What question did this study set out to answer?

To explore the rejection of key environmental legal concepts in Western Australia that are crucial for addressing climate change.

February 20, 2026

When Ideas Float Across the Nullarbor, Some of Them Evaporate

Key Points

To explore the rejection of key environmental legal concepts in Western Australia that are crucial for addressing climate change.
Analysis of environmental legal concepts accepted on the east coast vs. those rejected in WA
Review of the appeals process concerning the North West Shelf Project Extension
Examination of the recent statements by the WA Ministers for Environment and Water regarding these concepts.
Both the global carbon budget analysis and water access entitlement concepts were rejected by WA officials, hindering climate response efforts
The political reasoning for these rejections was found to be legally flawed
Opportunities remain for WA to adopt these concepts for better climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Abstract

Western Australia has shunned two important environmental legal concepts that have gained currency on the east coast and could be important for responding to climate change: a ‘global carbon budget’ analysis in environmental impact assessment of fossil fuel projects, and water access entitlements as perpetual shares in a consumptive pool of a water resource defined in accordance with a statutory water plan. The Minister for Environment (WA) implicitly rejected the global carbon budget analysis when determining appeals against the assessment report of the North West Shelf Project Extension in November 2024. The Minister for Water (WA) implicitly rejected the share entitlement concept when announcing in December 2023 that reform of our antiquated water resources law was not necessary. The political reasoning for rejecting these two concepts was legally fallacious. There is still the opportunity to adopt these concepts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay