The environment doesn’t care who’s in government — but Australians should. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate and biodiversity collapse, the next parliament has a clear path forward.

Here are five urgent, evidence-based actions ready to go.

No new fossil fuel projects

Australia’s fossil fuel projects are already contributing to climate change. New projects will add to the impact.

Every new fossil fuel project locks in emissions for decades. Every year we delay deeper cuts, we shrink our chances of a liveable future.

Australian governments continue to approve coal and gas developments, and there are around 100 more ‘under development’ according to government sources.

Australia does not need to approve new gas and coal projects for energy. In fact, most of Australia’s gas and coal is exported to other countries. But no matter where in the world it is burned, it still contributes to the climate change Australians want to avoid.

Despite the narrative that the fossil fuel industry is critical to the Australian economy, it actually contributes very little in terms of revenue and employment and is heavily subsidised. In 2024–25, Australian governments provided $14.9 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel producers and major users. This is money that could be spent on health, education, and clean energy.

To put it simply, the fossil fuel industry’s political influence in Australia is far greater than its economic significance.

New fossil fuel projects exist only on paper. Ending approvals now would be no different to past decisions Australia has made to ban harmful industries like asbestos, whaling, and engineered stone — clear steps to stop known damage before it grows worse.

Treat environmental protection as national security issue – because it is

Biodiversity loss is a global crisis comparable to climate change in its severity.

Australia has a particularly poor track record of safeguarding biodiversity. Invasive species, land clearing and climate change have resulted in substantial habitat loss.

The cost of restoring and protecting the environment has been estimated at $1–2 billion a year, with one estimate placing it as high as $16 billion a year for extensive restoration of bushfire-damaged areas.

To be clear, this is not a lot. The Australian Government arbitrarily allocates over 2% of Australia’s GDP to defence spending as a ‘policy target’, receiving record funding of AU$55.7 billion in 2024–25. This is an arbitrary spending choice driven by political preference, not need.

A safe environment is critical to human health. It is a national security issue — there is a far stronger argument for spending billions of dollars on it than war toys. As former Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg noted, “Everything is affordable if it’s a priority.”

Australia does not need complicated, flawed market-based systems to address biodiversity loss. Direct, sustained funding — investing straight into farmers, Traditional Owners, and communities — is faster, fairer, more effective, and delivers real economic returns.

Other countries, such as Costa Rica, New Zealand, and Germany, have shown that direct investment models work. Australia has had successes in Landcare, Indigenous ranger programs, and targeted bushfire recovery funding,  demonstrating that when public investment is sufficient and sustained at a national scale, the environmental returns are real and lasting.

End native forest logging

Despite widespread public opposition and a collapsing economic case, native forest logging still continues across parts of Australia. Each year, tens of thousands of hectares of native forest are logged, with operations still active in New South Wales, Tasmania, and on private land in Victoria — often under outdated agreements that prioritise extraction over conservation.

Protecting our native forests can play a very significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting critically endangered species like the Leadbeater’s Possum, Greater Glider, Swift Parrot and koalas.

The logging industry is not bound by Australia’s environment protection laws and can clearfell publicly owned native forests without even having to comply with Australia’s national environment legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act).

Polling by The Australia Institute shows that seven in ten Australians (69%) support an end to native forest logging on public land across Australia.

The native forest logging industry has collapsed in most Australian states. Where it survives, it is kept afloat by government subsidies. It now costs more to keep the native forest logging industry alive than it would to end it — despite the benefits that ending it would deliver.

The federal government has the power to intervene by applying national environment laws, removing exemptions under the EPBC Act, or refusing export approvals for native forest products. The tools are already there — it’s a choice not to use them.

End the free ride for polluters

Polluters — particularly fossil fuel companies and industries driving deforestation, industrial agriculture, and mining — are directly responsible for climate change, biodiversity loss, and negative health impacts.

At present, the cost of this damage is overwhelmingly paid by the public, not the industries responsible

The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation 2024 shows that Australians want greater accountability from the private sector, particularly when it comes to taking responsibility for environmental damage and making a fair economic contribution to Australia.

The “polluter-pays principle” is a concept of environmental law that requires the party responsible for producing pollution to bear the costs of the damage they cause. When properly implemented, it reduces pollution, incentivises cleaner practices, and raises public revenue to fund environmental and social programs. A vast majority of Australians (70%) support the implementation of a polluter-pays mechanism in Australia.

Australia’s own carbon price, introduced in 2012, raised around $6.6 billion in its first year and was projected to generate $24 billion over four years. The revenue was almost entirely recycled: over half funded direct payments and tax cuts for households, with additional support for business transition and clean energy investment.

Australian experts, including organisations like the Superpower Institute, have developed detailed models for updated carbon pricing that the next parliament could adopt. These proposals are designed to drive down emissions, raise revenue, and ensure that industries causing environmental harm contribute fairly to Australia’s future resilience.

Plan and build for a different Australia

Climate adaptation — preparing for and managing the unavoidable impacts of climate change — is no longer optional. Even if emissions were cut to zero tomorrow, decades of accumulated global warming are already locked into the system, driving more extreme weather, biodiversity loss, inequality and public health threats.

Adaptation funding is a core responsibility of good governance, and essential if communities, economies, and ecosystems are to be protected in a warming world.

Australian governments have recognised the need for climate adaptation in principle for over a decade — but in practice, adaptation has been fragmented, underfunded, reactive, and inconsistent across levels of government.

Fifty per cent of Australians think the Australian Government is not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

A basic first step would be to release the 2023 Office of National Intelligence Climate Risk Assessment report — Australia’s own classified advice on the external risks of climate change. It’s been two years. Australians deserve to know the facts and understand the scale of the threat to their security.

Other countries offer clear models Australia could follow. The Netherlands has built world-leading flood defences and long-term adaptive water management strategies. New Zealand’s National Adaptation Plan sets clear risk priorities and actions across sectors. Denmark has integrated climate adaptation into urban planning with green infrastructure to reduce flood risk. These examples show that serious, coordinated investment in resilience is possible — and that it pays off economically and socially.