The Insider/
WA’s tightrope walk on gas 

The opposition to new fossil fuel projects was loud this week at Global Citizen NOW: Perth. Calls for a ban drew cheers; mentions of Woodside drew even louder boos. One panelist told the crowd, “Every project that we stop from going forward will save lives.” 

That was the mood among advocates, activists and the already committed, which is not necessarily where the wider public sits. The State Government’s challenge is to keep investment flowing into Western Australia while showing how the state will move away from fossil fuels. Its message that investment is welcome comes through strongly. Its account of how long-term gas decisions fit with its climate commitments does not. 

Gas in the spotlight 

Speakers challenged the State Government’s support for gas, arguing that limiting warming to 1.5°C means no new fossil fuel projects, including Woodside’s Browse proposal at Scott Reef. The Perth Declaration, handed to Australia’s COP31 team, calls for support to workers and communities as fossil fuel use declines, faster climate finance, and an equal role for Pacific nations. 

Outside the summit, Greenpeace occupied Woodside’s Scarborough platform and delivered a petition with half a million signatures opposing Browse, a $30 billion proposal awaiting state and federal approval. The Conservation Council of WA said the state’s emissions have risen 19% since 2005. Earlier  this month, the High Court ruled that New South Wales planners must consider emissions from exported coal, and conservation groups argue the same principle should apply to Browse. 

Premier Roger Cook used the summit to launch the WA Investment Prospectus, seeking investment in critical minerals, renewable energy and green iron. 

A transition takes time 

Gas and renewables will run side by side for years. That means compromise and imperfect outcomes for everyone: activists who want new projects stopped now, industries that want certainty for decades, and households that want lower bills. 

Governments should be honest about that and clear about how and when gas will be phased out. Calling it a transition only works if people can see the pathway and the timeframe. 

Long gas approvals make that harder. The North West Shelf extension, approved by the State in December 2024 and federally in September 2025, allows operations to 2070. The plant may not run that long, but governments need to show how a 2070 horizon fits with reducing dependence on fossil fuels. So far, they haven’t done that with any confidence. 

Exporting gas does not remove its climate impact. The emissions enter the same atmosphere wherever the gas is burned. I don’t think the government can rely on that accounting distinction as its public case, especially with WA’s energy choices under international scrutiny. 

Reliability 

A successful transition depends on reliability, of both energy supply and government policy. If a faster move away from fossil fuels brings blackouts, price spikes or supply shortages, investment and public confidence will be drained. The transition could then lose political support, which would, ironically, slow the move away from gas. 

Investors commit capital for decades and need confidence the rules won’t change with each news cycle or election. Give them clarity on the transition and stable policy, and the investment will come. If policy shifts with public opinion, capital will wait or go elsewhere. 

This is why gas still has a role while renewables, storage, and transmission are built at scale, and why they need to be built quickly. 

Andrew Forrest argued at the summit that the economics now favour renewables. I agree. As renewables get cheaper and electrification becomes more accessible, I expect fossil fuels to lose their financial backers, as coal has. 

Households need to come along. While electrification was the summit’s theme,   rooftop solar, batteries and EVs are out of reach for renters, lower income households, and families struggling to fill the car with petrol. If the transition seems to benefit other people but not them, they will stop supporting it. 

The government’s agenda should cover: 

• Investment: keep welcoming it, with firm plans for renewable power, storage and the networks new industries need, and approvals that keep pace with the capital 

• Reliability: keep the energy system reliable and policy settings stable, with gas playing a defined and declining role 

• Gas: set out how and when it will be phased out, how long-term approvals fit that timeframe, the climate impact of gas burned overseas, and the assumptions behind each decision 

• Households: make cleaner alternatives cheaper and easier to access, including for renters and those who can’t pay upfront 

Backing the message with action 

The Federal and State governments can welcome investment and have a credible plan to move beyond fossil fuels. They need to do both and be upfront about the tension between multi-decade gas approvals and climate commitments. 

Protest stunts like this week’s rarely deal with the impact on household bills, jobs and the national economy. Government talk of transition is no substitute for a plan to move beyond gas either. 

WA has done this before. The State Government’s decision to retire its own coal-fired power stations by 2030 showed real leadership. It set a destination and backed it with a staged closure timetable, investment in renewable generation and storage, and support for workers and new industries in Collie, all while keeping the lights on. Gas is a harder problem, but we still don’t know where it is heading, over what timeframe, or how the shift will be delivered. 

On coal, the government set a direction and backed it with a delivery plan. Gas needs the same, a phase-out pathway and timeframe that investors and voters can see.