Every tonne not reduced in WA must be reduced elsewhere
Western Australia's Premier has assured the public his state is on course for net zero emissions by 2050, yet internal government modelling quietly tells a different story — one of a 2 percent reduction by 2030 where 11 percent is needed. In a nation racing against its own climate promises, WA and the Northern Territory stand as the only jurisdictions where emissions have actually grown since 2005, and both have declined to set binding 2030 targets. The distance between a government's public commitments and its private projections is not merely a political problem; it is a question of whether collective action on climate can survive the weight of individual exceptions.
- Internal WA government modelling projects only a 2% emissions reduction by 2030 — barely a fifth of the 11% needed to stay on the net zero pathway — a gap the state has chosen not to disclose publicly until 2025.
- Premier Cook insists the trajectory is simply non-linear, betting on a late-decade surge in hydrogen and renewables, but critics warn that delaying reductions means spending the most critical years of the climate decade moving in the wrong direction.
- WA and the Northern Territory are the only Australian jurisdictions with emissions higher today than in 2005, and neither has set a whole-of-economy 2030 target, leaving a visible hole in the national 43% reduction commitment.
- Climate experts are sounding the alarm that opacity is as damaging as inaction — every tonne WA fails to cut must be absorbed elsewhere in the country, quietly shifting the burden onto states that have already committed to harder targets.
- Public pressure and incoming climate legislation may force WA's hand, but whether the state's wager on a late-decade industrial transformation pays off — or leaves a critical decade of lost progress — remains the defining open question.
Western Australia's Premier Roger Cook has publicly maintained that his state is on track toward net zero emissions by 2050. Internal government modelling, however, tells a starkly different story — one the state has kept largely out of public view.
Documents reviewed by 7.30 show WA's own analysis projects just a 2 percent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 under current trends. Staying on course for the 2050 target would require an 11 percent reduction. Cook rejected the idea that the state was off track, arguing that WA's pathway would not be linear — that a significant surge in renewables and hydrogen toward the end of the 2030s would drive sharp reductions. He pointed to the planned 2029 closure of the Muja coal-fired power station as evidence of progress. The challenge is real: the Pilbara region alone accounts for 40 percent of the state's emissions and houses a quarter of Australia's largest polluters.
But the timing of those promised reductions matters enormously. If the bulk of cuts are weighted toward the decade's end, WA will have spent years barely moving — a credibility problem for both the state and the nation. Australia has pledged a 43 percent national reduction by 2030, and most states have set their own interim targets. WA and the Northern Territory are the only two jurisdictions where emissions are actually higher now than in 2005, and neither has established a whole-of-economy 2030 target.
The WA government says it will not release its projections publicly until 2025, when new climate legislation requires interim targets to be set. Climate Action Minister Reece Whitby defended the delay as consistent with other jurisdictions and noted the particular difficulty of decarbonising a heavy-industry economy. Experts are unconvinced. ANU professor Frank Jotzo argued that every tonne WA fails to reduce must be cut somewhere else in the country to meet national goals. Climate Council's Jennifer Rayner called for immediate release of the internal projections, and criticised the absence of a 2030 target as a fundamental delay in climate action.
The Northern Territory faces similar scrutiny, with an emissions forecast report originally due in 2021 still unreleased. Whether public pressure accelerates WA's transparency, and whether the state's late-decade bet on clean industry actually materialises, will determine whether a public commitment to the nation quietly unravels over the years ahead.
Western Australia's Premier Roger Cook has been telling the public his state is tracking toward net zero emissions by 2050. But internal government modelling tells a different story—one the state has kept largely hidden from public view.
The gap between the promise and the projection is stark. According to documents 7.30 has reviewed, WA's own analysis shows the state will achieve only a 2 percent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 if current trends continue. To actually stay on course for the 2050 net zero target, that figure would need to be 11 percent. The shortfall is not a rounding error. It is a fundamental misalignment between what the government is saying publicly and what its own modelling suggests is likely to happen.
When presented with these figures, Cook rejected the characterization that the state was off track. He argued the pathway to net zero would not be linear—that Western Australia would see a "significant uplift" in renewable energy and hydrogen industries toward the end of the 2030s, which would drive emissions down sharply. The state's trajectory, he suggested, was simply different from other parts of the country. Western Australia has a unique problem: it is home to massive mining and export operations that generate enormous emissions. The Pilbara region alone accounts for 40 percent of the state's total emissions and houses a quarter of Australia's biggest polluters. Those companies operate under the federal Safeguard Mechanism, which requires large emitters to cut emissions annually or purchase carbon offsets. The state's largest coal-fired power station, Muja, is scheduled to close in 2029, which Cook pointed to as evidence of progress.
But the timing matters. If emissions reductions are weighted toward the end of the decade, the state will have spent most of the 2030s moving in the wrong direction—or at best, barely moving at all. That creates a credibility problem not just for Western Australia but for the nation's climate commitments overall. The federal government has pledged a 43 percent emissions reduction by 2030. Most states and territories have set their own 2030 targets: Tasmania aims for net zero, the ACT for 65 to 75 percent, South Australia for more than 50 percent, New South Wales for 50 percent, Victoria for 45 to 50 percent, and Queensland for 30 percent. Western Australia and the Northern Territory are the only two jurisdictions where emissions are actually higher now than they were in 2005. Neither has set a whole-of-economy 2030 target, though both have committed to net zero by 2050.
The lack of transparency is compounding the problem. The WA government says it will not release its emissions projections publicly until 2025, when it is required to set interim targets under new climate change legislation introduced to parliament in November. Climate Action Minister Reece Whitby defended the delay, saying the approach was consistent with other Australian jurisdictions and that projections were based on assumptions subject to change. He also emphasized that the state faces a uniquely difficult decarbonization challenge because of its heavy industries.
Experts argue this opacity undermines the entire national effort. Frank Jotzo, a professor at the Australian National University, said a consistent system of state-based emissions projections and targets would strengthen Australia's decarbonization work. "Every tonne of emissions not reduced in WA needs to be reduced somewhere else in the country in order to achieve the national emissions target," he said. Jennifer Rayner from the Climate Council was more direct: both Western Australia and the Northern Territory should make their internal projections public immediately. "We need that level of transparency so that we can understand how as a community and as a nation we are going to cut harmful carbon pollution," she said. She also criticized the state for not establishing a 2030 target at all, calling it a fundamental delay in climate action.
The Northern Territory, for its part, has not yet released an emissions forecast report that was originally due in 2021 and then delayed to 2022. An NT government spokesman said the territory contributes only 3 percent of Australia's emissions and has set interim targets for 2030, including 50 percent renewable energy for grid-connected electricity and a 47 percent reduction in government operational emissions. But like Western Australia, the NT is still developing its full net zero plan.
What happens next depends partly on whether the public pressure for transparency forces the WA government to release its modelling sooner, and partly on whether the state's bet on a late-decade emissions surge actually materializes. If hydrogen and renewable energy do take off as Cook suggests, the state could still reach its 2050 target. But if they do not, Western Australia will have spent a critical decade falling further behind on a commitment it has publicly made to the nation.
Citações Notáveis
Our pathway to net zero is unique in Australia. We have a significant number of high emitting industries particularly associated with our resources sector.— Premier Roger Cook
The WA government is fundamentally leaving it too long by not establishing a 2030 emissions reduction target.— Jennifer Rayner, Climate Council
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that Western Australia's internal modelling stays hidden until 2025? Isn't the 2050 target what counts?
Because 2030 is when the nation has to hit its 43 percent reduction. If WA is only at 2 percent by then, someone else has to make up that 9-percent gap. It's not just WA's problem—it's everyone's.
But Cook says the state will see a big jump in emissions reductions toward the end of the 2030s. Isn't that plausible?
It's possible. Hydrogen and renewables could accelerate. But it's also a bet. And the state is asking the public to trust that bet without showing the working. That's what the experts mean by transparency.
Why is Western Australia different from other states?
Mining. The Pilbara alone is 40 percent of the state's emissions. Those are hard industries to decarbonize quickly. But that's exactly why the modelling should be public—so investors and communities can see what the actual plan is, not just the headline.
Is the Northern Territory in the same boat?
Worse, actually. It hasn't even released its forecast report yet, and it's been delayed since 2021. At least WA has said when it will publish. The NT is still figuring out what it's doing.
What happens if WA doesn't hit that 11 percent by 2030?
Then the state will have missed a critical window. The 2050 target becomes much harder to reach, and the national target becomes harder too. You can't make up a decade of lost ground in the final sprint.