Tony Abbott has said Australia should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement that he agreed to as prime minister three years ago.

Key points: Tony Abbott agreed to the climate accord in 2015 when he was still PM, and Australia signed in 2016

Tony Abbott agreed to the climate accord in 2015 when he was still PM, and Australia signed in 2016 He told Sky News last night the best thing Australia could do is pull out

He told Sky News last night the best thing Australia could do is pull out The comments are a strong signal he would cross the floor in Parliament to vote against the National Energy Guarantee

In 2015, Mr Abbott announced the target Australia would take to the Paris talks and called that pledge "responsible and achievable", saying it struck "the right balance between our economic and environmental responsibilities".

But last night, the former prime minister said pulling out of the agreement would be "the best thing we can do right now".

"If we had known then what we know now about America's withdrawal, about the economic damage that renewable energy in particular would do to our power system and to our industries, we would never have signed up," he told Sky News.

"And now that we do know, we should get out, simple as that."

The comments prompted a rebuke from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who said Australia would be sticking to the deal because it "plays by the rules".

"If we sign an agreement we stick to the agreement," Ms Bishop told Sky.

"Australia wants to be seen as a reliable and trusted global partner — we signed the Paris agreement, we can achieve the targets that we set, and they were deliberately set in a way that we could achieve them."

Ms Bishop said Australia had made firm commitments in the Paris agreement which could not simply be discarded.

But Tony Abbott rejected that outright.

"False claims have been made by some of my former ministerial colleagues," Mr Abbott told Sydney radio station 2GB.

"It wasn't a binding commitment, it was an aspirational target, and I'd invite people to go back to the documents released at the time where the word 'target' is used a dozen times."

Greens MP Adam Bandt slammed Mr Abbott saying he would "only be satisfied when a verse about coal-fired power stations is inserted into our national anthem".

There is also a split developing within the Coalition over the Government's National Energy Guarantee (NEG) legislation.

Mr Abbott's comments are a strong signal he could cross the floor in Parliament to vote against it.

"As things stand, I couldn't support it — no," he said.

But Malcolm Turnbull today argued the NEG had "almost universal support" and he "couldn't think of an energy policy that has had broader support".

Sorry, this video has expired PM says energy policy has 'almost universal support' across the country

He said it had backing from the minerals industry, manufacturers, unions and the national farmers federation.

Mr Turnbull said his Government's energy policies were "already starting to reduce prices, we're turning the corner on energy prices".

"So our polices are working," the Prime Minister said.

Mr Abbott denied his position on the NEG was an attempt to damage Malcolm Turnbull's government.

"People who have concerns about this policy are not trying to wreck the Government, we are trying to save it," Mr Abbott said.

Nationals MPs also still weighing up NEG

The number of MPs speaking out against the NEG is growing.

Nationals backbencher George Christensen has been a vocal critic of the NEG, and today said he was considering crossing the floor.

"When it comes to the NEG, I can't support anything that doesn't have an incentive built into it for baseload power," he said.

"Whether that's grants, whether it's direct investment or government equity in projects."

Fellow Queensland Nationals MPs Michelle Landry and Ken O'Dowd have also been pushing for funding for new coal-fired power stations.

Mr O'Dowd told the ABC he supported Mr Abbott's position to ditch the Paris agreement, and Ms Landry said at times she questioned "why are we [were] involved in that [the agreement] when Australia is a very clean country".

"And I, at times, feel that we should be running our own race with this," she said.

But Nationals cabinet minister David Littleproud argued Australia had international obligations to meet.

"Tony Abbott was prime minister when it was brought in, I respect his views, as a backbencher you're entitled to that," the Agriculture Minister said.

"The Government has made fit that you are part of a global economy and the reality is we have global commitments."

'When circumstances change, you change your position'

Much of Mr Abbott's speech to the Australian Environment Foundation on Tuesday night was at odds with the position he took three years ago.

"We are a country that sets credible, achievable targets and we meet them," Mr Abbott said at the time the agreement was struck.

"This is certainly not without costs but the costs are manageable."

As prime minister, Mr Abbott said Australia would keep its commitments.

"The difference between Australia and a lot of other countries, quite frankly is, when we make commitments to reduce emissions we keep them," he told a media conference in July 2015.

"Other countries make all these airy fairy promises, that in the end never come to anything."

But the former PM defended his turnaround on Sky News, saying "now that we know more, we can do differently".

"When circumstances change, you change your position," he said.

Mr Abbott has repeatedly cited Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to explain his call for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

He quoted Dr Finkel as saying "nothing that Australia does to reduce emissions will make the slightest difference to climate".

But Dr Finkel recently said he was taken "totally out of context".

He confirmed on the ABC's Weekend Wrap program he said getting rid of Australia's 1.3 per cent of global emissions makes very little difference numerically.

But Dr Finkel said "if all countries had that attitude and didn't participate in the global drive, the global strategy, then we would get nowhere.

"It is a bit like a democracy. If everybody said 'well my vote doesn't count I won't vote' and we all did that we would no longer have a democracy — that was the context that I made that comment," he said.