scale, have progressed beyond recognition.  

We are all engaged in what must be an ongoing learning exercise. 

I, and the Net Zero Commission, both look forward to learning more and working with you on understanding the risks and developing the solutions that achieve emissions reduction and lasting public benefit into the future. Risk and response, equals problem and solutions.