Yeah But… We Need Gas for the Transition
- Gregory Andrews
- Jun 23
- 3 min read
This is one of the most dangerous myths in Australian climate politics. We hear it everywhere - from fossil fuel lobbyists, government ministers, and media outlets that should know better: “Gas is a transition fuel. We need it to get to net zero.”
It sounds reasonable. Sensible, even. Who wouldn’t want a smooth transition to renewables?
But actually, it’s drinking the Kool Aid. Here’s the problem. Gas might’ve had some relevance 20 years ago. But today, it’s dangerously outdated - and increasingly used to justify climate inaction and fossil fuel expansion. Let’s be clear: the idea that Australia needs new gas for the energy transition is not only wrong, it’s designed to delay.
1. The “Bridge Fuel” Line Is Past Its Use-By Date
Back in the early 2000s, gas was pitched as a cleaner alternative to coal. It was even branded as “natural”. It was promoted as a temporary bridge - something to help us keep the lights on while we built up renewables. But that was before the world exhausted its carbon budget and before we understood the full climate impact of methane, the main component of gas.
Methane is over 80 times more potent than CO₂ in warming the planet. Even small leaks during drilling, processing and transport can wipe out any so-called “climate benefits”. The International Energy Agency now says it bluntly:
“No new gas, oil or coal projects are compatible with net zero.”
Here’s the thing: Methane leaks don’t just happen in theory. They happen in practice, across Australia’s gas fields - from the Burrup Hub to the Beetaloo Basin. This isn’t a bug in the system. It’s a feature of gas production. And the longer we rely on gas, the longer we expose ourselves to climate risk.
2. Gas Isn’t Cheap or Reliable
Another myth is that gas is affordable and dependable. But in reality:
Gas prices have skyrocketed, especially since Australia linked domestic supply to global markets.
Renewables are now cheaper - even with battery storage included.
CSIRO’s latest GenCost report shows wind and solar are the lowest-cost new generation, while gas is volatile and increasingly expensive.
It’s not just emissions that make gas a bad bet. It’s also the economics.
3. New Gas Locks Us Into Decades of Harm
When governments approve new gas projects - like the Northwest Shelf or Narrabri fields - they’re not just approving short-term fixes. They’re locking in 30 to 50 years of emissions, infrastructure, and environmental damage. There’s no such thing as a “temporary” gas expansion. Every new pipeline and gas hub is a multi-decade commitment - one that directly undermines our climate goals. The Woodside expansion will release over 4.3 billion tonnes of emissions and cancel out Australia’s progress from solar panels fifty times over!
4. We Already Have Better Alternatives
This is the good news. We don’t need gas to back up renewables. We already have the tools to power a clean, affordable, and resilient grid:
Grid-scale batteries like the Waratah Super Battery in NSW are already online.
Pumped hydro, including projects like Snowy 2.0, will add even more backup.
Home batteries, demand management and smarter energy are smoothing peaks.
And Australia’s rooftop solar uptake is world-leading.
We’re not at the start of the transition. We’re well underway. Gas is no longer a stepping stone - it’s a trip hazard.
💬 Final Word: Gas is a Bridge to Nowhere
The fossil fuel oligarchs and their mates in government want you to believe Australia needs gas to transition. But we don’t. Here’s the truth:
The transition is already happening - without it.
New gas isn’t a bridge - it’s a detour back to climate breakdown.
And every dollar we spend propping up gas is a dollar not invested in clean energy.
We don’t need more fossil fuels to fight the damage fossil fuels have caused. We need clean energy investment.

I’ve modelled a transition from 2020 energy mix on the SWIS grid in WA via various levels of Renewables and storage all the way through to 100% zero emissions RE generation and substantive storage.
the germaine point is that even at 99%, yes we need some tiny amount of fossil gas or some other fuel that is expensive to burn but cheap to provide the furnaces/turbines to burn it in for those rare occasions it becomes unavoidable to get auxiliary power from a non-RE and non-storage source.
But each step of the way adding either renewables or storage or both simultaneously to our grids, we more we install RE/storage the less fossil gas and coal we burn as a direct…