The latest flip-flopping by the Coalition on whether it would keep Australia in the Paris climate agreement or not overshadows a bigger point.

Irrespective of whether it is committed to Paris or not, the Coalition’s policies are completely out of step with it, would undermine the agreement on the world stage, and come with serious consequences for our country.

If Australia were to actually leave the Paris agreement – as shadow minister Ted O’Brien refused to rule out in last week’s climate and energy debate – we would be the only country in the world to follow Trump out the door. O’Brien might have had to walk back his comments, but there is no doubt that a significant chunk of Dutton’s party room would prefer this to be the case.

For the party that says it could have avoided tariffs from Trump, it seems completely relaxed about subjecting us to tariffs from elsewhere in the form of carbon border-adjustment mechanisms.

Just as it seems prepared to also tear up our relations with Pacific nations by walking away from the very agreement that underpins their survival.

Simply saying you will stay in the Paris agreement does not cut it. It might create a point of distinction from Trump, but it doesn’t protect us from the economic cost or the cost to our international standing, unless you are prepared to do the hard yards to reduce emissions.

The brutal reality is Dutton’s policy to expand gas production, prolong our coal-fired power stations (which are already breaking down), and waste money on nuclear power plants we don’t need is a recipe for higher emissions and higher electricity prices.

The particular challenge for Dutton when it comes to Paris is that he has no way to get to the government’s existing target of a 43 per cent reduction on 2005 emissions by 2030 without rolling out additional renewables. And we know from Nationals senator Matt Canavan that the Coalition’s nuclear policy is not about what is most effective, it is about wanting to avoid renewables no matter the cost to the nation’s coffers or to the planet’s atmosphere.

But to do anything less than the government’s existing target, or even to delay the same reductions until 2035, which is the next target we are required to develop, would mean Australia “backsliding” on its commitments in breach of the Paris text (Article 4.3). I should know, I was part of the delegation that originally tabled that clause.

That dilemma may be why Dutton’s candidate in Gilmore, Andrew Constance, recently said targets would be “off the table”. However, another foundational element of the agreement is the obligation that it places on governments to have a target to reduce emissions (Article 4.2).

In other words, being part of the Paris agreement, but refusing to table an emissions reduction target is incompatible with international law. In fact, each country’s target is meant to represent the “highest possible ambition” (Article 4).

The Coalition has even begun to crab-walk away from the position Scott Morrison was dragged to kicking and screaming of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 – a north star established by the Paris agreement. It now talks only of decarbonising our energy grid. In other words, a policy of nuclear power, but nothing else to transition our economy.

The fact is, you are either in the Paris agreement and fulfilling the obligations that come with it, or you are not. You cannot be half pregnant.

Therefore, the real question voters should asking themselves is just how committed to the climate is an opposition that has tied itself in knots about whether it is committed to Paris, or even how it will reduce emissions or electricity prices, it seems.

We shouldn’t be hoodwinked by promises of additional gas supply or a 25-cent reduction in the fuel excise: The cost of this kind of inaction will be far greater, including to our trading relationships and reputation.

Thom Woodroofe is a senior international fellow with the Smart Energy Council. He was a diplomatic adviser in the negotiations of the Paris agreement