AnySelected

Western Australia's Premier, Roger Cook, recently defended the state’s continued investment in gas, stating its global importance outweighs concerns about public perception. His comments, delivered with a pragmatic shrug – “even if it doesn’t make a good hashtag or look good on a bumper sticker” – highlight a critical debate: is WA’s unwavering support for gas a strategic necessity or a risky gamble in a rapidly changing world?

The current focus is Woodside's North West Shelf project, a cornerstone of WA’s economy and a significant global supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Woodside is pushing ahead with expansions, despite growing international pressure to transition away from fossil fuels. Cook’s justification hinges on the belief that gas will remain a vital energy source, particularly for developing nations, while the world transitions to renewables. He argues that WA has a responsibility to meet this demand, contributing to global energy security and, crucially, generating substantial revenue for the state.

However, this stance is facing increasing scrutiny. The global shift towards renewable energy sources is accelerating, driven by technological advancements, falling costs, and growing public awareness of climate change. Many countries are setting ambitious targets to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and investors are increasingly wary of backing projects with long-term carbon footprints. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has repeatedly stated that there is no new investment needed in fossil fuels to meet future energy demand, a stark contrast to Woodside's expansion plans.

The economic argument also requires careful consideration. While gas revenues currently contribute significantly to WA's budget, the long-term outlook is uncertain. A rapid decline in global demand could leave WA with stranded assets – infrastructure that becomes economically unviable – and a significant financial burden. Furthermore, the focus on gas may be diverting investment from potentially more sustainable and future-proof industries, such as renewable energy, green hydrogen, and battery technology. WA has immense potential in these areas, and a continued reliance on gas risks missing out on the opportunities of the future.

Premier Cook’s dismissive comment about hashtags and bumper stickers underscores a broader challenge: communicating the complexities of energy policy to the public. While the economic benefits of gas are clear to policymakers and industry stakeholders, the environmental and social implications are often less visible. A more transparent and engaging dialogue is needed to ensure that WA’s energy future aligns with the values and aspirations of its citizens.

Ultimately, WA's decision to “double down” on gas is a complex one with significant implications for the state’s economy, environment, and international reputation. While gas may play a role in the energy transition, a prudent approach requires a diversification of energy sources and a commitment to investing in a sustainable future. The question remains: is WA’s gas gamble a calculated risk or a missed opportunity?