Two national 2050 goals, is accord What’s More Achievable by 2050, If Either – Net Zero or 80% with Tertiary Qualifications?
The idea here is anchored on the year 2050. National policy ambition has two major achievements marked in the diary: (a) Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions, and (b) 80% of working-age Australians to hold a tertiary qualification, both delivered by 2050.
Nothing herein denigrates the ambition of these two important aspirations. Both these mega policy targets may yet be amended or abandoned along the way to 2050. But assuming they hold, this article sets out to assess which target is more achievable, if indeed either.
It’s also opportunity to test four newcomers (proprietary) ‘AI experts’ casting their predictions 25 years from now, and whether they reach the same or different conclusions when asked identical questions. As with every interview, questions are imperfect. AI answers were only edited for brevity.
Question 1: The Australian Government has made two separate commitments to targets to be achieved by 2050, one regarding climate and CO2 emissions and one regarding tertiary education graduates. What are these targets?
Select Responses by Experts E1 – E4: Answers were uniform across all four (but variable in detail).
E1 – “The Australian Government has legislated a commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is part of its broader Net Zero Plan which aligns with the global Paris Agreement goal to limit warming to well below 2°C, ideally under 1.5°C. Key elements include:
- Legislated net zero by 2050 (E2: “under the Climate Change Act 2022”)
- Legislated 43% reduction in emissions by 2030 (from 2005 levels)
- Sectoral decarbonisation strategies across energy, transport, industry, and agriculture
- Investment in low-emissions tech., e.g. hydrogen, green metals, clean energy exports”
E1: “Under the Australian Universities Accord, the government has committed to a bold education target being 80% of employed working age population (aged 15 to 64) Australians to hold a tertiary qualification (Cert III and above) by 2050. This includes:
- Increasing the proportion of university-educated 25–34-year-olds from 45% to 55%
- Doubling Commonwealth Supported Places in universities from 860,000 to 1.8 million
- Expanding access for the underrepresented (First Nations, low SES, regional, disabled)
- Strengthening VET–Higher Ed alignment and introducing modular, stackable credentials
This target is designed to meet projected labour market demand, where 9 out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary qualifications”.
E3: This is “a dramatic 20% increase from current rates, aiming to boost the nation’s skills”.
Question 2: Based on all public evidence presently available, which of these two 2050 targets are more likely to be achieved. Further, is it both, or is it neither?
This is how AI Experts E1, E2, E3 and E4 summated. And like all experts, their opinions differed.
E1: “Based on current public evidence, Australia is more likely to achieve its net zero emissions target by 2050 than its tertiary education attainment target”. That “Net Zero by 2050 is plausible but not guaranteed” and the “verdict is it being achievable with sustained effort and bipartisan commitment. The policy scaffolding is in place, and the economic case is strengthening”.
The “80% Tertiary Qualification by 2050 was ambitious, but fragile” with “the verdict being the target is visionary but precarious. Success hinges on deep reform, sustained investment, and cross-sector coordination – all …politically and operationally complex”.
“So, while both are technically achievable, net zero is more likely to be realised, barring major political or economic shocks. The tertiary target is more vulnerable to fragmentation, underfunding, and implementation drift”.
E2: “Evaluating the likelihood of these two targets being achieved by 2050 is a complex exercise, as both face significant challenges. Based on publicly available evidence and expert analysis, neither target can be considered a certainty”. “While both targets are challenging, the tertiary education target appears to have a more plausible pathway to achievement”.
“The net-zero target is a ‘wicked problem’ that involves a complete, and fundamental transformation of the Australian economy and energy system in a tight timeframe, with ongoing political and social resistance. The success or failure of this target is tied to a complex web of global and domestic factors, technological breakthroughs, and political will”.
“In contrast, the tertiary education target, while ambitious, is largely within the control of government policy and funding decisions. The reforms proposed by the Uni. Accord provide a clear – if difficult – roadmap for how the target could be reached, primarily by addressing equity and funding issues. It is a monumental task of social engineering, but it does not face the same kind of physical and economic transformation challenges as the net zero goal”.
E3: “Based on current public evidence, neither Australia’s net zero emissions target nor the 80% tertiary qualification target is considered highly likely to be achieved without very significant changes and acceleration in policy development and implementation. However, of the two, the education target faces fewer structural barriers and may be somewhat more plausible, while the net zero target is seen as facing major obstacles and scepticism from independent analysis”.
E4: “Based on public evidence currently available in 2025, the tertiary education target is much more likely to be achieved than the net zero emissions target, though significant challenges remain for both. Of the two, only the education target appears likely to be met, unless Australia dramatically increases climate actions and policy ambition”.
“Australia has legislated its net zero by 2050 goal and achieved nearly 30% emissions reduction below 2005 levels so far, however, progress has recently stalled and there are major obstacles in critical sectors (industry, transport, agriculture) and renewable infrastructure”.
“Policy reliance on land sector carbon offsets and lack of stronger action (e.g., phasing out fossil fuels) means current trends put the 2050 net zero goal at risk-especially if policy or global context weakens. Net zero target is not on track; current policies and evidence indicate Australia is unlikely to achieve net zero by 2050 without urgent, major changes”.
“The commitment for 80% tertiary qualifications by 2050 leverages historic trends of increasing participation in higher education and training. While no recent official progress report is available, expansion of access, technology, and demographic shifts suggest this is highly feasible with regular investment and policy support. Educational targets are considered more achievable, given Australia’s long-term progress and policy focus on education”.
Each of E1 – E4 presented supportive swaths of information. Whilst each covered both issues, the content leaned towards their favoured summated view. Content included:
The multitude of national and international issues, intersecting political, economic, energy, technical, social, and environmental concerns combining to bedevil achieving 2050 Net Zero.
Besides schools’ performance, the crucial risks identified to the 80% target are not addressing systemic barriers to access, the educational preparation of identified equity groups, limited national fiscal capacity and major university financial pressures to fund the expansion.
Question 3: With regards to the 80% graduate target, is there any impact, or not, of Australia's current schools’ performance in preparing students for entry to tertiary study?
Answers were unambiguous across all E1-E4. It’s the HE Accord’s 80% target ‘make or break’.
E 1: “The evidence base is clear: … systemic weaknesses in school performance pose a real constraint on the pipeline”.
E2: “The success of the 80% tertiary education target is fundamentally dependent on how well the school system prepares a far more diverse and larger cohorts for the rigors of HE and VET”.
E4: “Without improvements in school achievement – especially among disadvantaged groups – the ambitious 80% graduate goal will remain at risk”.
Question 4: Comparing the two targets, what evidence is there of 2035 being a critical check point for both Australia's Net Zero and tertiary education ambitions?
Answers were broadly unform with long lists of ‘to dos’, their number and complexity heaping risk and diminishing credibility on achieving both targets by 2050. E4 says: “2035 represents a critical, formal checkpoint in both domains”.
Notably, the Government is believed to be awaiting advice from the Climate Change Authority on 2035 targets and will release a fresh Net Zero plan, on pathways to net zero within the next month.
E1’s advice on the Net Zero target (by 2035):
“Policy: Legislate the 2035 target (range of 57–76% below 2005); embed it in the Net Zero Plan; establish sectoral emissions budgets with enforceable mechanisms; introduce national carbon values or equivalent pricing signals across infrastructure, investment, and regulation”.
“Energy transition: Achieve 82% renewable electricity share; retire most coal-fired power, replace by firmed renewables; Scale up green hydrogen, battery storage, and transmission infrastructure”.
“Transport and industry: Full implementation of the Vehicle Efficiency Standard; electrify freight and public transport corridors; decarbonise heavy industry through electrification/clean fuels”.
“Agriculture and land: Operationalise carbon farming and nature-based sequestration; reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions through innovation”.
“Economic signals: Align public investment and procurement with net zero goals; ensure emissions markets reflect carbon prices >$130/tonne”.
E1’s advice on the 80% tertiary attainment target (by 2035):
“Access and equity: Increase tertiary attainment among 25–34-year-olds from ~45% to 50–52%; close participation gaps for First Nations, regional, low-SES, and disabled learners; embed needs-based funding across VET and Higher Ed via the new ATEC”.
“Schools to tertiary pipeline: Reverse declines in PISA scores, especially in maths and science; strengthen career education and tertiary exposure in secondary schools; expand bridging programs and modular pathways for non-traditional entrants”.
“System reform: Fully implement the Universities Accord reforms; double Commonwealth Supported Places to ~1.4 million by 2035; integrate VET and Higher Ed through stackable credentials and shared infrastructure”.
“Workforce alignment: Ensure tertiary qualifications map to emerging job clusters (AI, cybersecurity, green tech); launch national micro credential frameworks with industry endorsement; operationalise longitudinal data systems to track outcomes and adjust policy”.
Question 5: In what ways are the two 2050 targets connected in assisting or reinforcing their mutual achievement, or is there no clear link?
This was enlightening as for most part these two targets seldom sit in the same policy sentence, perhaps insufficiently promoted as beneficially interacting.
E4: “Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 depends on having a highly skilled, adaptable workforce trained in climate science, sustainable technologies, energy transition, and environmental management- a demand directly addressed by increasing tertiary education attainment”.
E1: “The two targets are connected, not just conceptually, but structurally. While the Net Zero by 2050 and 80% tertiary qualification by 2050 targets are framed separately, they reinforce each other in multiple ways…mutually enabling pillars of the productivity, resilience, and equity agenda”.
“Workforce Transformation: Net zero demands a massive reskilling and upskilling effort – from electricians installing solar panels to engineers designing hydrogen systems; the tertiary target ensures a pipeline of qualified workers for emerging green industries, especially in STEM, digital, and technical fields; the Net Zero Plan explicitly highlights the need for a “high-wage, productive net zero economy” – which hinges on education and training”.
“Regional Development: Both targets require regional uplift: clean energy infrastructure and tertiary access must expand beyond metro centres; universities and TAFEs in regional areas can become hubs for green innovation, research, and workforce development; this dual investment can help reverse population decline and economic stagnation in rural communities”.
“Equity and Inclusion: Climate impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; tertiary education is a key lever for social mobility and resilience; the education reforms aim to close participation gaps for First Nations, low-SES, and regional learners – the same groups most exposed to climate risk; a more educated population is better equipped to adapt to climate change, engage in civic discourse, and drive local solutions”.
“Innovation Ecosystems: Universities and research institutions are central to both targets: they develop low-emissions technologies and new pedagogies for lifelong learning; the tertiary expansion supports R&D capacity, which feeds directly into Australia’s clean tech competitiveness; cross-sector partnerships (e.g. industry–university collaborations) are vital for both emissions reduction and skills development”.
“Economic Strategy: The government’s “Future Made in Australia” agenda links climate action with industrial policy and sovereign capability; a tertiary-qualified workforce underpins this strategy by enabling advanced manufacturing, clean exports, and digital transformation; education is a strategic asset in the race to net zero”.
So, what’s the summary learnings?
Even if legislated, targets 25 years off risk being seen as mere aspirational symbols. E3 warns “Some critics argue that both targets are politically motivated and unlikely to be achieved”.
But for now, they are pegs in the sand. It’s not unsurprising the new breed of ‘AI consultants’ arrive at differing top-level views on such a mega comparative, even though they each dip their proprietary algorithmic buckets into the same ocean of public/accessible information.
E1 conceded: “Asking for a 25-year policy forecast is like tossing a Rubik’s Cube into a tornado: the answer depends heavily on how each AI interprets uncertainty, scenario modelling, and the role of evidence versus speculation”. It depends on AI’s weightings of “strategic foresight, narrative possibility, trend extrapolation, and evidence synthesis” and “you’d likely get different answers”.
If E1-E4 have any credibility, it seems there is little chance that either target will be achieved without a quantum leap in speed of effective policy development and implementation e.g. emissions reductions policy, technology deployment; novel renewable energy technology built at scale; major uplift in schools’ performance; major increase in tertiary funding. This all fits with human intuition.
Optimistically, it’s worth thinking about the links between the two targets and creative actions that promote connections to help reinforce their mutual achievement. Just ask the AI consultants.