My recent P&I article, “The world isn’t even trying to phase out fossil fuels”, explained why it is imperative that fossil fuels be rapidly phased out.

However, there is little momentum to do this. Many countries don’t want fossil fuels to be phased out, especially those that have coal, oil or gas in the ground or under the sea.

This disastrous situation is getting worse. Illustrations of this include:

• The Trump administration is successfully pressuring many countries to buy American LNG.
• The global use of coal hit a record high in 2024. India “celebrated” surpassing one billion tonnes of coal production in 2024.
• Europe is backing off from strong climate action. One example of this is a recent major German commitment to LNG.
• Big Tech (e.g. Google) has now joined the fossil fuel industry in justifying the use of fossil fuels by claiming that the use of carbon capture and storage and carbon offsetting will neutralise the emissions from fossil fuels. This is greenwashing to “justify” data centres being powered by gas.
• The banking industry’s net zero alliance has shut down amid faltering climate commitments.

Further bad news is that the Albanese Government has decided there will be no climate trigger in the new environment legislation. Climate change poses the greatest threat to the environment, but its impact won’t be considered under environment legislation!

The government’s position is that emissions reductions are addressed by the Safeguard Mechanism and consequently there is no need for a climate trigger in environment legislation. The major flaw with this position is that the Safeguard Mechanism doesn’t aim to prevent new fossil fuel projects from being approved. It just sets a limit or baseline on domestic emissions that would result from the new infrastructure. And the major emissions when the fuel is used are not even considered.

Consequently, new fossil fuel projects are continuing to be approved. The government recently approved an extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project. This was one of the largest fossil fuel approvals in Australian history. This approval through to 2070 will facilitate the release of about 4.4 billion tonnes of CO2. To put this into context, Australia’s domestic emissions for the 12 months to March 2025 were approximately 440 million tonnes CO2-e.

It is reasonable to conclude that the government doesn’t want any legislation that makes it difficult for new fossil fuel projects to be approved. The government claims it accepts the science, but perpetuating the use of fossil fuels is completely at odds with the science.

This situation highlights the fundamental problem with the Albanese Government’s position regarding climate change. While the government clearly is concerned about the climate threat, it doesn’t want new fossil fuel projects to be rejected on climate change grounds, although the science is clear that they should not be approved. This is a major failure for a government that is concerned about climate change. A government that wants to help minimise the climate threat would align its climate and energy policies with the science. This would achieve the required outcome. A fossil fuel project would only be approved if there was no clean energy alternative able to meet an energy requirement in the required timeframe.

Some optimists are deluding themselves that as renewable energy becomes progressively cheaper, it will force fossil fuels out of the energy mix. Unfortunately, there is far too much support for fossil fuels for this to happen. It will require government action to bring about change. Currently, there is no chance of this happening. Some governments are part of the fossil fuel lobby, whilst governments that accept the science are not prepared to bring on a fight with the fossil fuel industry for political reasons.

There undoubtedly is a climate emergency that warrants emergency action. Phasing out fossil fuels is an almost insurmountable challenge. A major new initiative is required to address this disastrous situation.

This article proposes a new approach to tackle the fossil fuel crisis. The proposed course of action initially focuses on Australia, but aims to evolve into a global initiative. It is based on the recognition that it is time to stop trying to persuade the Albanese Government to change policies regarding fossil fuels. It has become obvious that no amount of scientific information and evidence of a collapsing climate will convince the government to stop supporting fossil fuels. Change will have to be forced on the government by the community.

Many organisations and individuals have been trying for many years to convince the politicians to stop supporting fossil fuels. There have been petitions, open letters, reports and papers from individuals and groups, including climate scientists, health professionals, faith leaders, farmers and sporting personalities. And there have been thousands of community actions, all urging the federal and state governments to align their climate and energy policies with the science. None of this has brought about change in government policy, primarily because politicians don’t change policies if they think this will damage them politically. The only way to change the policy is to change the politics. This is what the strategy proposed in this article seeks to do.

The world needs a plan for the equitable phaseout of fossil fuels, but there is no plan, and there are no indications there is any intent to create one. The COP (conference of the parties) process is the appropriate mechanism to create and implement a plan. However, this isn’t going to happen. The fact that one of the biggest delegations to the annual COP meetings represents the fossil fuel industry makes this clear.

The COP failure has left a void that needs to be filled. National governments should step up and initiate a major push to drive fossil fuels out of the energy mix. No country is better placed and has greater reason for doing this than Australia. This country is highly prone to the impacts of climate change, but conversely has great economic opportunities in a decarbonised world, primarily due to the country’s vast renewable energy potential.

Australia already is experiencing increasingly dangerous floods, extreme heat, droughts and bushfires. If temperatures continue to increase, there will be a major impact on human health and well-being, and the economy will be decimated. And if fossil fuel usage isn’t rapidly reduced, we will lose the iconic Great Barrier Reef, our greatest natural asset.

Whilst the government’s actions to transition from fossil fuel energy to clean energy domestically are commendable, Australia could do much more to help decarbonise the global economy by promoting global action. The world is failing to act globally, and domestic action will count for little if the global failure isn’t overcome. It’s what happens globally that will determine to what extent the world avoids the worst consequences of the heating planet.

If Australia, a country with major reserves of coal and gas, advocated for the development and implementation of a global plan for the equitable phase-out of fossil fuels, this would make a major impact. And clearly it is in Australia’s national interests to do this.

Unfortunately, the Albanese Government will not advocate globally for a fossil fuel phase-out, because it won’t do anything that will bring on a fight with the fossil fuel industry. This is why it continues to approve new coal and gas projects. The recent approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf extension makes the government’s support for fossil fuels very clear.

Obtaining community support to force change to government fossil fuel policies is a big challenge. Even though NGOs supporting strong climate action have done all they can to fully inform the public of the facts, the fossil fuel lobby has successfully confused the issue. And the fact that Labor and the Coalition both support fossil fuels doesn’t help. They are not going to inform the public of the disastrous consequences of the world continuing to use fossil fuels when they are supporting these fuels!

The failure of mainstream media to report on the climate crisis is compounding the problem. The media appears more interested in debating the politics, rather than identifying the problem and explaining what needs to be done about it.

It is easy to understand why many people are not engaging with the climate problem. There is a lot of conflicting and confusing information, and people are busy with their daily lives. The message that the Australian Government, and many other governments, are failing to adequately address the climate crisis has not cut through to the public. This has to change, as the fossil fuel industry is dictating climate policy and it requires people power to change this.

A well-financed communications campaign is required, with the aim of making the climate threat a major national conversation. The community would be provided with science-based information by climate scientists and other experts. The success of the communications campaign would be critical to obtaining the required community support to force change to government policy.

I am proposing the creation of a powerful non-political science-based expert group to drive the communications campaign. Climate change is not an ideological issue and never should have been politicised. Addressing climate change is about accepting and acting on scientific advice regarding what needs to be done to minimise the major threat from a heating planet. The group would be tasked with obtaining community support for the government to advocate globally for the creation of a plan for the equitable phase out fossil fuels.

The group would pit the science against vested interests. This is the best strategy to win the campaign. Climate scientists would form the core membership of the group. They would be supported by other relevant experts, including an energy policy expert, an economist and a health professional. These people would need to have a good grasp of the climate problem.

The aim would be for this Australian group to evolve into a global movement. If a powerful global movement was established, logically it would extend its remit to cover all aspects of the climate challenge.

For the group to make the climate crisis a major national conversation, it would require more than skills and knowledge. It would require a high-profile Australian to lead the group, someone whose inclusion in the team would ensure the group’s work would get extensive media coverage. To provide an indication of the leadership required, I will name two potential leaders: Malcolm Turnbull and Andrew Forrest.

The group would require finance to run a major media campaign. There is little doubt this would have to include combatting a media scare campaign from the well-funded fossil fuel lobby.

If the team was formed with the right blend of skills and knowledge, it would know what needs to be done to win community support. However, the team could consider the following suggestions.

There is an ongoing downward trend in the cost of firmed renewable energy as new technologies continue to evolve and develop. The group should explain to the community and business groups that transitioning to clean energy not only will reduce the climate threat, it also will provide cheaper energy than fossil fuels.

Explaining the threat to human health from fossil fuels and unmitigated climate change should be a high priority for the group. People need to know that fossil fuels cause major health problems, and that there are huge benefits for human health from replacing fossil fuel forms of energy with clean forms of energy. Millions of people across the globe die annually from fossil fuel pollution. Even if fossil fuels weren’t dangerously heating the planet, it would still be far better for human health that they be left in the ground to the greatest extent responsibly possible.

The community should be informed that if governments ignore the science, and continue supporting fossil fuels, the well-being of children and grandchildren will be threatened. There is evidence from community discussions that when this is explained to people it resonates with them.

The expert group’s plan for Australia to promote the global phase-out of fossil fuels should include Australia endorsing and promoting the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a proposed treaty that aims to stop the expansion of fossil fuel exploitation and manage a just transition away from coal, oil and gas to clean energy. This initiative came from the Pacific Island nations, whose very existence is being threatened by climate change. Australia should campaign for other nations to adopt the treaty, especially the other major coal, oil and gas producing nations.

While the Australian communications campaign was underway, the expert group could engage globally. It could liaise with the people driving the non-proliferation treaty initiative, and any other groups promoting global initiatives to phase out fossil fuels. And it could gather information regarding the need for similar campaigns in other countries to obtain the required community support to force change on other national governments.

International information indicates that many countries are having similar problems to Australia. There is a lot of disinformation and a lack of community understanding, leading to falling support for climate action. A successful communications campaign, that became global, would highlight how badly governments worldwide are failing to take the required action to minimise the climate threat.

There would be many advantages for Australia if the government adopted the proposals in this article. Some of these are as follows:

The proposal for Australia to advocate globally for the phase-out of fossil fuels negates the difficult problem regarding new fossil fuel projects. Climate change campaigners have been demanding for a long time that the Australian Government stop approving new coal and gas projects. This is understandable as it is hard to justify new fossil fuel infrastructure when there is a climate emergency primarily caused by fossil fuels.

However, stopping the approval of new projects while other countries continue to approve them is very difficult politically. Working globally is a better option for Australia. The fossil fuel crisis is a global crisis that can best be tackled by key countries working together. And it is a better political option than unilaterally stopping approving new projects.

The intent would not be to routinely continue approving new fossil fuel projects whilst advocating for a fossil fuel phase-out. The default position would be to not support new fossil fuel infrastructure unless there were sound reasons why clean energy could not meet the energy requirement in the required timeframe. It would be a nuanced strategy that would not ban all new fossil fuel projects, but would make clear the government’s position that the future is not with fossil fuels.

Another significant potential benefit for the government in adopting the proposals in this article relate to COP31, that Australia hopes to host next year. This COP would provide a great opportunity for Australia to promote its strategy to phase out fossil fuels. This would be much better than having to justify continuing to approve new coal and gas projects. And it would resolve the major problems the government is having with the Pacific Island nations as a consequence of Australia continuing to support fossil fuels.

Another benefit relates to the National Climate Risk Assessment that the government released in September this year. Advocating for the global phase-out of fossil fuels would be a powerful action to help reduce the risks identified in the assessment.

Advocating globally for a fossil fuel phase-out would also go a long way towards bringing Australia in line with the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion that countries have a legal obligation to take co-operative action against the climate crisis.

And of great importance to most Australians, rapidly phasing out fossil fuels provides the best chance of saving the Great Barrier Reef as a tourist attraction.

Clearly, there would be major benefits for Australia if the government accepted the proposals in this article. And if the government accepts the climate science, as it claims it does, there are no good reasons for it to not want to advocate globally for a fossil fuel phase-out. However, the government won’t do this because it considers it too dangerous politically to oppose the fossil fuel industry. This is why action is required to change the politics.

Global attempts to address the climate crisis have had a massive setback with the election of Donald Trump as the US president. Not only is the Trump administration taking the US backwards in tackling the climate threat, Trump also is successfully pressuring governments across the world to buy American LNG.

If the Australian expert group evolved and became a global organisation it could play a significant role in combatting the Trump administration’s highly irresponsible attack on climate science. This is important because it has become obvious that the US president has so much power that national governments are not prepared to call out his dangerous policies that are increasing the threat of a global climate catastrophe. The non-political expert group could strongly scientifically condemn the Trump administration’s irresponsible policies without any inhibitions.

The bottom line is that if something isn’t done to break the stranglehold the fossil fuel industry has on national governments, it will be impossible to avert a global climate catastrophe. This paper has proposed a way ahead for Australia, that could enable this country to play a major role in addressing the climate crisis.

Urgent action is required as the world is getting dangerously close to breaching major tipping points. If the Albanese Government took this bold global action, it would have the support of the Parliament, because the current Senate would support this action.

A progressive media organisation, and/or a climate/environment NGO, should step up and take on this initiative as a project. The alternative is to carry on doing the things that have had no significant impact on government policy over many years.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.