The analysis exposes the behaviour of corporates. It is systemic. Moral Engagement is an option. It’s your choice. Do you have a social licence to operate? Do you practice corporate social responsibility? What country are you a citizen of?
It's a shame you haven't added honesty to your 'theory of moral disengagement' (read: theory of moral superiority). When are climate alarmists going to tell gen-whatever that their vacuous lives will be very, very different without any LNG in particular and petroleum in general. Isn't not telling them the truth also immoral? Easy to sell and buy if it doesn't have an immediate, direct and personal impact. O'Neil was merely making the point: careful what you wish for. You should replace Greta Thunberg with Fred and Wilma Flintstone as role models in your fight for a fossil fuel free world.
Hi Rex, thanks for commenting on the post. I agree that the energy transition is complex and affects everyone, which is why honest discussions about trade-offs are crucial. My post focused on Woodside’s CEO framing climate action as an either/or issue, which can deflect accountability for corporate inaction, a form of moral disengagement, not superiority. I’m not advocating for an immediate fossil fuel ban; LNG and petroleum are part of the current energy mix, and transitioning responsibly requires pragmatism, not just ideals. The aim is to push for innovation and accountability from organisations like Woodside, not to ignore practical realities. As for role models, it’s less about Thunberg or the Flintstones and more about finding solutions that balance progress with practicality. What specific trade-offs do you think we should prioritise in this transition?
Sue, hi. My point (with a bit of hyperbole) is exactly that. Sure drive for less fossil fuel, it makes sense if for no other reason it is a finite resource and will eventually run out. I acknowledge your transition position as per above comments, but, without spoiling a new 'friendship' that was not the tone or implication of your article. You've (inadvertently?) feed the mindset that we can live without LNG et al. We can't. The activists including certain politicians are advocating for zero. No LNG. That is absurd, and they know it. Life as we know it would end. Maybe not back to Bedrock but certainly back to the 1950s. Tell the acolytes what they will be living without and not just what will happen to the planet if we don't. I'm all for honest debate but that should also include hard-nosed benefit-cost analysis as well, otherwise it's a uni coffee shop debate. Tell the punters about 'cloud storage', AI, BitCoin etc. sucking up more and more energy and that demand will outstrip what is currently available using all energy sources. And then tell them that demand will double/treble over next five years, and grow exponentially in the out years. Good public policy requires all angles to be considered. In answer to your question - nothing if it can't stack up to the BCA blowtorch (no pun intended). If LNG provides more benefits than costs - drill, baby, drill! If solar is an optimal allocation of resources - shine, baby, shine. I think you get my point. Don't over emphasis the benefits and ignore the costs to the environment, economy, and living standards that renewables will bring. Cheap, reliable energy has provided the quality of life and wealth that we all enjoy including the Gen-whatevers. Throwing LNG and petroleum under the bus will cause a paradigm-shift that nobody is seriously prepared to accept, unless you're (not you) a modern-day Trotskyite wishing to destroy the western economic and social fabric. And they are at the core of this. No mistake. The useful idiots are those placarding Woodside's offices, and then driving home in their fossil-fuelled cars. You'd call them hypocrites if they could grasp the concept. I'm all for trade-offs, but lots of things have no 'substitute' if I can use an Econs 101 term. LNG is more than Temu T-shirts. No fertilisers, no plastics, no cheap clothing. As for petroleum - no heavy road transport, no air travel, no shipping. Can I also mention coal and steel, that unholy marriage. Innovation won't fix the problem because there is no emerging technology. Wind or solar is not on the energy/technology continuum that started with burning wood in Bedrock. It's a slip-lane at best. And a costly one at that. It's really old tech being repackaged. Finally, for the sake of transparency, I'm a Woodside share-holder - I'm putting my personal treasure where my mouth is, which is more than you can say for many others in this debate. Keep up the dialogue. Take care.
Thanks for your robust reply and for engaging with my article. I appreciate your perspective as a Woodside shareholder and your call for a rigorous benefit-cost analysis (BCA). To clarify, my piece didn’t advocate for an immediate end to LNG or petroleum. It critiqued Woodside’s CEO, Meg O’Neill, for deflecting accountability by blaming young consumers, a tactic Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement framework labels “attribution of blame” (scored 85/100). Data from the article, like Woodside’s 74.65 million tonnes of CO₂-e emissions in 2024 (exceeding Sri Lanka’s annual emissions), shows corporate impacts dwarf individual actions, underscoring my focus on systemic accountability, not a fossil fuel ban.
I agree public policy must weigh all angles, especially with energy demand from AI, cloud storage, and Bitcoin projected to double data centre energy use by 2030 (IEA, 2024). My article didn’t suggest eliminating LNG overnight; it challenged O’Neill’s binary framing of climate action, which sidesteps the nuanced transition needed. Renewables face real costs e.g. land use, intermittency, and infrastructure challenges (e.g. 1 MW of solar requires ~2 hectares, ARENA, 2023). However, LNG carries significant costs too: methane leaks (80 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years, IPCC), environmental degradation, and economic risks from finite resources. Climate impacts, like Woodside’s North West Shelf Extension (6.1 billion tonnes CO₂-e by 2070), drive catastrophes, escalating insurance premiums (e.g. 17% rise in Australia, 2024, Insurance Council) and taxpayer-funded rebuilds (e.g. $2.7B for 2022 floods, Treasury).
A BCA must evaluate both sides. Innovations like green ammonia (e.g. Yara’s Pilbara pilot, 2024) and bioplastics offer substitutes for LNG-derived products, but scaling requires investment and time.
On trade-offs, I’d prioritise:
1. Investing in grid reliability (e.g. $20B Rewiring the Nation fund) to manage renewables’ intermittency.
2. Scaling geothermal for baseload power (e.g. Geodynamics’ Cooper Basin project).
3. Incentivising innovation in high-energy sectors like transport and industry (e.g. $1.9B Powering Australia Industry Program).
Nobody wants a 1950s rollback, but over-relying on fossil fuels without accelerating alternatives risks economic and environmental stagnation. The article’s “What You Can Do” section promotes practical steps e.g. divestment, community renewables to drive progress, not a Flintstones fantasy.
Thanks for keeping this honest debate alive, our collective future depends on it. Take care.
I'm back. Dragons' slain, but world peace will take a little more time. Not sure if I'm supposed to continue this chain or the one below? Well here goes. I'll resist engaging on the stats you've provided - I don't know the source nor their veracity. And I'm a follower of Mark Twain's view on statistics - the lies, damn lies ... one. I tend to use stats when I've got a dodgy argument - they baffle brains always.
On the other points. I acknowledge that you are not advocating zero fossils and LNG in particular, so let's agree for the purpose of argument: no new gas fields ie. we'll force a shut-down of the existing through the effluxion of time. A bit like what's happening in the People's Demographic Republic of Victoria. 'Victoria - the NIMBY State'. Let's assume (one of the most overused words in Economics) renewables get their's in a pile and Victoria doesn't become South Australia. But that only fixes the electricity generation issue. No mention of the other things that will stop or become horrendously expensive as identified earlier. For many goods and services we take for granted there are no substitutes on the horizon, now or ever. And why is Twiggy Forrest building LNG onshoring facilities in Port Kembla and also in Victoria (I think?). Follow the money. And not the ideology.
I'm not a supporter of public sector intervention in markets and in direct investment in development projects. If you want a costly delay and ultimately sub-optimal outcomes get the government involved. I speak from experience. Governments should facilitate through the provision of infrastructure and not participate. Leave that to the market. The subsidizing of renewable energy generation and/or industries that consume its product is one of the greatest acts of subterfuge inflicted on the unsuspecting Australian taxpayer. And it is grossly immoral. Tax payers - the ordinary workers having problems feeding their families and paying their rent are subsidizing wealthier Australians (individuals and corporations) to buy EVs and build Ammonia plants through the taxation system. And before you say that we we have subsidised the fossil fuel industry for decades - don't. The Federal Government provides a diesel rebate for non-road users of diesel fuel eg. farmers and miners. Its a rebate through the taxation system not a subsidy.
I could go on, but I won't.
You're a competent writer and have obvious flair for developing a good argument. And you are prepared to consider a counter position. Here's a challenge for you. Write an article about the things that will change when LNG and petroleum becomes scarcer (not, non-existent) and the effect on economic growth and every-day life. Title: "The Unavoidable Impact of a Fossil Free World". Something for the Gens-whatevers to ponder as they live in their parents' homes beyond their 30s. This is the true debate that's missing. If things are going to be so great why the reticence to tell people that their trip to Bali in 2050 will be the equivalent of a today first-class air ticket to Europe. Or that petrol will be scarcer than in a Mad Max movie. And that old clunker Subaru Outback will need to give way to a Tesla at $100k, with the usable life span of a codling moth. Oh, what fun.
A final thought for you to ponder: It is a fact and a sad reflection on humankind that the greatest innovations that have changed the world are as the result of war. From the earliest times our technological progress has been driven by and forged in the crucible of armed conflict. Aeroplanes, nuclear power, rocketry, jet engines, computers, medicines, even processed foods and utilitarian clothing have their origins in the need for a military advantage. Renewable energy doesn't provide a tangible advantage in war. If anything it is a hinderance. Whatever drives the world post fossil fuels will be because of a future war. If we survive the next major conflagration? The paradox that is war and destruction and innovation and the furtherance of mankind makes for a great topic for discussion.
you’ve got a knack for bringing to light important topics and issuing compelling challenges. I love having my perspectives and mind stretched and challenged - I find it is the best way to learn.
So I’m in. Your challenge to write "The Unavoidable Impact of a Fossil Free World" is a brilliant prompt to dig into the gritty realities of a world with scarcer LNG and petroleum. I’ll do my best to steer clear of ideology, as you suggest, and focus on what this shift could mean for everyday life and economic growth. I need some time to process this and think about the systems involved. When I'm done, I’ll share the article here for you and the Gens-whatevers to chew on.
Bonus points: I’ll ponder that war-innovation paradox you tossed in which is indeed a fascinating angle.
Sadly, as you point out it is not until humans hit crisis mode that the 'oh shit' moment dawns on them that they need to do something and real innovation springs into action. This is deeply frurstrating for those of us who have been seeing this coming for decadss and doing our level best to take action before it becomes a crisis. Sigh.
So thanks for the intellectual workout, I will do my best to deliver something meaningful and useful.
In the meantime watch for my latest article on Protecting the Fragile System of Democracy as a Reluctant Doer.
The analysis exposes the behaviour of corporates. It is systemic. Moral Engagement is an option. It’s your choice. Do you have a social licence to operate? Do you practice corporate social responsibility? What country are you a citizen of?
It's a shame you haven't added honesty to your 'theory of moral disengagement' (read: theory of moral superiority). When are climate alarmists going to tell gen-whatever that their vacuous lives will be very, very different without any LNG in particular and petroleum in general. Isn't not telling them the truth also immoral? Easy to sell and buy if it doesn't have an immediate, direct and personal impact. O'Neil was merely making the point: careful what you wish for. You should replace Greta Thunberg with Fred and Wilma Flintstone as role models in your fight for a fossil fuel free world.
Hi Rex, thanks for commenting on the post. I agree that the energy transition is complex and affects everyone, which is why honest discussions about trade-offs are crucial. My post focused on Woodside’s CEO framing climate action as an either/or issue, which can deflect accountability for corporate inaction, a form of moral disengagement, not superiority. I’m not advocating for an immediate fossil fuel ban; LNG and petroleum are part of the current energy mix, and transitioning responsibly requires pragmatism, not just ideals. The aim is to push for innovation and accountability from organisations like Woodside, not to ignore practical realities. As for role models, it’s less about Thunberg or the Flintstones and more about finding solutions that balance progress with practicality. What specific trade-offs do you think we should prioritise in this transition?
Sue, hi. My point (with a bit of hyperbole) is exactly that. Sure drive for less fossil fuel, it makes sense if for no other reason it is a finite resource and will eventually run out. I acknowledge your transition position as per above comments, but, without spoiling a new 'friendship' that was not the tone or implication of your article. You've (inadvertently?) feed the mindset that we can live without LNG et al. We can't. The activists including certain politicians are advocating for zero. No LNG. That is absurd, and they know it. Life as we know it would end. Maybe not back to Bedrock but certainly back to the 1950s. Tell the acolytes what they will be living without and not just what will happen to the planet if we don't. I'm all for honest debate but that should also include hard-nosed benefit-cost analysis as well, otherwise it's a uni coffee shop debate. Tell the punters about 'cloud storage', AI, BitCoin etc. sucking up more and more energy and that demand will outstrip what is currently available using all energy sources. And then tell them that demand will double/treble over next five years, and grow exponentially in the out years. Good public policy requires all angles to be considered. In answer to your question - nothing if it can't stack up to the BCA blowtorch (no pun intended). If LNG provides more benefits than costs - drill, baby, drill! If solar is an optimal allocation of resources - shine, baby, shine. I think you get my point. Don't over emphasis the benefits and ignore the costs to the environment, economy, and living standards that renewables will bring. Cheap, reliable energy has provided the quality of life and wealth that we all enjoy including the Gen-whatevers. Throwing LNG and petroleum under the bus will cause a paradigm-shift that nobody is seriously prepared to accept, unless you're (not you) a modern-day Trotskyite wishing to destroy the western economic and social fabric. And they are at the core of this. No mistake. The useful idiots are those placarding Woodside's offices, and then driving home in their fossil-fuelled cars. You'd call them hypocrites if they could grasp the concept. I'm all for trade-offs, but lots of things have no 'substitute' if I can use an Econs 101 term. LNG is more than Temu T-shirts. No fertilisers, no plastics, no cheap clothing. As for petroleum - no heavy road transport, no air travel, no shipping. Can I also mention coal and steel, that unholy marriage. Innovation won't fix the problem because there is no emerging technology. Wind or solar is not on the energy/technology continuum that started with burning wood in Bedrock. It's a slip-lane at best. And a costly one at that. It's really old tech being repackaged. Finally, for the sake of transparency, I'm a Woodside share-holder - I'm putting my personal treasure where my mouth is, which is more than you can say for many others in this debate. Keep up the dialogue. Take care.
Hi Rex,
Thanks for your robust reply and for engaging with my article. I appreciate your perspective as a Woodside shareholder and your call for a rigorous benefit-cost analysis (BCA). To clarify, my piece didn’t advocate for an immediate end to LNG or petroleum. It critiqued Woodside’s CEO, Meg O’Neill, for deflecting accountability by blaming young consumers, a tactic Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement framework labels “attribution of blame” (scored 85/100). Data from the article, like Woodside’s 74.65 million tonnes of CO₂-e emissions in 2024 (exceeding Sri Lanka’s annual emissions), shows corporate impacts dwarf individual actions, underscoring my focus on systemic accountability, not a fossil fuel ban.
I agree public policy must weigh all angles, especially with energy demand from AI, cloud storage, and Bitcoin projected to double data centre energy use by 2030 (IEA, 2024). My article didn’t suggest eliminating LNG overnight; it challenged O’Neill’s binary framing of climate action, which sidesteps the nuanced transition needed. Renewables face real costs e.g. land use, intermittency, and infrastructure challenges (e.g. 1 MW of solar requires ~2 hectares, ARENA, 2023). However, LNG carries significant costs too: methane leaks (80 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years, IPCC), environmental degradation, and economic risks from finite resources. Climate impacts, like Woodside’s North West Shelf Extension (6.1 billion tonnes CO₂-e by 2070), drive catastrophes, escalating insurance premiums (e.g. 17% rise in Australia, 2024, Insurance Council) and taxpayer-funded rebuilds (e.g. $2.7B for 2022 floods, Treasury).
A BCA must evaluate both sides. Innovations like green ammonia (e.g. Yara’s Pilbara pilot, 2024) and bioplastics offer substitutes for LNG-derived products, but scaling requires investment and time.
On trade-offs, I’d prioritise:
1. Investing in grid reliability (e.g. $20B Rewiring the Nation fund) to manage renewables’ intermittency.
2. Scaling geothermal for baseload power (e.g. Geodynamics’ Cooper Basin project).
3. Incentivising innovation in high-energy sectors like transport and industry (e.g. $1.9B Powering Australia Industry Program).
Nobody wants a 1950s rollback, but over-relying on fossil fuels without accelerating alternatives risks economic and environmental stagnation. The article’s “What You Can Do” section promotes practical steps e.g. divestment, community renewables to drive progress, not a Flintstones fantasy.
Thanks for keeping this honest debate alive, our collective future depends on it. Take care.
I'm back. Dragons' slain, but world peace will take a little more time. Not sure if I'm supposed to continue this chain or the one below? Well here goes. I'll resist engaging on the stats you've provided - I don't know the source nor their veracity. And I'm a follower of Mark Twain's view on statistics - the lies, damn lies ... one. I tend to use stats when I've got a dodgy argument - they baffle brains always.
On the other points. I acknowledge that you are not advocating zero fossils and LNG in particular, so let's agree for the purpose of argument: no new gas fields ie. we'll force a shut-down of the existing through the effluxion of time. A bit like what's happening in the People's Demographic Republic of Victoria. 'Victoria - the NIMBY State'. Let's assume (one of the most overused words in Economics) renewables get their's in a pile and Victoria doesn't become South Australia. But that only fixes the electricity generation issue. No mention of the other things that will stop or become horrendously expensive as identified earlier. For many goods and services we take for granted there are no substitutes on the horizon, now or ever. And why is Twiggy Forrest building LNG onshoring facilities in Port Kembla and also in Victoria (I think?). Follow the money. And not the ideology.
I'm not a supporter of public sector intervention in markets and in direct investment in development projects. If you want a costly delay and ultimately sub-optimal outcomes get the government involved. I speak from experience. Governments should facilitate through the provision of infrastructure and not participate. Leave that to the market. The subsidizing of renewable energy generation and/or industries that consume its product is one of the greatest acts of subterfuge inflicted on the unsuspecting Australian taxpayer. And it is grossly immoral. Tax payers - the ordinary workers having problems feeding their families and paying their rent are subsidizing wealthier Australians (individuals and corporations) to buy EVs and build Ammonia plants through the taxation system. And before you say that we we have subsidised the fossil fuel industry for decades - don't. The Federal Government provides a diesel rebate for non-road users of diesel fuel eg. farmers and miners. Its a rebate through the taxation system not a subsidy.
I could go on, but I won't.
You're a competent writer and have obvious flair for developing a good argument. And you are prepared to consider a counter position. Here's a challenge for you. Write an article about the things that will change when LNG and petroleum becomes scarcer (not, non-existent) and the effect on economic growth and every-day life. Title: "The Unavoidable Impact of a Fossil Free World". Something for the Gens-whatevers to ponder as they live in their parents' homes beyond their 30s. This is the true debate that's missing. If things are going to be so great why the reticence to tell people that their trip to Bali in 2050 will be the equivalent of a today first-class air ticket to Europe. Or that petrol will be scarcer than in a Mad Max movie. And that old clunker Subaru Outback will need to give way to a Tesla at $100k, with the usable life span of a codling moth. Oh, what fun.
A final thought for you to ponder: It is a fact and a sad reflection on humankind that the greatest innovations that have changed the world are as the result of war. From the earliest times our technological progress has been driven by and forged in the crucible of armed conflict. Aeroplanes, nuclear power, rocketry, jet engines, computers, medicines, even processed foods and utilitarian clothing have their origins in the need for a military advantage. Renewable energy doesn't provide a tangible advantage in war. If anything it is a hinderance. Whatever drives the world post fossil fuels will be because of a future war. If we survive the next major conflagration? The paradox that is war and destruction and innovation and the furtherance of mankind makes for a great topic for discussion.
Cheers.
Good morning Rex,
you’ve got a knack for bringing to light important topics and issuing compelling challenges. I love having my perspectives and mind stretched and challenged - I find it is the best way to learn.
So I’m in. Your challenge to write "The Unavoidable Impact of a Fossil Free World" is a brilliant prompt to dig into the gritty realities of a world with scarcer LNG and petroleum. I’ll do my best to steer clear of ideology, as you suggest, and focus on what this shift could mean for everyday life and economic growth. I need some time to process this and think about the systems involved. When I'm done, I’ll share the article here for you and the Gens-whatevers to chew on.
Bonus points: I’ll ponder that war-innovation paradox you tossed in which is indeed a fascinating angle.
Sadly, as you point out it is not until humans hit crisis mode that the 'oh shit' moment dawns on them that they need to do something and real innovation springs into action. This is deeply frurstrating for those of us who have been seeing this coming for decadss and doing our level best to take action before it becomes a crisis. Sigh.
So thanks for the intellectual workout, I will do my best to deliver something meaningful and useful.
In the meantime watch for my latest article on Protecting the Fragile System of Democracy as a Reluctant Doer.
Onward we press.
Sue
Sue, More power to you. It should be an interesting journey.
I will have a look at your latest.
Take care.
Signing off
Rex
Sue, hi, again. Give me a few hours I have other dragons to slay today! To quote 'Arnie", "I be back!". :)
Ok Rex. I have a few dragons to slay or beasts to soothe in my own world of work. All the best