Community and social justice organisations say the Queensland Government’s new Energy Roadmap is a betrayal of families and low-income households already struggling under energy debt.

The plan keeps state-owned coal plants running into the 2040s and doubles gas generation, measures experts say will raise costs for consumers while funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars into outdated industries.

Analysis by Jacobs, commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, shows Queenslanders could face bill increases of up to 47.8% by 2030 under a slowed renewables rollout. Meanwhile, Queensland Conservation Council estimates the Callide B coal plant alone could drain $420 million per year from public funds.

Emma Bacon, Executive Director of Sweltering Cities: “Queenslanders will be paying more for less reliable power. Last summer coal plants broke down 78 times. This plan means more outages and expensive energy. We should be looking for solutions, not more sweltering summers of sleepless nights and bill anxiety.”

Jay Coonan, Co-coordinator of Antipoverty Centre: “People are struggling to pay their bills while billion-dollar companies are being bailed out by governments. If the government cared about cost-of-living relief it would ensure that people have access to energy regardless of their income, not by funding fossil fuels and their shareholders.”

Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate: “The cheapest, cleanest energy is from the sun. QLD families are under the pump to pay rising bills in an ageing system, the last thing we want is a government pouring good money after bad. This plan is reckless and unfair, it punishes families instead of protecting their future.”

The coalition is calling for immediate investment in:

• Cancel unfair energy debt so households can escape the cycle of hardship created by record corporate profits and high bills.
• Bring bills down for good by ensuring energy company profits are reinvested in renewable power, like solar, wind and batteries, and that savings are passed on to customers.
• End the debt trap by strengthening consumer protections and holding energy retailers accountable when they put profits before people.
• Help households take back control through support for rooftop solar, batteries, insulation and efficient appliances so every Australian can afford a safe, healthy, energy-secure home.

“This plan doesn’t stop the bill shock. It supercharges it,” said Seton.

– ENDS – 

About Stop the Bill Shock

The Stop the Bill Shock campaign was started by a collective of climate and economic justice organisations working and campaigning to make sure energy bills are permanently lowered and that everyone benefits and is included in the transition to renewables – not just those that can afford home upgrades. https://www.stopthebillshock.org/

Government ignores its own warnings, leaving children exposed to escalating climate risks

DATE: Thursday 18 September

The Albanese Government’s weak 2035 climate target fails the child safety test. Despite clear warnings from its own National Climate Risk Assessment, which shows children and young people will be among the most harmed by worsening heat, fires, floods, and economic shocks, the government has chosen a pathway that locks in a dangerous future.

Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate, says:

"As a parent, it’s heartbreaking and insulting. The Albanese Government has read the report, seen the risks to our kids’ health, homes, and communities, and still set a target that knowingly puts them in harm’s way. Parents don’t gamble with kids’ safety. Neither should the government."

"Every delay, every weak target, compounds the risk for our children. This unscientific 2035 target leads to dangerous warming above 2 degrees, leaving more homes vulnerable, more schools disrupted, and more communities exposed. It’s a failure of courage, leadership, and responsibility."

The government’s own National Climate Risk Assessment confirms that children will be disproportionately harmed by escalating climate impacts. Parents for Climate says this reinforces the government’s duty under Australian and international law to act on the best-available science and protect children’s right to a safe future.

David Barnden, Managing Principal & Director, Equity Generations Lawyers says: 

“The International Court of Justice confirmed governments must set emissions reduction targets consistent with 1.5C and the best available science. For Australia, under the Climate Change Act, we say that means a net zero by 2035 target.”

The Australian Climate Service has identified 63 nationally significant climate risks across eight interconnected systems; these risks paint a stark picture of what the future could look like without immediate and strong action. By 2050, 1.5 million Australians could be directly impacted by sea level rise, insurance will become unaffordable or unavailable for many households, health systems will be pushed beyond their limits, and displaced communities will face the loss of homes, livelihoods, and social cohesion.

Children are particularly vulnerable. Heatwaves disrupt schools and early learning centres, bushfires threaten homes, and extreme weather events affect both mental and physical health. Feedback from parents across Australia shows these threats are already shaping daily life: storms and floods keeping kids indoors, cancelled holidays and community events, disrupted learning, and growing eco-anxiety about the future. These are no longer isolated experiences - they are the new normal.

Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate, says:
“This devastating report confirms what’s at stake: our kids’ safety from cascading climate harms. It shows how risks across health, food, housing, security and community are all interconnected - and how inaction will cause them to compound and overwhelm us. Parents do everything they can to protect their children, but governments must do the same: cut coal and gas pollution and commit to a science-aligned 2035 target. This report is confronting, but it’s not our destiny. The future it outlines is avoidable - if we act boldly and immediately.”

Families across Australia are already living with disrupted routines, rising costs, and growing anxiety. But it doesn’t have to get worse. This report is a warning and a roadmap: if we act with courage now, we can protect our kids from cascading risks and build a safer, more stable future. The government’s choice is clear - set strong science aligned 2035 climate targets, or fail our children. We cannot merely adapt our way out of this”

Jess Scully (she/her) is an advocate for an expanded civic imagination to create a fair and sustainable future. She has served as Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney and has worked as a policy advisor, cultural strategist, public art curator, editor and radio host. Jess was the founding Director of Vivid Ideas, Australia’s largest creative industries festival. She is a consultant to the World Bank, a member of Women for Election’s Political Advisory Board, and a Senior Associate at the Sydney Policy Lab. Her book, Glimpses of Utopia: Real Ideas for a Fairer World, illuminates solutions to the climate and inequality crises. Connect with Jess on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jessscully 

Climate action doesn’t always look the same. For some, it’s taking to the streets with a sign. For others, it’s showing up at school or community meetings. And sometimes, it’s about creating something lasting that can reach people in a different way - through words, stories, or art.

In this piece, we hear from one of our co-founders, Leanne Brummell. What started with knitting in the main street to spark conversations about gas has grown into a new chapter: writing books that give voice to the hopes, fears and resilience of parents navigating the climate crisis.

Leanne’s journey is just one example of how parents are finding their own paths to action - whether through protest, print, or everyday acts of courage.

You used to sit in the main street knitting to alert your community about issues the gas industry would create, now you’ve published a book.  What happened?

I always loved reading, always thought I’d love to write a book one day, but never in my wildest dreams thought I’d actually be writing, or writing with the climate in mind.

Then I had a year where I was pretty much housebound and thought let’s give it a go. A writing group had started in my town and I was encouraged to publish some of what I’d done.

Why climate?  

It’s funny, out here we’ve always been told that climate change wasn’t real, our MPs have consistently given us that message.  It’s actually their job under Article 12 of the Paris Agreement to educate us about climate change, but I guess they’re busy with more important things.  Anyway, after talking with some other mums on a zoom in about 2019, I looked into it, thinking this climate change stuff all seems very far fetched, it can’t be real.  What I found was mind blowing.  Like something so serious was happening, we had a window of opportunity to do something about it, and at the same time we’re being told by those trusted to look out for us that it’s a croc. So henceforth I became a climate mum and helped the other mums start an org Parents for Climate which now has over 25,000 members Australia wide.  I also got involved with the global climate parents movement.  

Why a book of affirmations?  

Being in contact with so many parents for such a long time, listening to their stories, their hopes and fears for their children was enriching but also sad.  Watching my daughter turn into an adult before my eyes, telling me she doesn’t want to bring a child into this world, and still seeing our governments arguing if climate change real, instead of pulling out all stops to work together to fix it, caused me a lot of distress.  I needed to hold myself together.  It’s how I coped.  Waking up every day, getting something positive into my head, reminding myself of the tiniest thing I’d done to do something about the problem (even if it was only tweeting an mp) and I think importantly, just acknowledging those feelings of rage, disbelief, scaredness, anger, sadness, loss etc.  When stuck at home I wrote a list of 100 positive affirmations. 50 are in this first book.  I hope it helps other people cope with their feelings about climate.

Today’s historic ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has confirmed what parents across Australia have long known: governments have a legal duty to protect people - especially children - from the harms of climate change. The ICJ has unequivocally declared that a safe, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right, and that states must take all necessary measures to prevent climate harm.

Parents for Climate CEO Nic Seton said, “The world’s highest court has spoken clearly: protecting children from climate harm is not optional. It is a legal obligation. We call on the Albanese Government to deliver a 2035 climate plan that reflects this duty of care - not just to today’s children, but to future generations.”

The ICJ found that greenhouse gas pollution causes serious harm to people’s rights to life, health, housing, food, water and a clean environment. It confirmed that under international law, states have legal obligations to prevent environmental harm and cooperate in good faith to limit warming to 1.5°C.

This opinion lands at a critical moment for Australia, as the federal government prepares to announce its 2035 emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement. Parents across the country are urging Prime Minister Albanese and Minister Chris Bowen to lead with courage and compassion.

“Our children deserve more than promises. They deserve action that meets the scale of the crisis,” said Seton. “As parents, we will not accept delay, distraction or denial.”

Parents for Climate supports the growing number of legal voices demanding accountability for climate inaction. Equity Generation Lawyers, who represented young Australians in climate litigation, welcomed the ruling.

“Pacific leadership through the ICJ ruling shows that Australia must commit to an emissions reduction target in line with 1.5 degrees. The ruling puts Australia on notice that if it continues to subsidise fossil fuel production, and approve expansion and exploration, the government may be committing an internationally wrongful act.”, said David Barnden, Principal at Equity Generation Lawyers.

Parents for Climate is calling on Cabinet to heed the ICJ’s message and deliver a 2035 target that:

• Aligns with the 1.5°C temperature goal,
• Phases out coal and gas exports,
• Delivers real emissions cuts, not offsets,
• And centers the wellbeing of children and communities.

1.  Gas and coal extraction alone cause over 17% of Australia’s domestic emissions (not counting emissions from burning these fuels)

54% of emissions under the Safeguard Mechanism (SGM), which purely measures Scope 1 emissions produced at each facility, relate to gas and coal facilities. Emissions covered by the SGM represented 31% of Australia’s total (in 2023/24). Therefore, gas and coal extraction emissions, excluding burning the fuel (either domestically or in export markets), represented over 17% of Australia domestic emissions. This also excludes emissions associated with domestic transport (pipelines/coal trains) and externally generated electricity supplying gas and coal facilities. Graph below prepared from SGM data published by the Clean Energy Regulator.

Source: SGM data published by the Clean Energy Regulator

82% of gas extracted in Australia is exported (75%) or used by the gas industry for export LNG production (7%). Approximately 70% of coal mined in Australia is exported (thermal and metallurgical). Accordingly, around 13% of Australia’s domestic emissions are solely related to the extraction of fossil fuels for export.

2.  Climate pollution from fossil fuels cannot be neutralised or offset using carbon credits

Parents for Climate recently reached a settlement in its greenwashing action with Energy Australia regarding its “Go Neutral” energy plans, which it claimed resulted in carbon neutral electricity and gas due to the use of carbon offset credits. In its public apology, the energy giant admitted “offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels.” It has withdrawn the Go Neutral products.

This is in line with the European Union directive, which bans the use of carbon neutral claims made using offset credits and calls into question the operation of the Safeguard Mechanism, which permits 100% use of offsets to meet mandated emissions reductions.

For comparison, the European Union’s equivalent of the Safeguard Mechanism, the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), only permits the use of credits created within the System by companies that emit less than their allocation. The equivalent here would be to only permit the use of Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMCs) for facilities that emit more than their baseline (instead of allowing Australian Carbon Credit Units, or ACCUs).

3.  Gas and coal extraction delivers 2.5% of total government revenues, or <$20 billion on export receipts of $115 billion

This includes State/Territory & Federal coal/gas royalties (which are not a tax, but a “cost of goods sold” imposed by governments for the right to extract minerals owned by the Crown) of about $7 billion; the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT), about $1 billion. Analysis of FY20 data by Paul Burke in the Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Company tax for the sector is estimated at $8-12 billion per annum. The Minerals Council of Australia noted that the entire sector including iron ore, gold and other minerals plus gas and coal paid $24.1 billion in FY20.

4.  LNG replaces more renewables than coal in export markets

A 2024 LNG Export Study published by the US Department of Energy examined claims by the oil and gas industry there that increasing gas production would displace coal in regions such as Asia. It found that for any reduction in coal use, the corresponding fall in renewable energy would be nearly double. Modelling work found that in scenarios where the US increased its gas production, coal consumption decreased by 13%, renewable energy production decreased by 25%. Graph below from the linked study.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy - LNGUpdate_AppendixA_Dec2024.pdf

5.  LNG produces more climate pollution than coal due to fugitive losses and the enormous energy required to liquify gas

A peer-reviewed study by Professor Robert Howarth at Cornell University, found American LNG, at least, was 33% worse than coal when it came to emissions, predominantly due to fugitive methane emissions (which is also significant issue with Australian gas extraction).

The Australian gas export industry uses an additional nearly 10% of whatever gas is exported to process and liquify the gas, as shown in the flow diagram below from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water. “Gas own use” at 435 petajoules (PJ) was 9.6% of LNG exports (4,541 PJ) and the largest domestic user of gas - larger than gas power generation (387 PJ).

Source: DCCEEW (2024) Australian Energy Statistics, Tables A and F and internal sources

6.  Japan profitably re-exports 30-50% of the Australian gas it imports

According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), “in 2024, Japan on-sold at least 600 PJ of Australian LNG to overseas markets, and potentially 800PJ, more than Eastern Australia’s annual domestic gas consumption. Japanese resales are likely driving more than A$1 billion in profits for Japanese companies, raising questions about Japan’s interests in Australia’s energy policies.”

7.  Gas and coal extraction directly employs under 0.5% of Australia’s total workforce

Around 45,000 in coal (equivalent to the headcount of ANZ bank) and 22,000 in gas (less than the headcount of NAB). Allowing for indirect and supporting jobs such as rail freight, port operations, engineering & construction, equipment & services, parts manufacturing, etc, a typical ratio of 3.5 indirect workers per direct yields a total sector-dependent workforce of around 301,500, or 2% of Australia’s total workforce. There are more teachers in Australia.

8.  The total annual subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is around $14 billion pa

This is according to the forward estimates. However, if you strip away the fuel excise credits and it’s about half that.

References

1. Safeguard Mechanism 2023/24 data spreadsheet and national greenhouse accounts. 
2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.12503
3. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/P1669-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2025-Web.pdf
4. https://reneweconomy.com.au/woodsides-claim-that-gas-displaces-coal-not-borne-out-by-evidence-instead-it-displaces-renewables/amp/
5. https://www.afr.com/world/asia/japan-ramps-up-regional-reselling-of-australian-gas-20250519-p5m0d4
6. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-19/gas-emissions-worse-than-coal-study-finds/104481570

Dear Customer

You’ve received this email because you are a current customer of EnergyAustralia’s and have participated in our Go Neutral program. As we previously advised you, we no longer offer our Go Neutral product and do not intend to offer the product in future.

In July 2023, the advocacy organisation Parents for Climate launched legal action against EnergyAustralia in the Federal Court of Australia alleging that EnergyAustralia's marketing of its Go Neutral carbon offset product amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law.

EnergyAustralia and Parents for Climate have agreed to settle the litigation and as part of that settlement EnergyAustralia has agreed to publish a public statement. The public statement is attached to this email and published on our website.

We acknowledge that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions and we apologise to any customer who felt that the way we marketed our Go Neutral products was unclear. EnergyAustralia has now shifted its focus to direct emissions reductions.

Greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and contribute to climate change. While offsets can help people to invest in worthwhile products that may reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere, offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use. Even with carbon offsetting, the emissions released from burning fossil fuels for a customer’s energy use still contribute to climate change.

We see this as an opportunity for us to continue to take a leadership role in the renewable energy transition and recognise the important role that climate advocacy groups play in representing the climate interests of the Australian community.

EnergyAustralia’s future focus is firmly on direct carbonisation initiatives including the closure of its Yallourn and Mt Piper coal-fired plants.

Yours sincerely

Kate Gibson

Chief Customer Officer

Andrew Macintosh, Australian National University

Australia’s largest carbon market player, GreenCollar, has quit the federal government’s voluntary carbon neutral program, Climate Active. More than 100 companies have left the program in the past two years.

Climate Active provides certification to businesses and other organisations to verify that they are carbon neutral. Certification is supposed to mean an organisation has neutralised the impacts its greenhouse gas emissions have on global warming by buying carbon offsets, which represent emission reductions achieved elsewhere.

GreenCollar is among many Australian organisations that develop emissions-reduction projects, such as storing carbon in vegetation. Upon exiting the Climate Active scheme, GreenCollar co-founder James Schultz told The Australian that Climate Active had become too risky, due to criticism from environmentalists the carbon abatement associated with offsets is often not genuine.

Electricity retailer EnergyAustralia has also acknowledged “legitimate public concern” about carbon offsets and programs such as Climate Active that rely on them.

Effective carbon offset projects do exist in Australia. However, research by my colleagues and I, and many other experts, has found integrity issues are widespread in carbon offset schemes – and low integrity projects are all too common, including in Australia.

So how has this situation arisen, and what should companies do to genuinely reduce their climate impact?

What are carbon offsets for?

Every day, companies emit greenhouse gas emissions. This can occur directly from their own operations, or indirectly through electricity they use and products they consume. Some emissions can be cut easily and cheaply, but others are harder and more expensive to reduce.

Carbon credits emerged to fill this gap. Where it is expensive for companies to reduce their own emissions, they can buy carbon credits to offset them. Each credit is supposed to represent one tonne of carbon abatement.

For the credits to be legitimate, they must represent real, additional and permanent abatement. Real refers to whether the emissions abatement has actually occurred. Additional means the abatement would not have occurred without the incentive provided by the crediting scheme. Permanent means the carbon stored in, say, planted trees, will stay there over the long term.

Under the scheme, companies that buy carbon credits to offset their emissions can be certified as “carbon neutral”.

A key problem is that companies can purchase old, super-cheap credits issued under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. These credits come from overseas projects such as windfarms and landfill gas projects overseas.

Serious doubts exist over the integrity of these credits. For example, a comprehensive review by European researchers in 2016 found the credits had “fundamental flaws” and most were “not providing real, measurable and additional emission reductions”.

Historically, these cheap credits have accounted for most carbon credits used in the Climate Active scheme.

The remainder have come from the Australian carbon offset scheme, which issues Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). But this scheme has also been plagued by integrity problems such as:

• concerns about the crediting of forest regeneration that does not exist

• credits issued for avoiding land clearing that was unlikely to ever happen

• the capture and combustion of methane from landfills that would have happened anyway.

These problems exist in carbon offset schemes around the world. Last year, an international group of researchers assessed carbon credits covering almost one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. They found less than 16% constituted real emission reductions.

Where to now?

So what should be done?

The first step is for companies to ensure they are investing in high-integrity projects. In overseas markets, ratings agencies exist to assist with this. In Australia, ratings agencies do not assess domestic projects because the federal government doesn’t publish enough information to make this possible.

The government could help companies invest in genuine emissions reductions by requiring more transparency from carbon offset projects, and ensuring relevant information is publicly accessible.

Rather than purchasing carbon abatement, companies may be better off directly cutting their own emissions as much as possible, by changing the way they operate. This might mean investing in new low-emissions equipment, reducing air travel by employees, or switching to green electricity.

Companies can also make direct investments in quality projects which help mitigate climate change and support biodiversity conservation.

And the federal government should clamp down on the significant number of low integrity offset projects in Australia’s offset scheme.

In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, which oversees Climate Active, said:

The Australian Government is actively considering the future direction of the Climate Active program. We recognise that Climate Active needs reform and that work is under way as a priority that will involve proper consultation.

The Climate Active program continues to operate, certifying entities that have met the program requirements.

The Australian Government continues to work to ensure the integrity of the ACCU Scheme, following recent reviews by the Climate Change Authority (CCA), independent experts and the Australian National Audit Office. These reviews have found the ACCU Scheme is well designed, well administered, and contributing to Australia’s transition to net zero by 2050.

Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dear Prime Minister,

Parents for Climate is a movement of mums, dads, grandparents and carers from every electorate, every political persuasion, and every cultural and language background. We are united by a simple, powerful commitment: to protect the children we love — and all children — from harm. Whether we’re acting on climate or speaking out against humanitarian catastrophe, we do so from the same place: fierce love and a deep sense of duty to young and future generations.

We are appalled by UN reports that 14,000 Gazan babies could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not reach them quickly. (1) This is an unimaginable tragedy unfolding in real time. We believe no child should suffer or die because adults fail to act.

Parents for Climate stands alongside our allies in the Climate Action Network Australia in calling for an immediate ceasefire and the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid. (2) Together, we support the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 2720 and 2712, and the demand for humanitarian organisations to have “full, safe, and unhindered access to all civilians in need”.

We thank your government for supporting international calls to resume the flow of aid. But the situation demands more. We urge you to use every diplomatic and political lever available to prevent further loss of life, uphold international humanitarian law, and insist on the protection of all civilians — including children — without exception.

Our love for our children does not stop at borders. As parents, we cannot stay silent in the face of this suffering. We ask you to act swiftly and with courage.

Sincerely,

Nic Seton

CEO, Parents for Climate

14 May 2025, Sydney - In an Australian first, EnergyAustralia will appear in the Federal Court today as part of a landmark legal case brought by Parents for Climate, alleging the energy giant misled over 400,000 customers about the climate impact of its “Go Neutral” product.

The formal hearing begins today and is expected to last two weeks, where Parents for Climate and EnergyAustralia will present expert evidence in the Federal Court on the marketing of the energy firm’s “Go Neutral” product. It marks the first time an Australian energy retailer has faced legal action for alleged greenwashing. It is also the first Australian court case brought against a company for “carbon neutral” marketing and follows a decision by lawmakers in the European Parliament to ban this conduct overseas.

Parents for Climate alleges that EnergyAustralia misled its customers about its “Go Neutral” product. The retailer told customers that its fossil fuel-based energy was “carbon neutral” and that customers “had a positive impact on the environment” on the basis that EnergyAustralia had “offset” emissions by buying carbon credits.  However, Parents for Climate argues that “offsetting” does not undo the damage from burning fossil fuels and “Go Neutral” customers' energy usage still contributed to climate change.

Parents for Climate estimates that “Go Neutral” customers spent hundreds of millions a year on fossil fuel energy, while being led to believe that it is “carbon neutral”. 

In September 2024 – more than a year after Parents for Climate filed its lawsuit – EnergyAustralia quietly withdrew its “Go Neutral” home energy product for new customers. By December, the company announced it was phasing the product out for existing customers from 15 March 2025 onwards. However, in a customer statement, the company noted it would continue to ‘offset’ emissions on behalf of customers until June 2025. EnergyAustralia said it had “made a commercial decision to close “Go Neutral” while we focus on reviewing and updating our plan to help our customers reduce their emissions.”

Parents for Climate’s court case comes at a time when the practice of “offsetting” is under increasing scrutiny.  

The Government’s troubled Climate Active scheme is under review, with the Government currently proposing the term “carbon neutral” is dropped altogether. Industry bodies, including the prominent Voluntary Carbon Markets Initiative, have taken a similar stance.

A growing list of businesses have withdrawn from Climate Active, including high profile participants like Australia Post, Telstra and PwC.

Internationally, the European Parliament has directed that any “carbon neutral” style claim based on “offsetting” is always misleading.  A number of overseas court decisions have also found “carbon neutral” style marketing to be misleading, including the 2024 judgment in the Netherlands that Dutch airline KLM’s “carbon neutral” claims were misleading and unlawful.

EnergyAustralia produces and sells electricity and is Australia’s third largest domestic greenhouse gas emitter, producing 17.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2022/23 and 16.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2023/24.

Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate, said: “If we succeed in this case, it will send a powerful message: the era of unchecked greenwashing is over. Companies will need to stop relying on junk offsets as a license to pollute and start cutting emissions at the source. Climate claims must be backed by real action - not marketing spin.

“Parents have spent too long trying to make careful, considered decisions about where their money goes - especially in a cost-of-living crisis - but corporate greenwashing has pushed them off track. It’s deeply frustrating and emotionally exhausting to navigate a maze of vague claims and false promises.  Greenwashing undermines trust and gives the dangerous illusion that emissions are being addressed when they’re not. 

“Parents want the truth, and they want climate solutions that actually protect their kids’ future. This case could raise the bar for transparency, integrity, and accountability across all corporate climate claims. 

“This isn’t just about EnergyAustralia - it’s about holding companies to a higher standard across the board,” Seton continued. “Greenwashing isn’t harmless. It’s costing families money, delaying climate action, and eroding trust.”

A growing national issue

This legal case is part of a much broader national reckoning with corporate greenwashing. A recent report from Parents for Climate reveals:

• An estimated 5.2 million Australian parents believe they’ve fallen victim to greenwashing
  
• 59% have already cancelled or changed providers - including banks, energy companies, super funds and insurers - because of misleading environmental claims
  
• 97% feel misled or lied to, with 83% feeling extremely misled
  
• 87% believe companies should be held more accountable for false or exaggerated green claims.

With 12.1 million parents and carers in Australia, this group represents one of the largest and most influential consumer and voting blocs in the country. They are increasingly taking action, using their purchasing power to demand integrity and impact - not spin.

Why this matters

The case will bring into focus several urgent questions about the role of carbon offsets in corporate climate claims - and whether they justify broad claims like “carbon neutral.” As regulators and consumers alike demand more transparency, businesses using environmental marketing face growing legal and reputational risks.

Greenwashing misleads the public and misrepresents the fight against climate change to the next generation. It disadvantages companies with legitimate claims and it can help justify a “business as usual” approach to the energy transition. Parents for Climate is calling for stronger regulation, clearer standards, and real action to ensure companies can’t hide behind vague or deceptive environmental claims.

Seton added: “Using offsets is not an adequate basis for making carbon neutral claims, period. Carbon pollution cannot be neutralised or negated by so-called “offsets”. Any further use of carbon offsets should be reserved for the hardest to abate emissions where other technology is not yet available. And those offsets must be credible, independently verified, and part of a broader plan to cut emissions at the source. Right now, cheap and junk offsets are being used as a license to pollute. We need the government and regulators to set clear rules, provide strong oversight, and for companies to be honest about what offsets can, and can’t, do. Customers deserve the truth, not marketing spin.”

“The facts are clear. Carbon offsets should be a last resort. Too many companies are using offsets to delay real climate action - and that’s not just misleading, it’s dangerous. The federal government has failed to deliver a high-integrity program for voluntary offsets, so we're taking matters into our own hands. We’re bringing this case because parents want truth in advertising and real solutions for their kids’ future, not greenwashing dressed up as climate action.”

David Hertzberg, Principal Lawyer at Equity Generation Lawyers, representing Parents for Climate said, “This is the first case in Australia targeting the marketing of consumer products as 'carbon neutral'.

"Our client argues that EnergyAustralia's promotion of its “Go Neutral” product amounts to misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

“The heart of our client’s claim is that “Go Neutral” customers’ energy usage still contributed to climate change, but EnergyAustralia’s marketing suggested the opposite.

“Parents for Climate will argue that burning fossil fuels creates emissions, and offsets do not permanently remove them.  That means that offsets cannot undo the climate harms caused by burning fossil fuels.  Burning fossil fuels always contributes to climate change, with or without offsets.  

"If our client is successful, it will force EnergyAustralia to own up to the problems with the way it marketed its “Go Neutral” product.  It would also set a precedent in relation to similar ‘carbon neutral’ style claims, helping to strip back some of the greenwashing faced by everyday consumers.  More broadly, it may help to change how we view the role of carbon offsets in tackling climate change.

"Consumers deserve to know the truth about what they are buying. And our client will argue the truth is that fossil fuel energy can never be 'carbon neutral’."

Court documents, including witness statements and legal arguments, will be made publicly available as proceedings progress.

Parents who want to support Parents for Climate’s work against misleading advertising can sign their open letter to power companies at https://www.parentsforclimate.org/greenwashing 

-Ends-

Advocacy group Parents for Climate says parents want to know how the risks of nuclear waste being transported past schools and child care centres will be managed by Peter Dutton if nuclear reactors proposed by the Coalition are built.

Parents for Climate CEO Nic Seton said, “Nuclear waste isn’t child’s play.

“Trucks crash every day in Australia. Where is the plan to keep our kids safe from truckloads of nuclear material? How will the risks of trucking nuclear fuel and radioactive waste be managed as these trucks pass the places where our kids learn and play? What kind of trucks will be used? How will they be reinforced? Why isn’t the cost of this included in the Frontier modelling report which the Coalition keeps talking about? 

“Parents who live along these routes deserve answers, not political spin and politicians dodging questions. My own family live and learn near these roads. With just a few days of polling left, we’ve had enough of being told ‘we’ll tell you after the election’.”

Enriched and volatile uranium for the nuclear reactors proposed by the Coalition would need to travel from ports to reach the reactor sites. After use, it’s likely the nuclear waste would then return to those ports via the same routes for reprocessing overseas, before traveling back to be stored at the reactor sites, although the Coalition hasn’t provided detail on any of this.

Parents for Climate’s analysis shows that the likely transport routes go past schools and childcare centres, including through the heart of Peter Dutton’s own electorate of Dickson.

Wynnum West mum, Robyn, says there hasn’t been enough information about how the risks of transporting nuclear fuel past schools will be managed. “Where is the detail?

“Driving nuclear waste past schools and childcare centres feels risky.

“If a nuclear reactor gets built in Tarong, as Peter Dutton says he wants, that nuclear fuel will come through the Port of Brisbane. And my son’s school is just a 10 minute walk from the fuel transport route.”

“How are they going to make sure it’s safe? No-one’s told us.”

“If they think this plan is good for Australian families they need to show they’ve done the planning to protect our kids from the risks. If they’ve done it, why aren’t they telling us?”

From mine to refinement to use and waste: 

Uranium is dug out of the ground at the Olympic uranium mine in South Australia, then transported by road and rail to Port Adelaide and shipped overseas for processing. 

The uranium, in the form of fuel rods, is then shipped back to the Australian ports nearest to the nuclear sites proposed by the Coalition - for example Port Botany for Mt Piper, or Port of Melbourne for the Latrobe Valley. The fuel rods are then transported to the nuclear plant from the port, probably by road.

Jenna, mum of two, lives in Woodford near the likely route fuel would take from Port Botany to Mt Piper, and says the road is already dangerous.

“There’s one highway through the part of the Blue Mountains where I live, and next year my eldest child will go to a school right on it - Hazelbrook Public School. Can Mr Dutton guarantee no nuclear waste truck will ever have an accident?

“I already worry a lot about the highway, because it is nearly impossible to avoid it in everyday life here. It’s so busy and dangerous with residential roads and houses entering onto an 80km road with poor visibility. Serious accidents happen here all the time.”

“If the Coalition builds a nuclear reactor at Mt Piper, that highway is also the one road where any nuclear fuel is likely to be transported. How do they plan to manage the risks?”

When the fuel rods are spent they are then transported from the nuclear plant back to the port they entered through, probably by road. Then the spent fuel rods and any contaminated equipment are shipped overseas, probably to France, for reprocessing. The reprocessed material is then shipped back to Australia for storage onsite at the nuclear plant that used them until a permanent waste site is found. 

Mr Seton said where children are involved even small risks need analysis and mitigation plans.

“It is unclear if the Coalition has spoken to experts about the transportation risks. Have they talked to the emergency services workers, nurses, firies, and others that would need to respond to an emergency?”

In January 2023, a tiny 8mm by 6mm radioactive capsule went missing, somewhere along a 1400 kilometre journey from Rio Tinto’s Gudai-Darri iron ore mine to its final destination in Perth, Western Australia.

The cost of the 5 day search has never been revealed, however Rio Tinto donated a $4 million work camp to the Western Australian Government in lieu of paying for it.

The loss triggered an alert from WA authorities warning of radioactive substance risk.

If there is an accident involving the handling or transport of uranium, the environment could be exposed to high levels of uranium that settles into the water, the soil and the plants. 

Humans who have ingested or inhaled uranium have developed kidney damage. There is also evidence to suggest that uranium can enter the brain and cause neurobehavioral problems like anxiety, memory, sleep-wake cycles and locomotor activity.

Additional quotes

Jayla, mum of two (4 and 1), Collie WA

“Nobody has answered my questions about the transport of nuclear waste through our small town. If Mr Dutton builds a reactor at Muja, any fuel for it would have to come via Coalfields highway - the one big road in and out of Collie. It’s right through the guts of the town.”

“My four year old daughter is starting kindy in Collie, just one block away from that road. That’s just too close for comfort.”

“I’ve done all the research I can and gone to all the information nights I can to find out what this proposed reactor will mean for our community. And transport is something I’ve never managed to get a straight answer on.”

“I’m so sick of them trying to hide everything. They think we’re small town idiots and our views don’t matter. But it’s our community and we deserve to know what they’re signing us up for.”

James, dad of two (kids 8 and 11) in Newcastle

“The Coalition's proposed nuclear power station in Liddell is unviable since the New England Highway will need to be regularly shut down to transport nuclear waste either through Muswellbrook or Singleton. 

Furthermore it is impossible to provide complete assurance that Muswellbrook Public School and Singleton Heights Public School will be kept safe from the deadly hazard of nuclear waste posed by the passing waste trucks.”

Tash, mum of two, Ashwood VIC

Kids at Ashwood High and Alia College

“How can any Australian think it is ok to put our children at risk by transporting nuclear fuels or by-products near schools? Saying it is safe to drive past simply ignores the possibility of accidents or poorly maintained transport vehicles. 

Nuclear power is unnecessary here and the risk to our children and their children's children is too large. Starting this now is creating headaches for all future generations. We can't risk it.”

Ann, mum of primary school aged kids, in Mount Waverley VIC

"It's a real kick in the teeth to work so hard to keep our children safe and healthy, only to see that our family's tax dollars could go toward funding something that could potentially harm them. 

“There is no way Peter Dutton can guarantee any handling or transportation accidents of uranium won't enter our waterways, soil, plants, and maybe even the food system. Once exposed, the damage is forever

“And for what? Profit? The illusion of stopping 'the lights going out' as part of a scare campaign? 

“No money or fear mongering over energy scarcity is enough to make me want to sign my children up for a lifetime of damaged health, much less foot the bill for that to happen."

Advocacy group Parents for Climate says the results of a candidate pledge it has circulated in the lead up to the election show the Coalition as disappointingly weak on its support for solar and home batteries - hugely popular policies supported by the Senate Residential Electrification Inquiry.

The pledge was sent to all candidates in the weeks prior to polling. It reads, “If elected, I will work to reduce the cost of energy and protect homes, schools and early childhood centres from extreme heat by supporting access to cheap energy powered by solar and batteries.”

At the time of writing, only two Liberal party candidates had pledged, compared to eight from right wing party Trumpet of Patriots.

CEO Nic Seton said Parents for Climate always tried hard to work with all sides of politics, and had hoped more Coalition candidates would have pledged their support for more permanent cost saving energy solutions.

“It’s in families’ interests that there’s bipartisan support for common-sense solutions like rooftop solar and batteries that cut living costs, because we don’t want support to chop and change with every election. We’ve secured support from almost 400 candidates, but we’re left wondering what happened to the Coalition's household energy plans.

“It’s no surprise that Greens, Labor and independents have backed our pledge. But it is surprising that more candidates further to the right of the Coalition have pledged support for household solar and batteries than candidates from the Coalition itself.”

“The Coalition promised support for home batteries, assuring us they’d announce a competing policy soon. We took that in good faith, but with only days left before polling day, where is the policy?”

Currently 398 candidates from a total of 19 political parties have pledged their support for increasing access to rooftop solar and home batteries to cut the cost of living.

ENDS

Media contacts: Nic Seton, CEO Parents for Climate: 0407 638 973, [email protected]

Advocacy group Parents for Climate applauds today’s “Renters' right to solar” announcement by the Greens, and calls on the major parties to either match it or offer alternative solutions.

CEO Nic Seton said, “Parents in our network regularly meet with MPs from across the political spectrum to push for all families to benefit from clean energy upgrades like solar. When we raise the issue of renters accessing the savings of solar, absolutely everyone agrees it’s a problem that needs solving, regardless of their politics.”

“But so far it seems to have been consigned by parties to the too-hard basket, and neither Labor nor the Coalition have proposed a solution at the federal level until now.”

“This proposal by the Greens is a welcome development that gets the topic on the agenda. We call on the major parties to either match this plan or say what they would do instead. As things stand, renters are paying more for electricity than homeowners who can put solar on. That’s not good enough.”

Single mum Emily, a renter in Coburg with an eight year old, says, “Solar panels would make a huge difference to my life and budget.”

“At 43, circumstances have me still renting. I’m entirely using electricity where I can, including using an electric vehicle. My electricity bill went from $393.91 for the last quarter of 2023 to $1086 for the same quarter in 2024.”

Ben, father of two, is a tenant in his Alphington family home, and also owns an investment property which he leases out. Ben, who describes himself as a ‘rentvestor’, said he liked the solar-for-renters policy both as a tenant and as a landlord.

“As a renter, I've really noticed that electricity prices have gone up recently, so anything to help get them down would go a long way."

"And as a landlord, I've looked into putting solar on my property, but it's hard to get it to stack up financially. It's great to see at least some solutions are being proposed here."

Parents for Climate and the Climate Council released a report in 2024, Under Pressure: The climate crunch fuelling inflation and hurting Aussie families, which found that homeowners who could afford the upfront cost of clean energy upgrades were saving significantly on power bills. But renters, apartment dwellers and those in social housing were largely locked out of these savings.

- ENDS -

BACKGROUND:

Reports

• 2022: The Real Cost of Living: How the energy crisis is hurting Australian families

• 2024: Under Pressure: The climate crunch fuelling inflation and hurting Aussie families (with the Climate Council)

Media contacts:

Nic Seton, CEO Parents for Climate: 0407 638 973, [email protected]

Emily Paddon-Brown, Coburg single mum

Ben Cox, Alphington father of two and ‘rentvestor’

ABOUT PARENTS FOR CLIMATE

Parents for Climate is Australia’s leading climate advocacy organisation for parents, carers, families and all who care about a safe future for kids, representing over 20,000 parents. Parents for Climate has been at the forefront of securing renewable energy in schools, such as the NSW Smart Energy School Pilot Project. Founded in 2019 by six regional, rural and urban mums in four states and territories, Parents for Climate is a parent organisation, run by parents for parents. Parents for Climate exists to secure ambitious climate action for the love of our kids.

Misuse of environmental claims growing with parents demanding greater accountability, fines and regulation

Australian parents are taking a stand against greenwashing, cancelling their household service providers, and demanding greater accountability as concern grows over the escalating misuse of misleading environmental claims by businesses. 

As we approach the federal election, Parents for Climate is reminding candidates that we need to protect the globe for all current and future generations and action needs to start now.  As one of Australia’s leading climate organisations, they are calling for companies offering essential household services, including energy companies, banks, and superannuation funds, to take urgent action to cut Australia’s carbon emissions to net zero as quickly as possible. 

While many businesses use the government-backed Climate Active certification to sell ‘carbon neutral’ products, they must instead focus on genuine emissions reduction. Parents for Climate is asking the Federal Government to expedite a long-delayed review of the scheme, and for businesses to prioritise genuine emissions avoidance and mitigation over offsets, which cannot deliver reliable abatement. 

Parents for Climate also calls on the ACCC to offer clear guidance to companies that offsets should only be used as a “last resort” for emissions that are unavoidable with currently available technology. Parents for Climate calls for guidance like that provided by the European Union or by the Dutch financial regulator to the effect that “offsetting” style claims should be avoided because of their tendency to mislead consumers. It is the responsibility of the government and the ACCC to act now  in the Australian public’s best interest.

A new report from Parents for Climate suggests over 5.2 million Australian parents have fallen victim to greenwashing directly from essential household service providers, including energy companies, banks, and superannuation funds. Additionally, over a third (36%) have detected companies making false claims about their environmental credentials.

The findings expose a deepening frustration and growing trend among parents, carers and families with more than half of those surveyed (59%) having already cancelled or changed providers in response to misleading sustainability claims. 

Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate, says the message from parents and carers is clear: “Australian families are demanding real climate action, not empty promises. Companies that mislead customers with greenwashing are losing trust—and business. Consumers want honest, accountable, and transparent sustainability commitments, and they’re willing to switch providers to ensure their money supports genuine climate solutions.”

Rising Risk to Australian Businesses

Parents and carers are loudly vocalising their dissatisfaction, as one in three of those surveyed (27%) take their concerns directly to the company, and one quarter (24%) spread awareness of this business malpractice on social media or through news outlets.  

Within the next six months, nearly half (45%) of parents and carers plan to talk to their friends and family and warn them about the energy, banking, insurance company they are using; on top of this, a quarter (25%) plan to leave their provider when their plan is up. 

Seton adds “Parents and carers rely on honest and direct advice to make these important decisions, and they’re tired of being sold dirty products as clean. If products generate pollution that harms the climate our children are growing up in, businesses should not be able to market them to us as ‘green’ or ‘carbon neutral’. 

“We’re asking for the ACCC and Government to take the onus off parents and carers, who should not be expected to make sense of greenwashed corporate sustainability language, and ensure companies adhere to standardised guidelines when communicating environmental claims.”

​​“With nearly 70% of parents and carers considering environmental credentials when choosing service providers, the pressure is on businesses to be honest about their sustainability commitments,” Seton said. 

“Nearly all parents and carers we surveyed reported feeling misled or lied to by companies engaging in greenwashing. Companies that fail to be transparent will continue to lose customers. We are just not tolerating greenwashing anymore.”

Parents for Climate is very disappointed to hear reports that the Queensland Government plans to scrap the State’s renewable energy target and extend the life of coal and gas.

CEO, Nic Seton, said: “Queenslanders have been leading the way in their uptake of renewable energy, with more than a million households putting solar panels on their rooftops. That’s because they know clean energy like solar is good for the planet and their hip pockets. 

“According to National Electricity Market data, approximately 30 percent of Queensland’s electricity is already being generated from renewable energy sources including wind, solar, hydro, and bioenergy. In a report released last year, the Queensland Auditor-General found that increased capacity and higher output from renewables contributed to a 39 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices last financial year.

“If the Crisafulli Government goes ahead and scraps the 80% by 2035 renewable energy target introduced just last year, that progress is jeopardised. That means less investment certainty, less jobs in regional areas and higher bills for energy users and taxpayers who will have to fork out huge sums to keep aging, carbon polluting coal fired power stations running for longer.”

- ENDS -

Media contact:

Nic Seton, CEO Parents for Climate: 0407 638 973, [email protected]

References

Queensland power generation data: https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/qld1

ABOUT PARENTS FOR CLIMATE

Parents for Climate is Australia’s leading climate advocacy organisation for parents, carers, families and all who care about a safe future for kids, representing over 20,000 parents. Parents for Climate has been at the forefront of securing renewable energy in schools, such as the NSW Smart Energy School Pilot Project. Founded in 2019 by six regional, rural and urban mums in four states and territories, Parents for Climate is a parent organisation, run by parents for parents. Parents for Climate exists to secure ambitious climate action for the love of our kids.

The battery package announced by the Federal Government is a huge win for millions of Australians who can now slash their power bills for good and save with batteries, as well as solar.

There will also be positive flow-on effects for all households. The package will help one million homes to capture the excess solar energy they have generated during the day and use it at night. This will take pressure off our national energy network during peak times and reduce two major drivers of high power prices right now: ageing, unreliable coal-fired power stations and expensive gas.

Renew Australia for All also welcomes the inclusion of community facilities, which will support local communities by helping the spaces they rely on to cut their bills with batteries.

Now more work is needed to ensure everyone - including renters, apartment dwellers and low income households - are not left behind. We need greater support for solar and efficiency upgrades so everyone can be in healthy homes that are more affordable to heat and cool.

Renew Australia for All – an alliance of more than 70 organisations – has been calling for an immediate $5 billion investment to help those most in need access rooftop solar, batteries, electrification and efficiency improvements so they can take back control of their energy bills now and for good.

If every household in Australia were able to access efficient and electric upgrades, as well as solar and batteries, the total national savings would amount to $23.6 billion annually.

Renew Australia for All has previously welcomed the government’s commitment of $500 million to expand the Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative (SHEPI), funding home energy upgrades for an additional 50,000 public and community housing units. These upgrades will provide permanent relief to tenants, cutting their power bills by approximately $1,800 per year.

Heidi Lee Douglas, Chief Executive Officer, Solar Citizens said

On February 10th, 2025, Independent MP Dr. Sophie Scamps introduced the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill to the Australian Parliament - an historic step toward making sure our leaders consider the long-term impact of their decisions on the generations to come.

This Bill gives us a powerful opportunity to shift politics from short-term thinking to long-term solutions - on climate, health, cost of living, education, and more. It’s common-sense, cross-party, and urgently needed.

As parents and carers, we know what it means to plan for the future. It’s time our governments did the same.

What the Bill will do: