Author: Shaun Deverson
I’ve been wanting to write this article for quite a few months now. But such has been my outrage, especially as we now witness the tangible consequences of climate change through the lens of South Australia’s devastating harmful algal bloom that’s killed 1000’s of marine species, that I’ve now had time to gather my thoughts and the space to write this.
The Decision
As soon as the Albanese federal government won its recent election, by a landslide mind you on a platform of an energy transition encompassing renewable energy as its future mechanism, new Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt couldn’t approve one of its major sponsors fossil fuel project extensions quick enough – Woodside’s North West Shelf gas plant. Watt approved the extension until 2070, another staggering 45 years! It’s a watershed decision – locking in more than 4 billion tonnes of additional climate pollution .
The Facts
Fossil fuel combustion is a leading cause of anthropogenic climate change, with methane and CO₂ emissions from projects like this directly driving global heating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and scientists worldwide have repeatedly warned that new fossil gas developments are incompatible with keeping temperature rise to safe levels and minimising disaster risks for future generations. Equally concerning is the proximity of the gas plant to the 50,000-year-old Murujuga/Burrup rock art on the Pilbara coast – irreplaceable cultural monuments now facing decades more air pollution and acid exposure known to degrade these sacred petroglyphs.
The Law
While the project may not strictly trigger every provision under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, it is vital to remember one of the Act’s core requirements: decisions must have regard to the ‘Precautionary Principle’. This principle holds that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental harm. The specific clause of the EPBC Act that invokes the Precautionary Principle is Section 391. Section 391(1) expressly requires the Environment Minister to take account of the precautionary principle when making certain decisions under the Act, including approvals and controlled action determinations. Section 391(2) defines the principle:
Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.
By greenlighting a mega-polluting project with unresolved risks to both the climate and ancient Indigenous heritage, and scientific warnings unresolved, this decision arguably violates both the spirit and the letter of the Precautionary Principle – potentially rendering the approval legally dubious.
The (Im)Moral Decisions
The Australian Government champions climate action – legislating net zero by 2050, setting a 43% emissions reduction target, investing billions in renewables, and making a high-profile bid to host COP31 in Adelaide, positioning Australia as a global leader and partner to vulnerable Pacific nations.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The government’s climate credentials are now unmistakably undermined by economic interests and political expediency: Woodside’s status as a major Labor Party donor cannot be overlooked. While invoking climate change to drive policy and international prestige, the government signs off on fossil fuel expansion for decades beyond what’s compatible with a safe climate future. The government has also now shifted gear towards changing the EPBC Act to be more ‘fit for purpose’ and address the loopholes in the legislation that it’s just leveraged for economic benefit, and environmental devastation. Nothing like good timing right? However, in the shadows of the South Australia’s harmful algal bloom and record cyclones off Sydney and Brisbane, and associated flooding and economic support thereafter, that decision has aged like milk.
This is more than policy inconsistency – it is a betrayal of future generations and communities now suffering the consequences of escalating climate risks. The refusal to apply the Precautionary Principle enshrined in Australia’s own environmental law may not only be unethical and morally bankrupt, it could be illegal.
The Consequences
Moving the illegalities aside, the decision to continue allowing major fossil fuel projects in Australia into the foreseeable future has profound and multifaceted social, economic, environmental, political, and intergenerational consequences.
Social
- Communities, especially Indigenous peoples, bear disproportionate risks from pollution, loss of cultural heritage sites, and health harms linked to fossil fuel extraction and combustion.
- Increased natural disasters linked to climate change, such as floods and bushfires, strain social infrastructure, displace populations, and amplify inequality.
- Research shows that climate change is exacerbating social tensions and dynamics, such as mental health issues, violence and crime.
Economic
- Continued fossil fuel subsidies in Australia reached a record $14.9 billion in 2024–25, dwarfing disaster recovery funding that is only a fraction of this amount, representing large opportunity costs where funds could be invested in clean energy or disaster resilience. The Federal government have only provided $14M dollars to support South Australia’s response to the harmful algal bloom disaster.
- Fossil fuel projects increase disaster recovery costs due to exacerbating climate-driven extreme weather, which in 2025 caused over $2.2 billion in direct economic damages in Australia alone.
- Tourism sectors suffer where natural environments degrade, including damage to culturally significant sites like Indigenous rock art threatened by fossil fuel pollution. Again, the South Australian tourism industry has been crippled by the harmful algal bloom event that’s likely to persist for the foreseeable future.
- On the flip side, failure to transition risks economic losses estimated at $100 billion per year by 2030 as global demand for fossil fuels declines and clean energy industries rise, presenting substantial missed opportunities for growth and jobs in renewable sectors
Political
- Government support of fossil fuel projects contradicts proclaimed climate leadership, undermining public trust and international credibility, especially with Australia set to host major global events like COP31.
- Corporate donations from fossil fuel companies to political parties raise conflicts of interest, impacting policy decisions and fueling perceptions of unethical governance.
- Political inertia risks entrenching outdated industries, reducing flexibility to adapt to global energy transitions and climate mitigation demands.
Intergenerational
- Locking in emissions through long-term fossil fuel project approvals transfers climate risks and obligation burdens to future generations, compromising their health, security, and economic opportunity.
- Environmental degradation and the loss of cultural heritage sites diminish the inheritance of future Australians and the wider world.
- Failure to heed the Precautionary Principle and address climate change proactively risks irreparable harm, potentially violating ethical duties owed to future people under intergenerational justice frameworks.
The Lost Opportunity
Actions must match words. Climate leadership is measured by the courage to say “no” to polluters, not merely by hosting international conferences or passing feel-good legislation. Decisions like this will echo for decades – and history will not easily forgive or forget this hypocrisy.
Moreover, in economic terms, our government’s unwillingness to truly invest in better ideas, innovations and industries is the true ‘opportunity cost’ or loss. Many economists would say that Australia should continue to play to its strengths and keep on mining and exporting resources. While Australia may be abundant in natural gas and other fossil fuels such as coal, it doesn’t automatically mean we should continue to extract, sell and burn these materials when the evidence is becoming increasingly clear that doing so is only leading humanity and the planet to exponentially more natural disasters, pandemics, biodiversity destruction, mental health crises and others. The dystopian scenes from the movie ‘Bladerunner 2049’ are increasingly becoming a likelihood.
To avert such scenes, we should perhaps look to nations who derive their economic prosperity primarily from innovation and ideas, rather than the extraction and export of natural resources or commodities. These nations typically share common traits such as strong investments in research and development (R&D), advanced education systems, robust infrastructure, and dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems. Unfortunately, these collective traits are where Australia is falling down. While the quality of our R&D is world class, Australia invests less than 1.7 per cent of GDP in R&D, compared with an OECD average of 2.7 per cent. Some of these countries include:
- Germany: Europe’s largest economy with strength in advanced manufacturing, engineering, renewable energy, and pharmaceuticals, underpinned by innovation processes and a skilled workforce.
- Japan: Renowned for precision manufacturing, robotics, electronics, and technological innovation contributing majorly to its stable economy.
- South Korea: A global leader in semiconductor production, electronics, ICT hardware, and innovation-driven economic growth.
- Netherlands: An economy driven by strong institutions, advanced infrastructure, and innovation focus supporting competitiveness and green transition efforts.
South Korea and Germany actually spend well above 3 per cent of their GDP and are reaping the productivity gains that come with it. Australia’s ability to also nurture ‘dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems’ can also be questioned, especially against the likes of the USA and Scandinavia, who seem to be able to flow ideas and innovation into entrepreneurship better than us Aussies. Ultimately, we have an education and financial ecosystem that’s world class but could and should be doing more to translate that posture into better economic outcomes.
The Lesson
The continuation of fossil fuel projects imposes heavy economic costs, environmental harm, social injustice, political hypocrisy, and grave burdens on future generations. Conversely, redirecting investment and policy toward clean energy, disaster resilience, and Indigenous empowerment presents a far more sustainable and ethical pathway forward for Australia.
Ultimately, the lesson is that citizens shouldn’t simply rely on governments. Decades of inaction are proof enough of that and, to be fair, are nothing more than a reflection of the majority. That’s democracy in its purest sense and politicians, in a world of the ‘Overton Window’, won’t change their behaviour and decisions unless citizen’s do. What citizens who want action should do, is engage in practices that Donella Meadows suggest align with more deeper and stronger leverage points of climate change action, as demonstrated below:
Most climate action today happens in the more ‘shallow’ Parameters area – where governments are comfortable and align with the aforementioned Overton Window of acceptable social discourse. Real transformation – a shifting of that discourse, however, requires shifts in goals and paradigms, in the ‘deeper’ Mental models part, which involve actors outside the usual climate/energy policy domain – citizens who’d be categorised as culture makers, educators and community leaders, pushing forward social movements and perhaps new political parties and/or policy groups.
Human systems ultimately are about the behaviours we engage in, as individuals and between each other. If we are wasteful, inefficient and destructive, we have chosen that path, including the politicians we elect to behave on our behalf.
If we want the system to change, we can’t rely on others – we need to be the change.
As author Alice Walker posits in her book of the same name – “We are the ones we have been waiting for”.