Banning new fossil fuel extraction: what will it cost us?

Every year the federal government releases new offshore exploration acreage, and month after month the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) approves new offshore seismic testing and drilling applications.

Extracting yet more oil and gas clearly is a bad thing from a climate perspective, but just how much economic benefit would Australia miss out on if we ban all new fossil fuel extraction projects?

The story is similar for both onshore and offshore fossil fuel extraction, but with two key differences. State and Territory governments have the primary power to approve or ban new onshore coal, oil, and gas extraction projects in their own jurisdiction (includes coastal waters within three nautical miles off the coast), whereas approvals for new offshore oil and gas projects in Commonwealth waters are under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the No More Bad Investments (NMBI) campaign has state-specific campaigns calling for state governments to ban new fossil fuel extraction projects (and other new climate-damaging projects) and a separate petition to the Senate calling for an offshore oil and gas ban.

The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) applies to all new oil and gas extraction projects, but the second key difference is that onshore (and some older offshore) projects also pay state royalties, whereas new offshore projects pay no royalties. That doesn’t make a huge difference since state royalties do not bring in as much money as you might expect, but it does mean that we are giving away new offshore oil and gas completely free of charge to the many oil and gas companies who currently pay no PRRT.

State royalties from ALL existing coal, oil, and gas extraction projects Australia-wide, after subtracting government subsidies given to them, benefit us to the tune of around $3.8 billion per year (enough for maybe two new hospitals), of which around $2 billion is from oil and gas. That suggests that the royalties we would ‘lose’ if we ban all NEW fossil fuel extraction projects would be counted in mere millions, not billions.

According to corporate transparency data published by the ATO, there were at least 39 fossil fuel companies that paid no income tax in 2015/16 despite a combined income of almost $72 billion. The majority of those companies also paid no tax in the 2013/14 and 2014/15 years.

New fossil fuel extraction projects would generate some economic benefit from jobs, payroll tax, and local procurement of goods and services, but the same applies to new climate-safe projects. Creating new jobs is a poor reason for allowing new climate-damaging projects.

Nor do we need new fossil fuel extraction projects to keep the wheels of industry turning or the lights on at home. We already export around 75% of the coal and gas we extract. (Oil is a bit more complicated. We export crude oil and import refined petroleum products because we lack sufficient refining capability.)

Is it possible that the politicians who prioritise short-term economic gains over proactive environmental policy have simply not looked at the financial figures?

Offshore oil and gas flies under the radar

Almost nobody seems to notice most new offshore projects, possibly because they are out of sight and out of mind – not in anyone’s immediate backyard. There are campaigns to stop drilling for oil in the Bight and seismic testing off the coast of NSW, but new projects being planned or currently underway off the shores of WA, NT, and Victoria seem to get little government or public scrutiny.

It appears that NOPSEMA ignores negative climate impacts when approving new offshore projects, and that the federal government fails to question whether or not they are of any public benefit. Do we need new offshore oil and gas extraction projects? Will they benefit our economy?

The gas shortage myth

We don’t need any new gas extraction to guarantee domestic supply. We already extract well over twice as much gas as we use here. Domestic gas usage is falling and existing sources are nowhere near depleted. The ‘east coast gas shortage’ is a myth (see analysis by Tim Forcey & Dylan McConnell and Bruce Robertson). All gas from new projects (or an equivalent extra amount from existing projects) will be exported.

Figure 1. Total annual gas consumption by sector, 2016 to 2036 (Neutral economic scenario). Source: AEMO 2016 National Gas Forecasting Report.

We also get next to no financial benefit. Many recent and pending offshore gas projects are by foreign-owned companies, like ExxonMobil, Shell, Inpex, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, who currently pay no income tax and no Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT). It’s their shareholders who get all the profit from selling the gas.

As a Senate enquiry late last year concluded, we are practically giving away offshore oil and gas because the PRRT is set up as a ‘super profits’ tax. No PRRT is payable until all exploration, extraction, and production costs are recouped. In the meantime PRRT ‘credits’ compound over time and offset any income tax that would otherwise be payable. Since offshore projects pay no state royalties, Australia literally gives away offshore oil and gas for the first decade or more until PRRT starts to be paid (if it ever is). And it is given to companies that don’t even pay income tax!

Onshore gas projects do pay state royalties, but current PRRT settings and PRRT credits work in the same way as for offshore projects, meaning that most companies involved in onshore gas extraction also pay no PRRT and no income tax.

Since gas extracted from new projects will be exported, the resultant climate damage is not reflected in terms of meeting carbon reduction targets. Under international carbon accounting conventions, carbon emissions from exported fossil fuels are not counted as part of Australia’s carbon footprint. Even so, we disregard those emissions at our own peril.

The good news is that it makes really bad news!

Imagine the public outrage if mainstream media started reporting that we don’t need any new gas extraction for domestic use, that all of the new gas will be exported, and that Australia receives little or no revenue from allowing (mostly) foreign-owned companies to sell ‘our’ gas.

Part of the social licence for new projects stems from knowing that, despite the climate impacts, we currently still need to use some fossil fuels while we transition to a renewable energy future. Seismic testing off the NSW coast and new drilling plans off the Victorian coast, for example, are being touted as a way of easing the supposed east coast gas shortage. Even if some gas from those proposed new projects is used within Australia, that will simply free up other gas for export. If the public knew that the entire amount of extra gas production from all new projects will be exported, the social licence for any new gas extraction proposal would vanish.

One particularly stark example is the enormous new Inpex (Japanese) Ichthys project. They have already forward-sold all the gas for the first 15 years to Asian LNG customers, and will only supply gas to NT in an emergency. Did NOPSEMA or the Treasury ask Inpex what they planned to do with the gas before that project was approved?

The public might assume that any oil resulting from drilling in the Bight would reduce the amount of oil products we import, but the Statoil website gives no indication of its plans. Regardless of whether or not the oil proves to be suitable for refining in Australian refineries (it might not be), chances are Statoil will sell the oil to the highest bidder. Has anyone asked Statoil where they plan to sell the oil?

The other major part of the social licence comes from the myth that fossil fuel exports make us rich. People react very strongly when they hear we are ‘giving away’ offshore oil and gas. The most common response is to demand a change in the rules so that we earn more revenue, rather than calling for a ban for climate reasons. But regardless of what form the public outrage takes, exposing the economic benefit myth would break the social licence for new oil and gas.

Australia’s least-cost climate action

If we were to ban all new oil and gas, onshore and offshore, we’d miss out on a little in state royalty revenue, but compared with the other climate measures we must take to restore a safe climate, the cost would be insignificant. This must be one of the easiest and most cost-effective strategies Australia could implement to reduce future carbon emissions.

Banning new offshore oil and gas would be even easier. It would cost us nothing in lost short-term revenue – we don’t get any revenue from new offshore oil and gas.

PRRT credits compound over time and offset income tax liability. An oil or gas company could avoid ever having to pay PRRT and income tax simply by continuing to spend money on new exploration and new extraction projects. This might explain why Santos and Beach Energy both paid income tax in 2013-15, but neither have paid any tax since. The more climate damage they cause the less they pay in tax.

Oddly enough, banning all new oil and gas extraction would increase our tax revenue from the oil and gas companies that might otherwise continue to expand their activities in Australia.

Fossil fuel myths we didn’t know we had

The fossil fuel narrative in this article tackles the myths that tend to give a degree of social licence to new coal mines and gasfields. In outline the myth-breaking narrative is:
– Australia does not need to open any new coal mines or gasfields for its own use
– The output from all new coal mines and gasfields will be exported
– Royalty, subsidy, and tax figures show just how little benefit Australia receives from fossil fuel exports
– Fossil fuel exports cause immense climate damage despite flying under the carbon reduction target radar

It’s largely the prerogative of state and territory governments to approve or reject proposals for any specific new fossil fuel extraction project. They also can and do institute bans or moratoriums on certain types of projects, such as fracking or, in Victoria’s case, any new on-shore gas extraction, despite the current federal government taking a dim view of such ‘anti-development’ moves.

Environmental Justice Australia has drafted model No More Bad Investments (NMBI) legislation (downloadable from this page) which state/territory governments could implement in order to ban new climate-damaging projects. Since the model legislation includes immediate bans on ALL new coal, oil, and gas extraction, it is worth taking a look at the facts and financial figures. What impact would that have on federal and state coffers? And would we be able to ‘keep the light on’?

The first fact to emerge is that ALL the coal and gas extracted from ALL new coal mines and gas wells in Australia will be exported (or an equivalent amount from existing mines and wells would be freed up for export).

It’s no secret that Australia exports a lot of coal and gas, or that all the coal from the proposed Adani Carmichael mine would be exported to India if it were to go ahead. But the public might assume that most of the coal and gas from all the myriad of other proposed new extraction projects is for use within Australia. If it were acknowledged up front that the output from all those new projects is intended for export, surely that would remove a lot of the social licence for new extraction projects.

Australia already exports roughly twice as much ‘energy’ as we use within Australia, and consumption (demand) within Australia has been close to flat over the last decade, as shown by the following figure in the 2017 Australian Energy Update published by the Department of Environment and Energy.

But what about the so-called ‘east coast gas shortage’? There are a number of major new gasfields being proposed, including several potentially enormous gasfields in NT, Santos’s proposed Narrabri gasfield, the new Dory gasfield off the Gippsland coast, and the recently approved exploration licence for gas off the coast of NSW. All these are being justified by claims that they will ease the supposed east coast gas shortage. Even if there were indeed a slight gas shortage four big new projects seems like overkill. Or is the ‘gas shortage’ just a Trojan Horse for extracting more gas for export?

This summer there were no reports of power failures due to gas shortages despite considerably more gas-powered generation being in the fuel mix reported by NEMWatch on heatwave days.

As the above graph from the AEMO 2016 gas forecast shows, residential, commercial, and industrial gas demand are flat-ish or even falling slightly. Demand for gas-fired electricity generation has been falling since 2014 when gas prices increased. The only demand that is actually rising – and rising dramatically – is the demand for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports.

Our states and territory governments certainly don’t need to approve new coal or gas extraction projects in order to ‘keep the lights on’ within Australia. Some sort of gas reserve legislation might be useful to ensure gas exports don’t leave us short, but we don’t need to approve any new gasfields.

If all new coal and gas extraction projects are slated for export, why do state and territory governments even consider allowing new fossil fuel extraction projects despite the climate imperative of keeping fossil fuels in the ground, and despite often fierce community opposition? Could it be the dollars in state revenue?

The public relations machines of fossil fuel companies would have us believe that new hospitals, better education, and all sorts of other good things are reliant on the prosperity that comes from us allowing them to sell off our fossil fuel ‘resources’. Let’s look at the figures.

State royalties and subsidies
According to Table 4 in the mining operations spreadsheet published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2014-15 Australia-wide coal royalties were $2.8 billion and petroleum (oil plus gas) royalties were $1.9 billion. In that year, coal subsidies were $769 million and oil and gas subsidies were $68 million. Thus, for ALL the coal, oil, and gas extracted from existing projects in Australia that year, the financial benefit to society amounted to around $3.8 billion, enough for maybe two major new hospitals.

But climate campaigners are calling for a ban on all NEW fossil fuel extraction projects, and it is the new projects that receive the heaviest subsidies from state governments. Over the six years from 2010-11 to 2015-16, Queensland received an average of $1.94 billion/year in coal royalties. But if you subtract the $1.27 billion/year in subsidies the Queensland coal transport sector received over the six years from 2008-09 to 2013-14, Queensland’s ‘gain’ from its numerous coal mines was only around $670 million/year.

South Australia receives much of its gas for electricity generation and household use via the Moomba pipeline from the Cooper Basin in the north-east corner of the state. 2014-15 gas and oil sales value totalled around $1.56 billion, but SA received just $105.3 million in oil and gas royalties. Separate figures are not given for the gas royalties, but gas sales amounted to only about 20% of the total oil and gas value, so the share of royalties received from the gas industry might have been as low as $20-25 million.

Yet in 2017 the SA government gave $48 million across two rounds of subsidies for new gas projects in the Otway Basin in the state’s south-east and the Cooper Basin. For the Otway Basin this included $6m to Beach Energy and $5.26m to a Beach Energy and Cooper Energy joint venture. The Cooper Basin subsidies included a total of $16.85m for several new joint ventures between Santos and Beach Energy.

One condition of these new subsidies is that the gas from these projects be offered to SA first, which might seem like a wise move from a government that is determined to avoid any future blackouts. But will SA actually need more gas to keep the lights on when it already has many new renewable energy and storage projects coming online over the next few years?

In a Santos media release about the subsidy for a new gas efficiency project in the Cooper Basin, Santos CEO Gallagher said, “If we can make even half that gas available to the market by capturing energy efficiency opportunities, it would be an excellent outcome for both Australian domestic customers and our LNG exports.” That (and other) gas from the subsidised new Cooper Basin projects could just as easily flow via the pipeline from the Cooper Basin to Gladstone on the Queensland coast and be exported from the Santos LNG facility.

What about the proposed Statoil project to drill for oil in the Bight? Offshore projects in Commonwealth waters do not pay state royalties, so SA coffers will receive no royalties from oil in the Bight.

Federal income tax
According to figures found in the corporate transparency data published by the ATO, in 2015-16, the various coal companies owned by Glencore had a total income of $21.6 billion and paid just $44 million in income tax.

At least 22 other major fossil fuel extraction companies paid no income tax in 2015-16 despite together earning an income of $51 billion in that year. Those companies included Santos (income of $3.47 billion) and Beach Energy (income of $589 million), along with international companies like Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil. All except a couple of the above 22 companies also paid no tax in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Federal Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT)
All onshore and offshore oil and gas extraction projects are required to pay the federal Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), but this is intended to be a ‘super profits’ tax payable only after all exploration, establishment, and operational costs have been recovered. This means that any new oil or gas projects are unlikely to pay any PRRT at all for well over a decade.

In the meantime, a generous system of compounding PRRT credits can be used to offset any income tax liability. This might explain why Santos and Beach Energy paid no income tax in 2015-16 even though they both did pay income tax in 2013-14.

One particularly perverse outcome will become apparent if an oil spill occurs as a result of Statoil drilling for oil in the Bight. Statoil will have to pay for the cleanup, but that cost will count as an expense under PRRT rules and will be able to be claimed as a PRRT credit. In effect the taxpayer will cover the cleanup cost, and SA will suffer the environmental damage despite getting nothing in royalties, income tax, or PRRT.

Exploration and production licences
The state revenue from selling licences varies in accordance with the size of the project. SA licence application fees are only a few thousand dollars. Annual exploration licences start at a few thousand dollars and range up to a maximum of $26,000. Annual production licences range from a few thousand up to maximums of $67,600 for onshore projects and $116,325 for offshore projects.

Jobs and local procurement
New fossil fuel extraction projects generate jobs and, in the case of foreign-owned fossil fuel companies, they also inject foreign funds into our economy via wages and local procurement of goods and services. This is a good thing, but we don’t need to rely on new fossil fuel extraction projects to achieve those benefits.

Those benefits also come from new renewable energy projects, like SolarReserve’s solar thermal project at Port Augusta, Neoen’s wind plus battery project at Jamestown, Sanjeev Gupta’s solar and pumped hydro projects at Whyalla, and numerous other climate-safe projects all over Australia.

It’s all about exports
This is turning into an ugly story indeed. No new fossil fuel extraction is needed for use within Australia so new extraction projects simply mean more fossil fuel exports. They will only give state and federal coffers a pittance in extra revenue to fund better education, health care, etc., so state governments are putting our climate, our communities, and our aquifers and farming land at risk for almost no financial benefit. Have our politicians ever looked at the figures, or are they blinded by fossil fuel industry spin?

But it gets worse. Under IPCC carbon accounting conventions, exported fossil fuels don’t ‘count’ against states/territories meeting their carbon reduction targets. Queensland, SA, and Victoria all have targets of net zero emissions by 2050. Even if they meet those targets, any actual climate benefit could be more than wiped out by the climate impacts of the fossil fuels exported from the NEW extraction projects they continue to approve in the meantime.

Take another look at the Australian Energy Balance graphic above. Now imagine that Australia achieves a super-rapid transition to 100% renewable electricity and electrified transport. We might feel incredibly proud of that achievement, and so we should, but our actual climate impact from fossil fuel exports would still be double the climate impact from all the fossil fuels we currently use within Australia. That is a horrible thought.

The least state/territory governments should do – and it would be relatively easy really – is to ban any NEW fossil fuel extraction projects.

Margaret Hender, March 9, 2018

‘Unprecedented’ Lofoten Declaration Demands Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Industry

As climate scientists stress that climate change has contributed to the enormous size and strength of recent storms including Hurricane Irma, which has killed at least ten people in the Caribbean and left the island of Barbuda “uninhabitable” as it heads toward Florida, a coalition of more than 220 organizations called for a “managed decline of fossil fuel production” on Thursday, with an immediate end to new oil, gas, and coal development.

Read the full article by Julia Conley, published by Common Dreams on 07/9/17, at

The full text of the Lofoten Declaration is below.

We have mixed feelings about the Lofoten declaration. In some ways it is excellent. It calls for ‘immediate and ambitious action to stop exploration and expansion of fossil fuel projects and manage the decline of existing production’ and notes that ‘the carbon embedded in existing fossil fuel production will take us far beyond safe climate limits’ and ‘many existing projects will need to be phased-out faster than their natural decline.’

If we assume the call is for nations and states to ban any new coal, oil, and gas projects, this is a very welcome shift to seeking blanket bans explicitly on climate grounds rather than any piecemeal opposition to individual projects based on a variety of environmental issues.

However, the suggested timeline for phasing out existing production, ‘a full transition away from fossil fuels will take decades’, belies the urgency of tackling the climate emergency. The declaration talks about achieving Paris climate goals, which are far from adequate for restoring a safe climate. It refers to a ‘low carbon future’, but we need a net-zero carbon future plus carbon drawdown to restore a safe climate.

Having said all that, the Lofoten Declaration is an important document in that it raises the expectation that nations and states can, should, and hopefully will stop digging us into a deeper climate hole and will ban all new fossil fuel projects.

You can sign the petition calling for No More Bad Investments in SA at


Climate Leadership Requires a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production

Global climate change is a crisis of unprecedented scale, and it will take unprecedented action to avoid the worst consequences of our dependence on oil, coal, and gas. Equally as critical as reducing demand and emissions is the need for immediate and ambitious action to stop exploration and expansion of fossil fuel projects and manage the decline of existing production in line with what is necessary to achieve the Paris climate goals.

Clean, safe, and renewable fuels are already redefining how we see energy and it is time for nations to fully embrace 21st century energy and phase out fossil fuels.

The Lofoten Declaration affirms that it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of wealthy fossil fuel producers to lead in putting an end to fossil fuel development and to manage the decline of existing production.

We stand in solidarity with, and offer our full support for, the growing wave of impacted communities around the world who are taking action to defend and protect their lives and livelihoods in the face of fossil fuel extraction and climate change. It is a priority to elevate these efforts. Frontline communities are the leaders we must look to as we all work together for a safer future.

A global transition to a low carbon future is already well underway. Continued expansion of oil, coal, and gas is only serving to hinder the inevitable transition while at the same time exacerbating conflicts, fuelling corruption, threatening biodiversity, clean water and air, and infringing on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable communities.

Energy access and demand are and must now be met fully through the clean energies of the 21st century. Assertions that new fossil fuels are needed for this transformation are not only inaccurate; they also undermine the speed and penetration of clean energy.

We recognize that a full transition away from fossil fuels will take decades, but also, that this shift is an opportunity more than a burden. We are in a deep hole with climate. We must begin by not digging ourselves any deeper.

Research shows that the carbon embedded in existing fossil fuel production will take us far beyond safe climate limits. Thus, not only are new exploration and new production incompatible with limiting global warming to well below 2ºC (and as close to 1.5ºC as possible), but many existing projects will need to be phased-out faster than their natural decline.

This task should be first addressed by countries, regions, and corporate actors who are best positioned in terms of wealth and capacity to undergo an ambitious just transition away from fossil fuel production. In particular, leadership must come from countries that are high-income, have benefitted from fossil fuel extraction, and that are historically responsible for significant emissions.

We call on these governments and companies to recognize that continued fossil fuel exploration and production without a managed decline and a just transition is irreconcilable with meaningful climate action. We also note that there are tremendous leadership opportunities for these countries to demonstrate that moving beyond oil, coal, and gas – both demand and production – is not only possible, but can be done while protecting workers, communities, and economies.

About the Declaration

The Lofoten Declaration was written in August 2017 at a gathering in the Lofoten Islands of Norway of academics, analysts, and activists, all of whom recognize that globally we have a window of opportunity to limit the expansion of the oil and gas industry, in order to achieve the Paris climate goals. We invite other organisations worldwide to join the call.


China gears up to ban new fossil fuel powered cars

The largest and fastest-growing car market in the world is going to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars. China has announced plans to join the rapidly expanding list of countries with plans to phase out fossil fuel-burning cars, a list that includes the UK, France, Norway, and India.

“These measures will promote profound changes in the environment and give momentum to China’s auto industry development.”said vice minister of industry and information technology, Xin Guobi, at a recent Chinese forum on cars. China has moved swiftly to be the world’s largest producer and buyer of electric cars — motivated by a desire to reduce urban air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and oil imports.

Read the full article by Joe Romm, published by RenewEconomy on 12/9/17, at

Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny

In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a double-speak totalitarian state where most of the population accepts “the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane.”

Orwell could have been writing about climate change and policymaking.

International agreements talk of limiting global warming to 1.5–2°C, but in reality they set the world on a path of 3–5°C. Goals are reaffirmed, only to be abandoned. Coal, by definition, is “clean”. Just 1°C of warming is already dangerous, but this cannot be said. The planetary future is hostage to myopic, national self-interest. Action is delayed on the assumption that as yet unproven technologies will save the day, decades hence. The risks are existential, but it is “alarmist” to say so. A one-in-two chance of missing a goal is normalised as reasonable.

Read the full article by Ian Dunlop, published by the Guardian on 11/9/17, at

Australia, deep in climate change’s ‘disaster alley’, shirks its moral responsibility

A government’s first responsibility is to safeguard the people and their future well-being. The ability to do this is threatened by human-induced climate change, the accelerating effects of which are driving political instability and conflict globally. Climate change poses an existential risk to humanity that, unless addressed as an emergency, will have catastrophic consequences.

In military terms, Australia and the adjacent Asia-Pacific region is considered to be “disaster alley”, where the most extreme effects are being experienced. Australia’s leaders either misunderstand or wilfully ignore these risks, which is a profound failure of imagination, far worse than that which triggered the global financial crisis in 2008. Existential risk cannot be managed with conventional, reactive, learn-from-failure techniques. We only play this game once, so we must get it right first time.

Read the full article by Ian Dunlop, published by the Canberra Times on 22/6/17, at

Metamorphosis from wild idea into a no-brainer

This article was originally published by Margaret Hender on the Climate Emergency Declaration website on September 7, 2016.

You might recall, not so many years ago, nobody was asking for 100 per cent renewable electricity, or even thinking about it or imagining it might be possible. So what happened?

One evening a group of climate campaigners were sitting around a kitchen table trying to devise strategies for reducing carbon emissions. One person had a wild idea and wondered aloud if it would be possible to switch to 100 per cent renewable electricity (or so I’m told – I wasn’t there). How could we do that? Would that be possible? Reliable? How much would it cost?

Beyond Zero Emissions then set about researching those questions, and a year or so later published the 100% Renewable Stationary Energy Plan. They showed it could be done, how to do it, how long it would take, and what it would cost.

Suddenly we all knew 100 per cent renewable electricity is perfectly possible, and we could all imagine achieving just that. Almost overnight, we started believing it was a possible future and campaigning to get it. Since then other studies have confirmed and updated BZE’s basic message. more...

These days almost any conversation about climate includes mention of 100 per cent renewable electricity. It’s a familiar part of the public discourse. It appears in petitions, submissions, interviews, and media. It’s treated as a standard and fully legitimate campaign ask. What’s more, almost everyone can imagine it happening, and almost everyone except the fossil fuel incumbents want it to happen sooner or later. It’s become a no-brainer.

Where we are at

Right now the Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation campaign is just a few months past the wild idea round the kitchen table stage. Very few people have thought of it or heard of it, and very few are yet imagining it is a possible future. How do we get from this point to the same sort of no-brainer point that the 100 per cent renewable electricity campaign now enjoys?

We’ve done a few things already. The first thing was the petition. Asking someone to sign a petition is a good way of making the signer aware that this new campaign ask exists. We’ve also collected quite a few eminent person endorsements, which helps tell the world that this is not just a wild idea.

We’ve been trying to paint a picture of what a climate emergency declaration and mobilisation might look like, and what it might achieve. We posted a hypothetical Sydney Morning Herald front page and article in which the Prime Minister of the day announced such a declaration and discussed a couple of first climate mobilisation measures.

Philip Sutton has written a draft of the sort of legislation that would need to be enacted in order for Parliament to declare a climate emergency.

We’ve been posting social media memes indicating that many of the current climate-related campaigns, like stopping Adani, banning CSG, stopping drilling in the Bight, protecting native forests, closing Hazelwood, etc., would be won almost automatically if this top level climate mobilisation ask is won.

The Sustainable Hour on 94.7 The Pulse in Geelong has been podcasting a series of interviews with policy makers and leaders about the challenges and the solutions.

Once we imagine it we can demand it

Clearly there is more work to do though to make the Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation campaign into a familiar no-brainer. But we think we have a powerful tale to tell.

Global average temperature spiked at over 1.5°C in February, and already another 0.5°C is locked in once we stop burning fossil fuels unless we take additional actions to counteract that. Already people are dying from heat stroke and starvation, drowning in floods, and running out of water. Ecosystems are being damaged, and inhabited land is being lost to sea-level rise. Doing anything less than going ‘beyond zero emissions’ as rapidly as humanly possible is now morally inexcusable.

History has shown us how amazingly quickly economies can be restructured when society faces an existential threat. During World War II, factories were repurposed, large slabs of the GDP were spent on the war effort, and the public by and large rose to the occasion and did what was deemed necessary. The best minds from all sides of politics worked together for the common good.

A climate emergency declaration would be a powerful signal saying that society as a whole is now entering ‘emergency mode’ and will give highest priority to reaching net zero emissions as quickly as possible. Emergency mode would continue until we are clearly heading in the right direction for a safe and cooler climate.

A first mobilisation step might be to ban all new fossil fuel projects and ban logging of native forests. Those could be achieved with the stroke of a pen. Fossil fuel subsidies could be redirected to help establish an electric vehicle industry. Coal and gas exports could be replaced by exporting solar generation to Asia via an undersea cable.

Renewable electricity and energy efficiency measures could be rolled-out extremely rapidly following a well-considered best scenario of what to do where. We already know what to do! This would create large numbers of jobs for those no longer employed in fossil fuel industries and others. As in World War II, it’s likely we’d again enjoy full employment.

So, what should we do next to help society as whole imagine this possible future? Once we imagine it we can demand it. If enough people from a broad enough cross-section of society demand it, the government could declare a climate emergency tomorrow and start throwing our considerable resources at the goal of protecting all people, species, and ecosystems.

Paris 1.5-2°C target far from safe, say world-leading scientists

This is why we do what we do!

So what would be safe? The answer is that “limiting the period and magnitude of temperature excursion above the Holocene range is crucial to avoid strong stimulation of slow feedbacks”.
In other words, aim to get temperatures back under the Holocene maximum of 0.5ºC, which implies a level of greenhouse gases below 320 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), compared to the current level of 405 ppm.

Read the full article by David Spratt, published at Climate Code Red on 27/7/17, at

Hundreds of US mayors endorse switch to 100% renewable energy by 2035

A bipartisan group of mayors from across the country has unanimously backed an ambitious commitment for US cities to run entirely on renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2035.
The fight against climate change: four cities leading the way in the Trump era
Read more

As the US Conference of Mayors wrapped up in Miami Beach on Monday, leaders from more than 250 cities voted on symbolic resolutions pushing back against Donald Trump on climate change and immigration.

Steve Benjamin, the Democratic mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, proposed the resolution with three other mayors. Mayors had been on the frontline of climate and energy issues for a long time, he said, adding that the president’s actions had ignited the excitement of mayors and citizens who want to do more.

Read the full article, published by The Guardian on 27/6/17, at

In Australia too local councils and Mayors are taking the lead. Read about our local councils campaign and the Darebin (Vic) Climate Emergency Action Plan.

The Planet Is Warming. And It’s Okay to Be Afraid

Another article in response to David Wallace-Wells’ recent controversial article in the New York Magazine.

Last Week, David Wallace-Wells wrote a cover story for of New York Magazine, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” on some of the worst-case scenarios that the climate crisis could cause by the end of this century. It describes killer heat waves, crippling agricultural failures, devastated economies, plagues, resource wars, and more. It has been read more than two million times.

The article has caused a major controversy in the climate community, in part because of some factual errors in the piece—though by and large the piece is an accurate portrayal of worst-case climate catastrophe scenarios. But by far the most significant criticism the piece received was that it was too frightening.

Read the full article by Margaret Klein Salamon, published by Common Dreams on 17/7/17, at

Also read her excellent analysis of the benefits of ’emergency mode’ at Leading the Public into Emergency Mode