Let us talk about net zero. It is a simple concept. It means that the greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere are balanced by the amount we take out. It is about cutting emissions as much as possible and offsetting what remains so that we stop adding to the problem of climate change. Members on this side of the House believe in climate science. We believe climate change is real and that it is fuelled by man-made emissions. Most importantly, it has serious consequences for our future if we do not act swiftly. Once‑in‑a‑generation, one‑in‑100‑year events are occurring regularly in our State and across the world. We are seeing such events at an alarming frequency.

Every fire, flood and heatwave reminds us of the cost of inaction. They remind us of the cost of slowing down or stopping investment in renewable energy. To deny the need for governments to reduce emissions and invest in renewable technology is to abandon communities like the flood-prone Northern Rivers, the bushfire‑prone Blue Mountains and, quite simply, everyone who wants to live in a safe, liveable and sustainable city, State, country and world. We must make sure that is available for generations to come. That is why the Government acted swiftly upon coming to government. We legislated a target reduction of 50 per cent of 2005 emissions by 2030 and a 70 per cent reduction by June 2035, culminating in a target of net zero emissions by June 2050. I reiterate that it is not just about legislating those targets; we are backing them with serious investment.

We are not just talking about clean energy; we are building it. Our emissions reduction targets are backed by massive investment. In this year's budget alone, there is $3.5 billion for climate and renewable initiatives. There is $3.1 billion to deliver renewable energy zones, alongside $1 billion to establish the Energy Security Corporation. Those two projects together are critical to unlocking billions of dollars of private capital investment. I assumed those opposite would have thought strongly of and supported those projects, but I will get to that later. That is alongside our Transmission Acceleration Facility. The Government is committing an additional $2.1 billion to fast-track the infrastructure that connects renewable energy projects, including the new wind and solar projects, to the grid. That is all about a sustainable, reliable service for people across our State. It is important to remember that plan was devised by those opposite when they were in government. We are now putting it into action.

It is important to understand the scale of what we are contemplating. Why do we need to make huge investments? Why do we need to commit billions of dollars? The journey we are on is about replacing 8.4 gigawatts of coal-fired power across our State by 2040. There are 2.9 gigawatts at Eraring, which is due to close by 2027. There are 2.7 gigawatts at Bayswater, which is due to close in 2033. There are 1.4 gigawatts at Vales Point, which is also due to close in 2033. There are 1.4 gigawatts at Mount Piper, which is due to close in 2040. We need to roll out at least 12 gigawatts of renewable energy generation by 2030. That is what our infrastructure road map is all about. Alongside that, we need a combined contribution of 15 gigawatts of gas generation. The Government is also focused on that, because it knows that 5 per cent to 8 per cent of our energy will continue to come from gas.

Imagine if we decide not to replace those coal-fired power plants but to turbocharge them instead. Perhaps we are going to keep them running or perhaps we are going to replace them. What would that cost? What is the alternative? The CSIRO has told us that it would cost around $50 billion for the equivalent of our four remaining coal-fired power stations. That is what we are tackling. So far, we have done incredibly well. Seven years ago, 82 per cent of our electricity generation came from five coal-fired power stations. Now we are at around 36 per cent from renewable energy. That is good progress, but we have a long way to go.

In my remaining time, I contemplate what those opposite are proposing in terms of policy going forward. Their counterparts in Canberra have clearly decided that they are not for net zero. In fact, we do not really know what they are for. They like Paris but they do not like the targets. They are a bit confused here too. There is a new Leader of The Nationals. He has taken a position that says they are with their Federal counterparts, but they somehow need to come to an arrangement with their State colleagues as well. It is going to be an interesting time in New South Wales. The problem is real, but those opposite have no idea what they are doing.

 I thank the member for Manly, the member for Newcastle, the member for North Shore, the member for Prospect, the member for Upper Hunter, the member for Barwon, the member for Wagga Wagga, the member for Balmain, the member for Pittwater and the member for The Entrance for participating in what has been a revealing debate. In fact, we have seen those members show their true colours. They are true colours that do not necessarily go together harmoniously. That is the problem for those opposite. The fact is that they have a square peg in a round hole problem. I guess the best illustration of the difficulty that those opposite are confronting was distraction.

I have to give the member for Manly a gold star. I appreciate he is very invested in making sure we act on climate change. But what does a member do when they are part of a party room that is tearing itself apart and changing leaders like underwear? They cast blame. They say, "It's not good enough. Go faster!" The member for North Shore added to that and said, "You guys have stuffed it up. Go faster! Remember, we had this nice bipartisanship moment." What she forgot to mention, though, was what the Liberals were doing at the same time there was a nice bipartisanship moment just before the last election. In fact, what did they do throughout their entire time in government? They privatised electricity assets.

They sold off the State's electricity assets to private enterprise, meaning that the very important levers that we needed for this huge transition were not in the hands of government. The member for Manly and the member for North Shore are madly saying, "It's all your fault and you need to go faster." Meanwhile, what is the member for Upper Hunter saying? "Slow it down. It's all too fast. Stop! It's all too fast." This is their problem. The fact is that we do not know what those opposite stand for, and that is why they are trying to amend this very simple public interest debate motion today, which says that we support net zero.

This House must reiterate its support for net zero because this is a huge challenge. It is a wicked problem and we need to continue the path towards net zero. We need to support renewable energy, because the problem we will confront otherwise was characterised perfectly this morning by the Premier—those opposite would suggest that we just buy candles. That is their suggestion for when the lights start to flicker and we do not have an answer because they were divided and opposed the solution. We just need to buy candles instead. I think it is clear today if members support action on climate change and want a future for their children and their children after them, they must support our Government's plan to reduce emissions and fight climate change.