Australia's Climate Credibility Gap: Ambitious Targets, Fossil Fuel Billions, and a Mechanism Under Strain - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

The Albanese government has set a headline-making 2035 emissions target.
But independent analysts say the rate of cuts must triple, 
industrial baselines remain too generous, and 
$14.9 billion in annual fossil-fuel supports make the headline look hollow.

Key Points

Australia has set a 2035 target of 62–70% below 2005 emissions levels, but the CCA says the pace of cuts must triple by the early 2030s to achieve it. 1 Climate Action Tracker rates Australia's 2030 NDC "Insufficient" for 1.5°C, noting transport is projected to become the country's largest source of emissions by 2030 without stronger intervention. 2 The reformed Safeguard Mechanism's first full compliance year, FY2024, saw 219 covered facilities reduce gross emissions to 136 Mt CO2-e, with net emissions falling to 127.8 Mt CO2-e after offset surrenders. 3 Civil penalties for Safeguard non-compliance are capped at AUD$330 per tonne as of July 2024, which critics say is too low to force genuine capital investment in abatement. 4 Total fossil-fuel subsidies across all Australian governments reached $14.9 billion in 2024–25, equivalent to $28,381 per minute, driven mainly by the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme. 5 Australia gave final approval in September 2025 to Woodside's North West Shelf LNG facility to operate until 2070, with Climate Analytics estimating up to 4.3 billion tonnes of lifetime carbon emissions. 6

In September 2025, Australia told the world it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035. 

On the same day, the Climate Change Authority warned that delivering even the lower end of that range would require the current pace of cuts to triple within a decade.¹

That tension, between an ambitious headline target and the structural barriers to achieving it, now defines the central challenge of Australian climate policy. 

Three interlocking problems have converged: 

• A target architecture that independent analysts say falls short of 1.5°C Paris alignment.
• A reformed industrial emissions scheme that is showing early results but carries serious design weaknesses.
• A government that simultaneously champions decarbonisation at home while subsidising fossil-fuel exports on a scale few peer nations match.

The 2035 Target: How It Was Set, and What It Will Take

The Climate Change Authority's final advice, submitted in September 2025, recommended a target range of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 emissions levels by 2035.¹ 

The government accepted that advice in full, setting an identical range and submitting it to the United Nations as Australia's third Nationally Determined Contribution ahead of COP30 in Brazil.

The CCA's own annual progress report, released in November 2025, contextualised what the target demands. Annual emissions fell by 10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in the year to June 2025, the largest drop outside of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ 

But reaching the 2030 target requires accelerating that annual reduction to 18 million tonnes. Reaching the 2035 target will require cuts of 20 to 25 million tonnes per year throughout the remainder of the decade. That means the current pace must roughly triple.

The electricity sector has led the way. It contributed the majority of national emissions reductions in the past year, as coal-fired generation has been progressively displaced by large-scale solar and wind.¹ 

Renewables now make up over 40 per cent of Australia's two largest electricity grids, up from 13 per cent in 2015.

Transport is a different story. Climate Action Tracker projects that, absent stronger intervention, transport will surpass electricity to become Australia's largest single source of emissions by 2030.² 

Australia was among the last developed economies to adopt a vehicle efficiency standard, doing so only in 2024, alongside Russia. The government's own impact assessment estimates the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will reduce cumulative emissions by 16 million tonnes between 2025 and 2030, or about 11 per cent below 2025 levels. Analysts consider that figure meaningful but insufficient.

Agriculture, heavy industry and the resources sector have shown little improvement. Emissions from fossil fuel production, agriculture and waste continue to flatline, according to the most recent national inventory data.² 

The Climate Change Performance Index found in November 2025 that Australia's government planning documents accompanying the 2035 NDC indicated an aim at the lower end of the announced range, with no measures in place to support delivery of the 70 per cent upper bound.⁷

The 2035 target remains unlegislated. The 2030 target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels was embedded in the Climate Change Act 2022, providing regulatory certainty for business and investors. The 2035 equivalent has not received the same treatment, leaving its enforceability dependent on successive governments' willingness to honour it.

The Gap Between Australia's Target and 1.5°C

Climate Action Tracker has rated Australia's 2030 target "Insufficient" against modelled domestic pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C.² 

The assessment was issued after the government's December 2024 projections, which showed Australia tracking toward a 42.6 per cent reduction by 2030.

The CAT has also noted that continuous recalculations of land-use, land-use change and forestry projections have effectively reduced the apparent emissions reduction task for the energy, industry, agriculture and waste sectors.² 

Government projections of land-sector removals quadrupled between 2021 and 2024. The CAT has called for full transparency in land-sector modelling, cautioning that emissions reductions driven by revised forestry estimates represent statistical adjustments rather than structural economic change.

Climate Analytics, in a briefing published in August 2025, found that net emissions had dropped 29 per cent between 2005 and 2024, but that gross emissions had decreased by only two per cent over the same period.⁸ 

The organisation called for Australia to set separate targets for both net and gross emissions in its NDC to clarify the level of abatement required from the Australian economy.

The Climate Change Performance Index, published in November 2025, ranked Australia 56th globally, four places lower than the previous year, among the very low-performing countries.⁷ 

The index's national experts called for Australia to manage a phase-out of coal and gas extraction, and to end fossil-fuel subsidies.

The Safeguard Mechanism: First Results, Persistent Weaknesses

The reformed Safeguard Mechanism, which took effect on 1 July 2023, is Australia's primary tool for regulating emissions from large industrial facilities. It covers around 220 facilities emitting more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, together responsible for a substantial share of national emissions.⁴

The mechanism sets declining baselines for each facility. The default rate of reduction is 4.9 per cent per year to 2030, after which baselines transition to industry-average benchmarks. Total net emissions from all covered facilities must not exceed 100 million tonnes in the 2030 financial year, against a cumulative cap of 1,233 million tonnes between 2021 and 2030.⁴

FY2024 was the first full compliance year under the reformed rules. The Clean Energy Regulator's data confirmed that total gross safeguard emissions fell from 138.7 Mt CO2-e in 2022–23 to 136.0 Mt CO2-e in 2023–24, across 219 covered facilities.³ 

Following the surrender of Australian Carbon Credit Units and Safeguard Mechanism Credits, net safeguard emissions fell to 127.8 Mt CO2-e. The CER issued the first Safeguard Mechanism Credits in February 2025, following that initial compliance reporting cycle.

Compliance was high overall, with 98 per cent of the 219 facilities not in an excess emissions situation by the April 2025 deadline.³ 

One notable exception was Fitzroy (CQ) Pty Ltd, the responsible emitter for two Queensland coal mines, which the Clean Energy Regulator confirmed was in an excess emissions situation of 583,079 tonnes CO2-e and accepted an enforceable undertaking after the company declared it lacked immediate financial capacity to purchase the required credits.

The penalty regime underpins compliance. Facilities that exceed their baseline without surrendering credits face a maximum civil penalty of one penalty unit per tonne of excess emissions. As of November 2024, one penalty unit equals AUD$330.⁴ 

Critics, including the Climate Change Performance Index's national expert panel, argue that even at that rate the penalty signal is too weak to compel large capital investments in abatement technology for facilities with high production values.

A structural concern centres on baselines for major gas facilities. The CCPI national experts assessed in November 2025 that the first public data released under the reformed mechanism showed emissions baselines are, especially for major gas facilities, more permissive than expected, with those facilities generating credits above what analysts had anticipated.⁷ 

The government committed to reviewing the mechanism's scope and design in 2026–27, once two years of post-reform data are available.

The mechanism currently applies to Scope 1 emissions only. It does not cover Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity, nor Scope 3 emissions embedded in exported coal and gas. This matters acutely for Australia's LNG sector, where the combustion of exported gas by overseas buyers generates emissions that dwarf the facility's own operational footprint.

A carbon border adjustment mechanism is under active consideration. Consultation papers were published in November 2023 and November 2024, examining how to prevent carbon leakage as Australian industry faces competition from lower-regulation jurisdictions.⁴ 

Final recommendations are due to government in the near term, with cement, lime and clinker exports flagged as initial candidates for coverage.

The Subsidy Contradiction: $14.9 Billion and Growing

Consider the economics facing a small Queensland coal haulage company in 2024–25. Under the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, the business received a refund on the excise it paid for diesel used off public roads. That refund is not incidental; it is the single largest item in Australia's fossil-fuel subsidy portfolio, worth $10.8 billion in 2025–26 and mainly benefiting multinational mining companies.⁵

When all federal and state supports are aggregated, Australian governments directed $14.9 billion in spending and tax concessions toward fossil-fuel producers and major users in 2024–25, a three per cent increase on the $14.5 billion recorded in 2023–24.⁵ 

The Australia Institute, which compiles the annual estimate, calculates that figure equates to $28,381 per minute, every minute of every day of the year.

The longer-term picture is starker. The forward-estimates value of fossil-fuel subsidies across all federal programs reached $55.5 billion in 2024–25, an increase of $1.2 billion on the previous year's estimate.⁵ 

The most recent figure, incorporating 2025–26 data, has risen further still. By March 2026, The Australia Institute calculated that total subsidies had grown to $16.3 billion, a 9.4 per cent increase on the prior year, growing faster than spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which applies to offshore oil and gas projects including those operated by Woodside, contributed a further $2.1 billion in concessions at the federal level in 2024–25.⁵ 

The total forward-estimates value of $55.5 billion is approximately 11.7 times the balance of Australia's national disaster response fund.

The Woodside Decision: A Defining Signal

On 12 September 2025, Environment Minister Murray Watt gave final federal approval for Woodside Energy's North West Shelf LNG facility to continue operating until 2070. The decision extended the plant's life by 40 years beyond its originally scheduled closure.⁶

Climate Analytics estimated that the extension, including the broader Woodside Burrup Hub development, could generate cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 6.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent between 2026 and 2070. That figure represents roughly 80 per cent of the total 1.5°C-aligned pathway emissions for Australia as a whole.⁶ 

A separate estimate, used in regulatory filings and cited by Mining Weekly, put the lifetime carbon emissions from the NWS extension alone at up to 4.3 billion tonnes.

The scope 3 problem is acute. Woodside has indicated the project extension would emit about 80 million tonnes of scope 3 emissions annually when exported gas is combusted by overseas buyers. Those emissions do not count toward Australia's national greenhouse gas accounts but contribute substantially to global warming.⁹ 

Under Australian national environment law, the federal government is not required to consider the climate harm a project causes globally, a legal loophole that continues to enable approvals.

The approval placed visible strain on Australia's bid to co-host COP31 with Pacific nations in 2026. Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare described the decision as a "dangerous decision that gaslights the nation" and warned it would qualify as a "wrongful act" under the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change.⁶ 

The Climate Change Performance Index noted that Australia's economic interests in maintaining fossil-fuel trade ecosystems "continually undermine its ambitions" in international climate diplomacy.⁷

What Credible Progress Would Look Like

Independent analysts broadly agree on the direction of reforms needed. The Safeguard Mechanism requires tighter baselines post-2030, with stronger constraints on offset use in sectors where on-site abatement is technically feasible.⁷ 

The CCPI experts specifically called for the mechanism to be strengthened by tightening baselines and limiting offsets where abatement is achievable, to secure deeper industrial cuts during this decade.

The price cap on government-held Australian Carbon Credit Units, set at $75 per tonne in FY2024 and indexed to CPI plus two per cent annually, is due for formal review in 2026–27.⁴ 

Many analysts argue the effective carbon price signal remains too low to drive deep decarbonisation in heavy industry.

The 2035 target needs legislative protection. Without that step, subsequent governments retain the legal authority to revise or abandon the commitment. The CCA's 2025 annual progress report recommended seven priority actions, including streamlining approvals for renewable energy projects and extending the Capacity Investment Scheme to maintain deployment momentum.¹

Fossil-fuel subsidy reform presents a harder political challenge. The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme has broad support from mining, farming and transport sectors. A phased reduction, structured to protect small operators and fund transition support for affected regional communities, would require sustained political will that neither major party has signalled. 

The Australia Institute noted in March 2026 that the Australian government itself had signed the Belém Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels at COP30, recognising "the need to phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible."⁵

On the international front, the government's Future Made in Australia agenda, which commits $22.7 billion in clean industry support over 10 years, offers a potential model for export diversification. Green hydrogen, critical minerals processing and low-emission manufacturing have been identified as areas where Australia holds competitive advantages. 

Analysts note, however, that the total value of those commitments remains substantially smaller than the forward-estimates value of fossil-fuel subsidies.

Conclusion

Australia's climate policy landscape in 2025 and 2026 is defined by a gap between ambition and structure. The 2035 target of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels is the most ambitious the country has ever set. 

The institutional architecture, including the reformed Safeguard Mechanism, the Net Zero Plan and the Future Made in Australia agenda, represents a more coherent policy framework than Australia has previously assembled. Yet the pace of actual emissions reduction remains well below what the targets require.

Two structural problems dominate. The first is enforcement: baselines under the Safeguard Mechanism decline at 4.9 per cent per year to 2030, a rate designed to meet that nearer-term objective but not the steeper gradient needed in the years beyond it. 

Civil penalties remain modest relative to the capital costs involved in industrial decarbonisation, and many facilities continue to meet obligations through offset purchases rather than on-site abatement. 

The second is the fossil-fuel subsidy architecture, which continues to direct almost $15 billion per year toward the industries that domestic climate policy is simultaneously trying to constrain.

The Woodside North West Shelf extension crystallised that contradiction in its starkest form. A government that set a landmark 2035 target and a government that approved 40 more years of gas processing are not two separate governments. 

They are the same government, and that tension will define Australia's climate credibility for decades to come. 

How the country resolves it, through policy reform, legislative accountability or mounting international and legal pressure, will matter not just for Australia but for the Pacific communities and global climate trajectory directly affected by the choices made in Canberra.

References

1. Climate Change Authority, 2025 Annual Progress Report

2. Climate Action Tracker, Australia Country Assessment

3. Clean Energy Regulator, 2023–24 Safeguard Mechanism Data Insights

4. International Carbon Action Partnership, Australian Safeguard Mechanism Profile

5. The Australia Institute, Fossil Fuel Subsidies in Australia 2025

6. Climate Analytics, Australian Government Approves Woodside North West Shelf to 2070, September 2025

7. Climate Change Performance Index, Australia Assessment 2025

8. Climate Analytics, 1.5°C-Aligned Targets for Australia, August 2025

9. The Conversation, Woodside's North West Shelf Gas Extension Is Being Challenged in the Courts, February 2026

Back to top

NSW will continue to greenlight coalmine expansions – ignoring a warning from its own climate agency: The Guardian

The Guardian - Adam Morton  Penry Buckley

Minns Labor government criticised over strategy
as no new mines have been proposed for several years

NSW premier Chris Minns and natural resources minister Courtney Houssos. The government will no longer consider proposals for standalone greenfield coalmines. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

The New South Wales government will continue to greenlight coalmine expansions, effectively rejecting a warning from its climate agency that approving new developments would be inconsistent with the state’s legislated emissions targets.

Releasing a statement on the coal industry’s future, the Labor government said it would no longer consider proposals for “standalone greenfield coalmines” on undeveloped sites, but would continue to allow expansions and time extensions at existing mines.

It said this balanced “energy security, jobs and regional development with the need to reduce emissions and meet NSW’s net zero targets”.

The NSW Minerals Council said the announcement was “very positive”, noting it had been several years since a greenfield mine had been proposed through the state’s planning system.

The state’s natural resources minister, Courtney Houssos, said the strategy meant NSW would remain a reliable coal supplier “where market demand exists”.

“Coal has powered NSW for more than a century, and it will continue to support our economy for decades to come,” she said. “We are providing workers and communities confidence about the road ahead, supported by new opportunities as global markets evolve.”

In December, the NSW Net Zero Commission said the government should consider the climate impact when making coalmine planning decisions, including the “scope 3” emissions released after the coal was exported and burned overseas.

It concluded new expansions were not consistent with the state’s legislative emissions reduction commitments, including a 50% cut by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035 compared with 2005 levels, and reaching net zero by 2050.

Georgina Woods, head of research and investigations at the Lock the Gate Alliance, said the 18 coal projects in NSW’s planning pipeline were all expansions and extensions, with no greenfield projects.

She said the proposed expansions and extensions would create hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution.

Woods said the strategy acknowledged global demand for coal was reducing, but did not provide a clear pathway to support communities most affected by the decline, and effectively rejected the advice of the Net Zero Commission ahead of a formal government response expected in June.

“The NSW government is using semantics to mask the truth that coal project approvals will continue as business as usual while everyone else in the state must work harder to reduce pollution and bear the costs of damaging climate change,” she said.

At least eight expansion approvals since 2023 election

The government has approved at least eight coal expansions and extensions since the 2023 election.

The NSW Minerals Council’s chief executive, Stephen Galilee, said the support for further extensions would be welcomed by “thousands of coalmining workers”.

Nearly 90% of the coal extracted in NSW is thermal coal, burned in power plants to generate electricity. It is lower quality than metallurgical coal, which is used in steelmaking and is considered likely to be phased out more rapidly due to clean alternatives.

The government said that while global demand for coal is expected to decline over time, it will remain an important part of the NSW economy as renewable energy and industrial processes are deployed.

The strategy was published as the state’s Environment Protection Authority released rules requiring major coalmines to directly reduce fossil methane pollution, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases driving global warming.

The EPA said high-emitting coalmines would need to capture, treat or convert leaking methane so it is less potent when released into the environment.

“Reducing fossil methane is one of the fastest ways we can limit climate impacts in the near term,” said the EPA’s chief executive, Tony Chappel.

Lock the Gate said the rules had been weakened since a consultation draft last year, and argued the changes breached a duty to protect communities from climate change.

Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Freja Leonard said the fastest way to manage the state’s carbon budget was “cutting emissions off at the source”, and welcomed the commitment not to consider greenfield coalmine applications.

“The NSW government should now plan for the orderly phase-out of coalmining and support for coal workers.”

References

• NSW to ban new coalmines but allow expansions, despite climate warnings  
• NSW Coal Industry Strategy 2026–2050  
• NSW coalmine expansions would breach climate targets, Net Zero Commission warns
• Review of EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Guide for NSW Coal Mines 
• Proposed Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Guide for NSW Coal Mines (Consultation Draft)  
• Breakneck Speed: Summer of Climate Whiplash in Australia

Climate Whiplash: Australia and the World Brace for La Niña - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

The global climate system may be preparing for a sharp reversal, 
one that could redraw weather patterns from Sydney to São Paulo.

Key Points

La Niña is the cool phase of ENSO, shifting global heat and rainfall patterns1 Forecast models suggest a possible transition from El Niño to La Niña within a year2 Eastern Australia faces elevated flood risk during La Niña periods3 Global weather extremes intensify, including hurricanes and droughts4 Food systems and supply chains experience uneven disruption and benefit5 Climate change may amplify ENSO volatility and compound risks6

Understanding La Niña

La Niña is the cool phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, a recurring climate cycle driven by interactions between the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere¹.

During La Niña, sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific become cooler than average, while trade winds strengthen and push warm water westward toward Australia and Southeast Asia¹.

This stands in contrast to El Niño, when weakened trade winds allow warm water to spread eastward, altering rainfall and heat distribution across the globe¹.

The oscillation operates like a vast planetary engine, redistributing heat between ocean and atmosphere, with transitions triggered by shifts in wind strength, ocean currents, and internal variability¹.

Scientists describe La Niña as a cool phase not because the planet stops warming, but because heat is temporarily stored in deeper ocean layers rather than released into the atmosphere¹.

Timing and Climate Signals

Climate models suggest a growing likelihood that a La Niña event could emerge within months of the current El Niño weakening, though forecasts remain uncertain².

Typically, La Niña develops in late winter or spring in the Southern Hemisphere and can persist for nine months to two years².

Multi-year La Niña events, such as those between 2020 and 2023, occur when ocean-atmosphere feedbacks reinforce cooling patterns².

A rapid transition from a strong El Niño to La Niña is not unprecedented, but it signals heightened volatility in the climate system².

Australia’s Flood Cycle

In Australia, La Niña often brings above-average rainfall to eastern states, including New South Wales and Queensland³.

Strengthened trade winds draw moisture-laden air toward the continent, fuelling persistent rain systems and increasing flood risk³.

The Murray-Darling Basin becomes particularly vulnerable, as saturated soils and full rivers leave little capacity to absorb additional rainfall³.

During the 2022 floods, entire communities in northern New South Wales were inundated, illustrating how repeated La Niña years can compound damage.

At the same time, bushfire risk often declines during La Niña due to wetter conditions, although heavy vegetation growth can later increase fuel loads³.

Farmers experience mixed outcomes, with strong crop yields in some regions offset by waterlogged fields, livestock losses, and disrupted harvests.

Shifting Global Weather Patterns

La Niña reshapes atmospheric circulation by intensifying trade winds and altering jet streams across the Pacific⁴.

These changes can suppress storm formation in the eastern Pacific while enhancing activity in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean regions⁴.

In the Atlantic, La Niña reduces wind shear, creating favourable conditions for more intense hurricane seasons⁴.

Conversely, parts of South America and East Africa often experience drought as rainfall patterns shift westward⁴.

Monsoon systems in India and Southeast Asia can strengthen, bringing heavier seasonal rains that support agriculture but also increase flood risks.

Infrastructure Under Pressure

Extreme rainfall during La Niña can overwhelm transport networks, damaging roads, rail lines, and ports in vulnerable regions.

Floodwaters frequently disrupt freight corridors in eastern Australia, delaying exports of coal, grain, and other commodities.

Global shipping routes can also be affected, as storms and altered currents complicate navigation and port operations.

Aviation faces challenges from shifting wind patterns and increased turbulence, which can alter flight paths and fuel consumption.

Food Systems and Uneven Outcomes

La Niña’s influence on agriculture is uneven, benefiting some regions while harming others⁵.

Australia and parts of Southeast Asia often see improved yields for crops such as wheat and rice due to increased rainfall⁵.

However, excessive moisture can damage crops, delay planting, and increase the spread of pests and diseases.

In contrast, drought conditions in South America can reduce maize and soybean production, tightening global supply⁵.

These opposing effects ripple through global markets, affecting food prices and food security in vulnerable regions.

In 2011, La Niña-driven floods in Queensland disrupted sugar production, highlighting how local weather events can have global economic consequences.

Health Risks and Human Impacts

Increased rainfall and flooding during La Niña create conditions for waterborne diseases, including cholera and leptospirosis.

Standing water also expands mosquito breeding grounds, raising the risk of diseases such as dengue and malaria.

Meanwhile, drought conditions in other regions can lead to food shortages and malnutrition.

Prolonged extreme weather events can take a toll on mental health, particularly in communities repeatedly affected by floods or crop failure.

In regional Australia, residents rebuilding after consecutive flood years report heightened stress and uncertainty about the future.

Climate Change and ENSO Volatility

Climate change is not expected to eliminate ENSO cycles, but it may influence their intensity and variability⁶.

Some studies suggest that extreme El Niño and La Niña events are becoming more frequent, though scientific consensus remains cautious⁶.

Warmer oceans can amplify rainfall during La Niña, increasing the likelihood of severe flooding in already vulnerable regions.

The interaction between long-term warming and natural variability creates a more complex and less predictable climate system.

Climate Whiplash and Historical Lessons

A rapid shift from El Niño to La Niña can produce what scientists describe as climate whiplash, where regions swing from drought to flood within short periods.

This pattern strains infrastructure, ecosystems, and emergency response systems.

Historically, La Niña events have shaped economies and societies, influencing crop yields, commodity prices, and migration patterns.

The 1973–74 La Niña contributed to widespread flooding in Australia and reshaped agricultural output across multiple regions.

Preparing for the Next Phase

Governments and industries are increasingly focused on resilience, investing in flood mitigation, early warning systems, and climate-informed planning.

In Australia, infrastructure upgrades and land-use planning aim to reduce exposure to repeated flood events.

Farmers are adapting through diversified crops, improved drainage, and more flexible management strategies.

Yet preparation remains uneven, particularly in regions with limited resources or high exposure to climate extremes.

Conclusion

The prospect of a rapid shift from El Niño to La Niña underscores the volatility of a climate system already under strain from global warming.

For Australia, the transition could mean a return to familiar patterns of flooding and disruption, even as communities continue to recover from recent extremes.

Globally, the effects will be uneven, redistributing risk across regions and sectors, from agriculture to infrastructure and public health.

The challenge lies not only in forecasting these shifts, but in managing their cascading consequences across interconnected systems.

As climate change intensifies, the line between natural variability and human influence becomes increasingly blurred, raising difficult questions about preparedness and responsibility.

The coming months may offer an early indication of how well governments and societies have learned from recent cycles, or whether they remain exposed to the same recurring shocks.

References

1. Bureau of Meteorology – ENSO Overview

2. NOAA – El Niño Southern Oscillation Forecasts

3. Geoscience Australia – Flood Risk

4. UK Met Office – ENSO Impacts

5. FAO – Climate Impacts on Agriculture

6. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

Back to top

Australia’s Net Zero Promise: Keep Digging - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Canberra defends new coal and gas projects by separating domestic emissions targets from export production, a distinction increasingly challenged by scientists and diplomats.1 Australia’s fossil fuel expansion risks overshooting the Paris temperature goals, even as national laws lock in a 2050 net zero pledge.2 A resource‑dependent economy and regional jobs are used to justify new projects, despite growing evidence of stranded‑asset risk in a decarbonising world.3 Claims of climate leadership sit uneasily with Australia’s position among the top coal and LNG exporters, weakening its influence in global climate talks.4 Rising climate impacts, from fires to floods, collide with approvals that lock in decades of emissions and infrastructure.5 Analysts warn that genuine alignment with Paris would require capping new fossil fuel projects and rapidly scaling renewables and storage instead.6

On paper, Australia has joined the world’s climate vanguard, enshrining net zero emissions by 2050 in law and promising deep cuts this decade, yet in the coalfields and gas basins the country is still digging in for the long haul.¹

This tension is defining a pivotal decade for one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, and raising a blunt question in Canberra and beyond: Can a country credibly promise climate leadership while continuing to approve new mines and gas fields that will operate for decades?²

The official line: net zero at home, exports abroad

Successive federal governments have defended new coal and gas projects with a deceptively simple distinction, Australia counts emissions produced within its borders, not the pollution released when its fuels are burned overseas.³

Under this logic, the country can meet its domestic climate targets, largely through electricity decarbonisation and land‑sector measures, while leaving export volumes to be determined by global demand and trading partners’ policies.⁴

The Climate Change Act, passed in 2022, legislates a 43 per cent cut in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by mid‑century, and requires an annual climate statement to Parliament setting out progress and future plans.⁵

Official pathways lean heavily on scaling renewable energy to 82 per cent of generation in the National Electricity Market by 2030, alongside industrial efficiency and cleaner vehicles, while largely sidestepping the export question.¹

Government ministers have repeatedly argued that if Australia did not supply coal or gas, other exporters with weaker environmental standards would simply fill the gap, a position critics label the “drug dealer’s defence”.⁶

The result is a national narrative that treats export projects as commercial decisions, even when they shape the global carbon budget that ultimately determines how much warming Australia must endure.²

Do new projects breach the spirit of Paris?

The Paris Agreement does not name coal mines or gas fields, it binds nations to collective temperature limits, to hold warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees.⁷

For analysts who translate those temperature goals into production pathways, the picture is stark, modelling by international agencies finds no room for new unabated coal projects, and only a shrinking role for gas in a 1.5 degree‑aligned world.⁸

Independent assessments suggest that the emissions embedded in Australia’s existing and proposed fossil fuel projects would consume a large share of the remaining global carbon budget compatible with 1.5 degrees, especially once exported combustion is counted.⁹

The Climate Action Tracker rates Australia’s overall climate policies as falling short of what is needed for a 1.5 degree pathway, and warns that delays in scaling renewables risk locking in higher emissions through the 2030s.¹

Legal challenges inside Australia increasingly press this point, with communities and environmental groups arguing that regulators must consider downstream emissions from exported fuels when assessing new proposals.¹⁰

Courts have begun to grapple with these claims, but a comprehensive federal framework that aligns project approvals with Paris‑consistent carbon budgets remains elusive.¹¹

Balancing incompatible goals?

Australia’s climate strategy is often presented as a careful balancing act, safeguarding export income and regional jobs while gradually cutting pollution at home.³

In practice, many analysts argue that this amounts to running two conflicting policies in parallel, an ambitious domestic decarbonisation agenda, and an expansionary fossil fuel export strategy that assumes someone else will worry about the atmosphere.²

Energy economists warn that the longer Australia leans on this dual track, the higher the risk that today’s investments become tomorrow’s stranded assets, infrastructure unable to earn back its costs in a decarbonising world.⁸

The contradiction is not just moral or diplomatic, it is financial, tying public and private capital to projects that may be out of step with future markets and regulation.⁹

An economy built on exports, and the limits that brings

Fossil fuels remain a pillar of Australia’s export earnings, with coal and liquefied natural gas among the country’s top export commodities by value in recent years.¹²

Royalty revenue and company tax flows help underwrite state budgets, particularly in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales, while thousands of direct jobs support entire towns in the Hunter Valley, the Bowen Basin and the Pilbara.¹³

This economic dependence shapes the national debate over transition, with industry groups and some state governments warning that a rapid phase‑down could erode regional livelihoods and public services.¹⁴

The Commonwealth itself provides significant support through tax concessions and fuel subsidies, including fuel tax credits that effectively lower diesel costs for large mining operators, a measure long criticised by climate advocates as a hidden fossil fuel subsidy.¹⁵

For households, the export boom has produced mixed effects, rising global gas prices have at times fed into higher domestic energy bills, prompting ad hoc market interventions and price caps.¹⁶

These episodes underscore how Australia’s role as a major exporter can collide with its responsibility to protect consumers at home, especially during periods of global volatility and geopolitical tension.¹⁷

The “economic necessity” argument under strain

When ministers approve new gas fields or coal extensions, they often frame them as economic necessities, essential for export revenue, energy security or both.³

Yet global markets are shifting, international agencies report that coal demand is likely to peak this decade under current policies, and that clean energy investment already outpaces spending on fossil fuels worldwide.⁸

Major trading partners including Japan, South Korea and the European Union have committed to net zero targets, and are developing policies to phase down unabated coal and, over time, fossil gas.¹⁸

If these plans hold, long‑lived Australian projects could find themselves supplying shrinking markets, or face carbon border tariffs that erode competitiveness.¹⁹

Some Australian analysts now argue that the “economic necessity” narrative ignores emerging opportunities in critical minerals, green hydrogen and renewable manufacturing, sectors that could provide replacement export income with lower climate risk.²⁰

Others warn that continued spending on pipelines, ports and gas plants can crowd out capital for these new industries by tying up balance sheets and political attention.²¹

Stranded assets and the long life of infrastructure

Coal mines and LNG terminals are built for decades‑long lifespans, often 30 years or more, and their owners typically seek regulatory certainty before committing billions of dollars in capital.²²

In a world aligning with Paris, that time horizon becomes a liability, because demand is expected to decline before many projects reach the end of their design life.⁸

The International Energy Agency has warned that continued approval of long‑lived fossil fuel assets risks locking in emissions incompatible with net zero, and may leave investors and governments bearing losses as facilities retire early.⁸

For Australia, which has already seen coal generators shutter earlier than expected as renewables undercut their economics, the experience of stranded power plants offers a preview of what could happen in export sectors if global demand falls faster than anticipated.²³

The question is whether policy anticipates that risk, or assumes that markets will manage an orderly wind‑down without stronger guardrails.²⁴

Climate leadership, credibility and a dual identity

Diplomatically, Australia now presents itself as a partner in global climate action, highlighting its legislated targets, contributions to climate finance, and ambition to become a “renewable energy superpower”.⁵

At the same time, it remains one of the world’s largest exporters of thermal and metallurgical coal, and a leading supplier of LNG, a dual identity that does not go unnoticed in international negotiations.¹²

Observers from Pacific Island nations, many of which face existential threats from sea‑level rise and stronger storms, have been especially critical, arguing that continued fossil fuel expansion by wealthy countries like Australia undermines trust and endangers their survival.²⁵

Their leaders have called for an explicit commitment to phase out coal and gas production, not just to cut domestic emissions, as the true test of climate solidarity.²⁶

In wider forums, Australia’s push for initiatives such as green hydrogen partnerships and critical mineral supply chains is often welcomed, yet its reluctance to curb fossil fuel exports can blunt its influence when urging others to raise their own ambition.²⁰

Diplomats note that credibility in climate talks increasingly depends not only on domestic targets but on the coherence of a country’s entire economic strategy with Paris goals.⁷

How others read Australia’s dual‑track approach

Among allies and competitors, Australia is frequently seen as a cautious mover, raising its ambition after years of delay, yet still protecting legacy industries that hold political sway.¹

European policymakers, who are pressing ahead with carbon border adjustments on emissions‑intensive imports, watch closely to see whether Australian exports will decarbonise enough to avoid future trade friction.¹⁹

In Asia, some energy importers view Australia as a reliable supplier during their own transitions, while also exploring alternatives that could reduce long‑term dependence on fossil fuels.¹⁸

For climate‑vulnerable nations, however, the message can look contradictory, generous rhetoric on climate finance paired with approvals for projects that will add to global emissions for decades.²⁵

Emissions, extremes and a warming continent

Scientists have linked Australia’s recent run of record heat, catastrophic bushfires, and more intense floods to human‑driven climate change, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.²⁷

The Black Summer fires of 2019‑20, which killed dozens of people and destroyed thousands of homes, were made far more likely and severe by higher temperatures and prolonged drought.²⁸

New fossil fuel projects add to this risk, directly through their domestic emissions, and indirectly through the exported pollution that warms the atmosphere and alters weather patterns affecting Australian communities.⁹

Modelling indicates that keeping warming close to 1.5 degrees would significantly reduce the frequency of extreme heatwaves and dangerous fire weather, compared with a 2 degree world, yet current global trajectories still point higher.⁷

Analysts warn that each large project approved today effectively locks in a slice of future emissions, making the task of meeting later climate targets steeper and more abrupt.⁸

At some point, incremental improvements in efficiency or carbon offsets may no longer compensate for the cumulative impact of continued fossil fuel expansion.⁹

Gas as a “transition fuel”

Australian governments often describe gas as a “transition fuel”, a cleaner alternative to coal that can back up renewables when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.³

It is true that burning gas for electricity produces less carbon dioxide than coal per unit of energy, but this advantage can be eroded or erased by methane leaks along the supply chain, because methane is a potent greenhouse gas.²⁹

International assessments increasingly caution against over‑reliance on new gas infrastructure, noting that rapid growth in renewables, storage and demand‑side management can provide reliability without locking in decades of fossil fuel use.⁸

From a cost perspective, solar and wind paired with batteries are now often cheaper than new gas power plants, raising questions about whether additional gas capacity is truly the least‑cost option.³⁰

The risk is that invoking gas as a bridge delays investment in firmed renewables, extending the life of a fuel that must ultimately decline sharply in any net zero‑aligned scenario.⁸

Investment choices: renewables versus fossil fuels

Capital is finite, and every dollar spent on long‑lived fossil fuel assets is a dollar not available for renewables, storage or transmission upgrades that will be essential to a net zero grid.²¹

Australia has made significant commitments, including the Rewiring the Nation plan to modernise transmission, and funding to accelerate renewable zones and storage projects.⁵

Yet grid constraints, social licence challenges and policy uncertainty have slowed some large‑scale renewable developments, leaving the country short of the pace required to meet its 82 per cent by 2030 target.¹

Industry groups warn that mixed signals, ambitious climate laws alongside approvals for new fossil fuel projects, can deter investors seeking clear, long‑term policy direction.²¹

Analysts argue that tightening climate tests for new fossil fuel proposals, and sharpening incentives for clean energy, would help reorient capital flows toward assets aligned with a decarbonised future.⁸

Communities on the frontline of transition

In regional towns from Moranbah to Muswellbrook, coal mines and gas fields are not abstractions, they are employers, sponsors of local sports clubs and buyers of services that keep small businesses afloat.¹³

Mayors and community leaders often warn that poorly managed transition could hollow out their economies, as happened in parts of Europe and North America when heavy industry declined without adequate planning.³¹

Canberra has begun to acknowledge this challenge, outlining “net zero economies” for regional Australia and committing funds for skills, infrastructure and industry diversification in coal and gas‑dependent areas.⁵

However, locals and unions frequently argue that support remains fragmented and too modest compared with the scale of change ahead, especially if global markets shift faster than expected.¹⁴

The success of Australia’s climate transition will be measured not only in tonnes of emissions avoided, but in whether workers and communities that powered the fossil fuel era are offered credible new pathways rather than abrupt decline.³¹

Public opinion, politics and the approval gap

Surveys consistently show strong public support in Australia for climate action and renewable energy, including among voters in regional areas.³²

At the same time, federal approvals for fossil fuel projects continue, reflecting the political influence of resource‑rich States, industry lobbying and fears of electoral backlash in marginal seats tied to mining jobs.¹⁴

This gap between public sentiment and policy outcomes fuels frustration among climate advocates and younger voters, who see procedural reforms and new targets as insufficient while new extraction proceeds.³²

For major parties, the electoral calculus remains fraught, each must hold urban electorates where climate is a top concern, and regional seats where livelihoods still depend on fossil fuels.²

Indigenous rights and environmental justice

Many proposed coal and gas projects intersect with Indigenous lands and waters, raising questions about consent, cultural heritage and environmental justice.³³

Traditional Owners have challenged approvals in court, arguing that consultation processes are inadequate and that the cumulative impacts on Country, from groundwater drawdown to sacred site disturbance, are not properly assessed.³⁴

Some Indigenous groups have entered benefit‑sharing agreements with resource companies, citing employment and community funding, while others have rejected projects, saying short‑term gains cannot outweigh long‑term damage to Country and climate.³³

International norms such as free, prior and informed consent set a high bar, and experts argue that Australian law still falls short of fully embedding these standards into project assessment and approval.³⁵

Transition phase or structural contradiction?

Supporters of Australia’s current approach describe it as transitional, a pragmatic bridge in which fossil fuel exports gradually give way to clean industries as technology and markets evolve.³

Critics see something more fundamental, a structural contradiction between stated climate goals and a policy framework that continues to enable long‑lived fossil fuel expansion.²

Whether both objectives can coexist depends on the speed and scale of change, a modest increase in fossil fuel production over a short period might be compatible with rapid decarbonisation elsewhere, but large new projects operated for decades are harder to reconcile.⁸

At some point, incremental efficiency gains and offset schemes cannot square the circle if absolute emissions from production and combustion keep rising.⁹

Analysts warn that each year of delay narrows the space for a gentle landing, increasing the likelihood of abrupt policy corrections later that could shock communities and investors alike.⁷

What real alignment would look like

If Australia fully aligned its policies with its climate targets and the Paris temperature goals, the landscape would look different.⁸

New project approvals would be subject to explicit climate tests, including downstream emissions, and assessed against a transparent carbon budget consistent with 1.5 degrees or “well below” 2 degrees.⁹

Fossil fuel expansion would be capped or phased down, with clear timelines for the decline of coal and, later, gas production, accompanied by generous support for affected regions and workers.³¹

At the same time, investment in renewables, storage, transmission, energy efficiency and electrification would accelerate, backed by stable policy that gives investors confidence over decades rather than election cycles.⁵

Tax concessions and subsidies that favour fossil fuels, such as fuel tax credits, would be reformed, with savings redirected into clean energy and regional transition funds.¹⁵

Global market shifts and the risk of falling behind

Global coal demand is expected to plateau and then decline as major economies implement net zero pledges and ramp up renewables, and some scenarios see steep drops before mid‑century.⁸

Gas demand may hold up longer in certain sectors, but faces growing competition from renewables, efficiency and electrification, especially as the cost of batteries and other storage technologies falls.³⁰

Countries that move early to build clean energy industries, from manufacturing solar panels and batteries to processing critical minerals, are positioned to capture new markets and jobs.²⁰

Analysts warn that if Australia clings too long to fossil fuel exports, it risks missing this window, leaving its economy exposed as others diversify and decarbonise.²¹

Already, international capital is increasingly screening for climate risk, and investors in sectors from insurance to superannuation funds are scrutinising exposure to coal and gas, a trend that could raise financing costs for projects seen as inconsistent with net zero pathways.²³

Conclusion: a choice that cannot be deferred forever

Australia’s climate story is one of ambition on paper and ambivalence in practice, a nation that has finally legislated net zero and begun to reshape its power system, yet still leans heavily on coal and gas exports that fuel the very warming it vows to fight.¹

For now, the government holds together a fragile compromise, promising households cleaner, more reliable energy and promising mining regions continued opportunity, while international partners watch to see which vision prevails.⁵

The central tension is not only whether Australia can square its domestic emissions ledger while continuing to export large volumes of fossil fuels, but whether such an approach remains credible in a world that increasingly judges countries on the full climate footprint of their economies.²

As climate impacts intensify, from fires and floods to heatwaves that test the limits of infrastructure and health systems, the political space for hedging may narrow, forcing starker choices.²⁷

In the end, the question is less about what is technically possible than about what kind of economic future Australia chooses, one tied to industries the world is slowly leaving behind, or one that uses its vast renewable resources to power a different kind of superpower status.²⁰

For now, the country is trying to do both, but physics, markets and diplomacy may not allow that balancing act to last indefinitely.⁸

References

1. Climate Action Tracker, Australia country assessment

2. Climate Council, Climate targets in Australia fact sheet

3. Energy Facts Australia, Energy policy explainer

4. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2023

5. Australian Government, Climate change commitments and strategies

6. Climate Council, Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia

7. United Nations, The Paris Agreement

8. International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 roadmap

9. United Nations Environment Programme, Production Gap Report

10. Environmental Defenders Office, Legal challenges to fossil fuel projects

11. Australian Parliament, Environment and Energy Committee materials

12. Australian Bureau of Statistics, International trade in goods and services

13. Productivity Commission, Resources sector overview

14. Minerals Council of Australia, Industry reports

15. Australian National Audit Office, Fuel tax credits scheme

16. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Gas inquiry reports

17. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Energy market updates

18. International Energy Agency, Southeast Asia Energy Outlook

19. European Commission, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

20. CSIRO, Critical minerals and the energy transition

21. Clean Energy Council, Policy and investment updates

22. International Energy Agency, World Energy Investment 2023

23. Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Coal closure and transition case studies

24. Reserve Bank of Australia, Climate change risk to Australian banks

25. Pacific Islands Forum, Climate change statements

26. Climate Council, Pacific Island climate justice

27. Climate Council, Heatwaves and extreme weather in Australia

28. van Oldenborgh et al, Attribution of the Australian bushfires season (Nature Communications)

29. IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report Working Group I

30. Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy analysis

31. OECD, Just transition case studies

32. Lowy Institute, Climate of the Nation polling

33. National Native Title Tribunal, Mining and native title

34. AIATSIS, Indigenous land and resource rights

35. UN OHCHR, Free, prior and informed consent

Back to top

Fuel, fear and fault lines: how the Iran war is rewriting Australia’s energy politics - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Iran’s chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz has exposed Australia’s deep dependence on imported refined fuels and limited reserves1. Short-term policy responses lean toward fossil fuel security, while structural solutions point to faster renewable deployment and electrification2. High and volatile oil and gas prices are lifting household and industry costs, but also improving the economics of solar, wind and storage in Australia3. Transport, agriculture and mining are acutely exposed to diesel and petrol shocks, driving renewed interest in electric vehicles and off-grid renewables4. Australia’s role as a fossil fuel exporter and emerging renewable superpower is sharpening political choices about energy security and climate commitments5. The Iran war underlines that the clean energy transition is not only technological, it is a geopolitical contest over fuels, chokepoints and supply chains6.

On a hot March afternoon in Perth, motorists queue at a a suburban service station, watching digital price boards edge higher with every delivery.¹ 

For many, the jump of tens of cents a litre in a few weeks feels less like a market fluctuation and more like a forewarning.

The immediate cause lies thousands of kilometres away, where Iran’s blockade and conflict around the Strait of Hormuz have choked a route that normally carries about one fifth of the world’s oil.¹ 

For Australia, which imports about 90 per cent of its liquid fuels, the disruption has sent petrol and diesel prices sharply higher and revived a long‑running question: what happens when the ships stop coming.²

Politicians talk about “resilience” and “self‑reliance”, yet the policy choices now being made cut in two directions at once, doubling down on fossil fuel supply to keep the economy running, or using the crisis as a pivot to accelerate renewables, electrification and storage.³ 

The answer will shape not only household bills and regional jobs, but also whether Australia can meet its climate goals in a more volatile world.

From chokepoint to catalyst

In global energy markets, the Strait of Hormuz has always been a vulnerability, yet its closure in wartime has turned a hypothetical risk into a lived shock.¹ 

Crude oil prices have surged, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) benchmarks have risen as traders price in the risk of sustained disruption to Middle Eastern exports.⁴

For most countries, the consequences are higher prices and inflationary pressure. For Australia, the impact runs deeper because the country relies not only on imported crude but predominantly on imported refined petrol, diesel and jet fuel from Asian refineries that themselves depend heavily on Middle Eastern oil.² 

The choke is therefore two steps upstream, hitting crude flows into Singapore, South Korea and Japan, then rippling through to the refined products shipped to Australian ports.²

Short term, governments tend to prioritise keeping fuel flowing at almost any cost, tapping emergency stockpiles, offering subsidies or tax relief and urging producers to lift output.⁴ 

Longer term, however, repeated shocks change investment decisions by households, utilities and industry, shifting capital away from fuels exposed to geopolitical risk and toward renewables that run on sun and wind rather than shipping lanes.³

Crisis: accelerator or brake on clean energy

Past disruptions offer a cautionary tale. The oil price spikes of the 1970s spurred efficiency standards and nuclear expansion in some countries, yet also entrenched new fossil fuel sources such as North Sea oil and later Middle Eastern gas.³ 

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed Europe to turbocharge renewables and heat pumps, but it also triggered a scramble for coal and LNG that raised global emissions in the short term.³

The Iran war appears to be following a similarly mixed script. Analysts warn that rising oil and LNG prices above 100 US dollars a barrel will lift costs across transport, power and manufacturing, yet these same price signals make solar, wind and batteries more competitive on a lifecycle basis.³ 

The International Energy Agency expects clean energy investment globally to keep increasing, with solar alone projected to attract more capital than oil production, even as fossil fuel spending remains substantial.³

In the near term, governments under pressure from voters often reach first for familiar levers, such as expanding gas supply or coal generation, to stabilise prices and avoid blackouts.⁴ 

Whether this crisis produces a “renewable acceleration effect” or a “fossil fuel rebound effect” will depend on decisions made in the next few years about grids, storage, electric transport and industrial electrification, not simply on fuel prices themselves.⁶

Australia’s layered fuel vulnerability

Australia’s predicament is acute because it holds only about 30 to 37 days of petrol, diesel and jet fuel in domestic stocks, well below the 90 days required under its treaty obligations with the International Energy Agency.⁵ 

After years of refinery closures, just two facilities remain in operation, in Geelong and Brisbane, leaving the country heavily reliant on imported refined products from North and South‑East Asia.⁵

Those imports already travel through other narrow maritime passages such as the Malacca, Lombok and Sunda Straits, meaning a crisis in the Persian Gulf is only the first layer of exposure.² 

Any further disruption in South‑East Asian sea lanes would quickly translate into physical shortages, not just higher prices, for a continent‑sized country where regional communities depend on trucks, utes and diesel generators.²

This vulnerability is not theoretical. As conflict in Iran escalated, Western Australia began to see steep increases in retail fuel prices, with average unleaded costs in Perth jumping by around 70 cents a litre in less than a month according to state monitoring data.⁷ 

Families cut back on discretionary driving, and small businesses in freight and construction reported thinning margins as fuel bills rose faster than they could adjust contracts.⁷

Transport: shocks at the bowser

Nowhere are the effects more visible than at the bowser. Australia imports around 90 per cent of its refined fuel, so global oil price spikes flow quickly into pump prices, adding roughly 40 cents a litre compared with pre‑crisis levels by some estimates.⁴ 

For a typical family car with a 60‑litre tank, that means paying around 24 dollars more at each fill, a significant hit to household budgets during a broader cost‑of‑living squeeze.⁴

Rising petrol and diesel costs are, in theory, a powerful driver of electric vehicle uptake because they shorten the payback period for higher upfront EV purchase prices.³ 

Recent disruptions have coincided with spikes in Australian EV sales, helped by state incentives and a growing second‑hand market, as drivers seek protection from volatile fuel bills and look to charge at home from rooftop solar.³

History suggests, however, that surges in EV interest during crises can fade if fuel prices later stabilise and policy support remains patchy.³ 

Without firm fuel efficiency standards, charging infrastructure investment and clear phase‑out dates for combustion engines, temporary price shocks may not translate into a sustained shift in the national vehicle fleet.³

Australia’s aviation and shipping sectors face similar pressures but have fewer immediate alternatives, given the limited availability of sustainable aviation fuels and green shipping fuels at scale.³ 

The result is higher costs for regional air travel and freight, feeding through to ticket prices and the cost of goods in remote areas.⁷

Power bills and the promise of renewables

The gas market links the Iran crisis directly to electricity bills. Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has pushed up international LNG prices as buyers anticipate tighter supplies, even where physical cargoes have not yet been curtailed.⁴ 

In Australia’s interconnected east coast market, gas‑fired generators often set the marginal price of electricity, so higher gas input costs flow into wholesale power prices and, with a lag, household bills.¹²

At the same time, the economics of new generation are shifting. The IEA and other analysts find that the levelised cost of energy from utility‑scale solar and onshore wind has fallen sharply over the past decade, by up to 80 per cent in some cases when combined with cheaper batteries, making them increasingly competitive against new coal and gas plants even before accounting for fuel price volatility.⁹ 

Unlike gas or coal, renewable projects have no exposure to international fuel markets once built, insulating them from geopolitical disruptions in places like the Middle East.⁹

High fossil fuel prices can therefore accelerate investment in grid‑scale batteries and pumped hydro storage, which help manage the variability of wind and solar and reduce reliance on peaking gas plants during demand spikes.⁹ 

In Australia, where households have installed rooftop solar at world‑leading rates, adding batteries and smarter demand response could significantly cut the need for imported fuel‑linked generation over time.⁹

Industry: exposed yet adaptive

Energy‑intensive industries are feeling the strain. Mining operations across Western Australia rely heavily on diesel for haul trucks and stationary generators, so sudden jumps in fuel costs squeeze margins and threaten the viability of marginal projects.⁷ 

Aluminium smelters and fertiliser plants also face rising input costs through higher electricity and gas prices, amplifying competitive pressures in global markets.¹⁰

Yet the same crisis may hasten change. Several major miners have already begun electrifying haul fleets and investing in on‑site renewables and battery systems to cut diesel consumption, lower emissions and reduce exposure to volatile fuel markets.⁷ 

Interest in green hydrogen for steel, ammonia and heavy transport has grown as policymakers and investors look for alternatives that can be produced domestically from renewable electricity.³

For now, these technologies remain costly and often rely on public support or premium markets, but sustained fossil fuel price volatility could shift that calculus faster than expected.³ 

If capital flows into electrification, transmission and clean industrial processes rather than new fossil infrastructure, the current crisis could mark a turning point in Australian manufacturing strategy.⁹

Farming through a fuel and fertiliser crunch

On a grain property in regional New South Wales, a farmer watches the diesel gauge as closely as the weather forecast. Every planting and harvest season depends on affordable fuel for tractors, trucks and pumps, along with fertilisers derived from gas‑intensive processes.¹⁰ 

The Iran conflict has tightened both markets, lifting diesel and fertiliser prices and raising production costs for Australian farmers.¹⁰

Higher input prices tend to feed into retail food costs, adding to inflation and hitting low‑income households hardest.¹⁰ 

Some producers pass on the increases, others absorb them and delay equipment upgrades or reduce hired labour, decisions that can ripple through regional economies dependent on agriculture.¹⁰

Over the longer term, sustained high diesel prices could make electrified farm machinery, such as battery‑powered tractors paired with on‑farm solar, more attractive where grid connections or microgrids are available.⁹ 

Emerging practices, including renewable‑powered irrigation and low‑emissions fertiliser production using green hydrogen, offer potential pathways to reduce the sector’s exposure to both price shocks and emissions constraints, though they are not yet widely commercial.⁹

Households on the front line

For many Australians, the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf become tangible only when they tap a credit card at the servo or open a power bill. Rising fuel prices since the Iran war have been among the fastest in the developed world, according to some analyses, reflecting Australia’s import dependence and limited buffer of domestic stocks.⁵ 

Households in outer suburbs and regional towns, where public transport is sparse, are particularly exposed because driving is often unavoidable.⁷

Some families respond by consolidating trips, delaying visits to relatives and cutting back on discretionary travel, a pattern already visible in surveys and anecdotal reports.⁷ 

Others invest in rooftop solar, home batteries or more efficient vehicles if they have the savings or access to credit, deepening an emerging divide between those able to insulate themselves from energy shocks and those forced to absorb each new spike.⁹

This divergence highlights a central tension in energy policy: measures that rely on households to invest in technology can reduce system‑wide demand and emissions, yet without targeted support they risk leaving low‑income communities more exposed to price volatility.⁹ 

As governments respond to the Iran crisis, decisions about rebates, tariffs and support for social housing retrofits will influence who gains and who loses from the energy transition.³

Exporter and potential clean energy superpower

Australia faces a particular dichotomy. It is one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and LNG, supplying the very fuels whose prices are now spiking, yet it is also positioning itself as a future renewable energy superpower through green hydrogen, critical minerals and high solar and wind potential.³ 

This dual identity complicates domestic debates about how quickly to shift away from fossil fuel production and how to manage the geopolitical implications of doing so.⁶

On one hand, high global prices deliver windfall export revenues and royalties, bolstering budgets and funding services, particularly in resource‑rich states.¹⁰ 

On the other, sustained investment in new coal and gas projects risks locking in emissions and infrastructure that will be costly to retire as global climate policies tighten.³

International agencies warn that to meet agreed climate targets, investment in new unabated fossil fuel supply needs to decline sharply while spending on renewables, grids and efficiency continues to rise.³ 

For Australia, that means deciding whether to treat the current crisis as justification for further fossil expansion or as the last warning before a deliberate pivot to low‑carbon exports such as green metals and clean energy technologies.⁹

Climate goals under pressure

The emissions impact of the Iran war is likely to be complex. In the short term, higher fossil fuel prices can depress consumption and encourage efficiency, but the crisis has also prompted some countries to extend the life of coal plants and approve new gas infrastructure in the name of security.³ 

If such investments persist, they risk undermining the emissions reductions required this decade to keep global temperature goals in reach.³

For poorer countries, the calculus is even harder. Higher energy prices and debt burdens can push governments to delay climate investments, prioritising immediate affordability and access over long‑term decarbonisation, especially where international finance is limited.³ 

That dynamic may widen the gap between advanced economies able to invest in clean technologies at scale and developing nations left reliant on cheap but polluting fuels.³

Australia’s own climate commitments, including emissions reduction targets and net zero pledges, now sit alongside a renewed focus on fuel security and cost‑of‑living relief.⁵ 

Balancing these priorities will require more than slogans, it demands credible plans to cut demand for imported fossil fuels through efficiency, electrification and renewables, rather than simply searching for new supply.⁹

Policy choices at the crossroads

If oil prices remain elevated into 2027, as some experts warn, the choices made today will crystallise into long‑lived infrastructure and market structures.⁶ 

To ensure the crisis leads to faster decarbonisation rather than deeper fossil dependence, analysts point to several priorities: accelerating grid upgrades, setting clear EV and appliance standards, strengthening fuel security rules and directing public finance toward clean energy, not new fossil projects.³

For Australia, a credible strategy would likely include higher minimum fuel stockholdings, diversified supply routes and resilience planning for key sectors, alongside a rapid build‑out of renewables, storage and transmission to cut exposure to imported fuels in power generation.² 

In transport, binding fuel efficiency standards, expanded charging infrastructure and targeted support for EVs and e‑buses could reduce oil demand while improving air quality and household budgets over time.⁹

Critically, regional communities that have long depended on fossil fuel industries will need support to diversify their economies through investment in renewable projects, clean manufacturing and services, so the transition is managed rather than imposed.⁷ 

Without such planning, resistance to change may grow, especially if people feel they are being asked to shoulder the costs of climate policy while energy companies profit from higher prices.¹⁰

A geopolitical transition, not just a technological one

The Iran war has laid bare a simple reality: the energy transition is as much about geopolitics as it is about engineering.⁶ 

Fossil fuels flow through chokepoints controlled by states and, at times, by armed groups, making supply vulnerable to conflict and coercion in ways that electrons on a domestic grid are not.¹

Yet clean energy supply chains have their own geopolitical risks. Solar panels, batteries and critical minerals are concentrated in a handful of countries, raising concerns about new forms of dependence even as reliance on Middle Eastern oil and gas eventually declines.³ 

For Australia, rich in lithium, nickel and rare earths and endowed with strong solar and wind resources, this shift offers both opportunity and responsibility.⁹

Ultimately, the question facing policymakers is not just how to keep the lights on during a distant war, but what kind of energy system they want to inhabit when the next crisis arrives.⁶ 

Whether Australia emerges more resilient, more equitable and on track to meet its climate goals will depend on whether it uses this moment to reduce its exposure to fossil fuel geopolitics, or simply to reroute the same vulnerabilities through different ports and pipelines.²

Conclusion: a fragile equilibrium

The shock from the Strait of Hormuz has exposed how quickly events in a distant waterway can seep into Australian lives, from supermarket prices to regional air tickets. It has also forced a reckoning over the country’s layered fuel vulnerabilities, its limited reserves and its dependence on refineries and sea lanes it does not control.²

At the same time, the crisis has sharpened the appeal of an energy system built on abundant sun and wind, local storage and electrified transport, one less beholden to geopolitical chokepoints and sudden price spikes.⁹ 

Households, miners and farmers are beginning to experiment with this future, installing solar, testing electric machinery and seeking ways to hedge against the next oil shock.⁷

Australia’s governments now sit at a junction. They can treat the Iran war as justification to entrench fossil fuel supply networks, investing in new coal, gas and import infrastructure that may linger beyond a safe climate window, or they can treat it as a final warning, a prompt to double down on renewables, storage and efficiency.³ 

The balance they strike between energy security, economic stability and climate commitments will determine whether today’s queues at the servo become a recurring feature of Australian life or a memory of a system in transition.

References

1. Australian fuel prices: what to expect following newest conflict in Iran (NRMA)
2. Hormuz closure brings Australia’s layered fuel vulnerability to the fore (ASPI)
3. Energy fallout from Iran war signals a global wake-up call for renewable energy (AP / IEA analysis)
4. The Iran war has triggered a fuel price rise. What does this mean for Australian consumers? (The Conversation)
5. The 90-day question looming over Australia’s fuel price pain (SBS)
6. Iran war sparks oil supply crisis lasting until 2027 (news.com.au)
7. From petrol prices to mining, how the Iran war is impacting Western Australia (ABC News)
8. Ominous oil bargain facing Australia as fuel supplies dry up (Yahoo Finance Australia)
9. IEA says faster transition to renewables equals lower household prices (RenewEconomy)
10. How disruption in Iran’s Strait of Hormuz is affecting Australia (The Guardian)
11. How the Middle East war spiked Australia's fuel prices (ABC News)
12. Australian energy bills could surge as Iran conflict drives oil, gas and LNG prices higher (The Guardian)

Back to top