Gas Pains: Why Australia Must Reset Its Energy Ties With Japan and South Korea
Behind closed doors, Australia has been lobbying hard to secure its bid to host the UNFCCC's annual climate forum in 2026. Although the deal has yet to be inked, key stakeholders in this space are already preparing for an Australia-Pacific COP31, with an end to fossil fuel expansion expected to be a key pillar of negotiations.
Following its decisive re-election in May, Australia's center-left Albanese government is confident it can sell its climate credentials on the world stage. This is in no small part due to a rapid rollout of renewable energy projects, with over 40 percent of Australia's main electricity grid now powered by solar, wind, and hydropower.
However, this success story is dramatically undercut by Australia's unwavering support for its fossil fuel exports, and the diplomatic nexus protecting this trade.
Australia is the second-largest exporter of gas in the world, and Japan and South Korea are two of the primary destinations for this gas.
While these countries have historically relied on Australia's gas exports (i.e. liquefied natural gas, or LNG), both Japan and South Korea have made public commitments to transition away from fossil fuels and increase renewable energy capacity, and their domestic demand for gas is already declining.
In spite of this, the Japanese and Korean governments continue to invest heavily in the extraction, processing, transport, and deployment of gas. Between 2008 and 2024, both countries contributed over US$20 billion of public finance into Australian gas projects, as outlined in Jubilee Australia's newly released research report. Such finance, funneled through export credit agencies, has been a key factor in the economic viability of many large Australian gas projects.
With these projects facing increasing scrutiny on the grounds of their intensive emissions contributions, international civil society have called for an end of the Japanese and Korean taxpayers bankrolling fossil fuel expansion.
In what have become familiar refrains in diplomatic and trade talks, Japanese and Korean financiers point to two key justifications for their expansion of Australia's gas production. The first is the need for further gas supply to meet their domestic energy security requirements. The second is that LNG is a bridging fuel, needed to transition regional developing economies out of coal and into renewables.
Neither argument stacks up.
A growing evidence base has been produced by independent financial analysts that demonstrates Japan is contracting more gas than its domestic economy requires. The surplus is resold around the region, with the buildout of the LNG supply chain intended to keep the gas industry operating and profiting for as long as possible. Japanese companies and public financiers invest heavily in downstream infrastructure, such as power plants, to 'cultivate Asian demand.' While Korean investment in Australian gas projects has declined in recent years, major industry firms continue to invest in LNG shipbuilding and transport. These corporate profit margins rely on the Australian government keeping the tap running, by opening up new and emissions-intensive gas fields for export purposes.
This 'Gas Empire,' as detailed in the Jubilee report, is heavily reliant on a sophisticated diplomatic apparatus to protect its interests. When the Albanese government has developed policies to support Australia's climate and energy priorities that would potentially derail proposed fossil fuel projects, Japanese government-aligned think tanks and industry bodies have made bold interventions in the Australian media to skew the domestic energy debate. These interventions appeal to Australia's national pride in being a reliable energy trading partner, with the more benign being calls to 'keep the lights on in Tokyo.' However, more alarming rhetoric has implied any moves by the Australian government to phase down its fossil fuel exports would jeopardize global peace.
Some members of the Australian government have seemingly welcomed these interventions, expressly inviting submissions by Japanese and Korean gas industry groups in drafting Australia's energy policies, notably last year's Future Gas Strategy that envisaged a role for gas 'beyond' 2050. As concern continues to grow within the Australian public about its own energy security, and the substantial taxpayer subsidies and favorable arrangements provided to the fossil fuel industry, we have to ask the question: can the Australian government exercise sovereignty in its own energy policies?
With COP31 on the horizon, the Albanese government is running out of time to answer this question.
A key test in the lead up to this event will be at the Asia Zero Emissions Community, or AZEC. Despite the name, civil society groups around the Asia-Pacific have lambasted AZEC as a greenwashing exercise for Japan's fossil fuel expansion. The criticism is that AZEC enables fossil fuel interests to promote technologies to 'mitigate' their emissions. These dangerous technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and ammonia co-firing, are proposed as solutions but consistently fail in their efforts to reduce emissions. Instead, they are promoted to justify opening up new gas projects. The gap between Japan's rhetoric and its action has previously been noted by other analysts on The Diplomat.
As a member of AZEC, Australia has a responsibility to hold it to account. Australia is involved in 12 proposed joint ventures under the initiative, only three of which are actually focused on renewables. With renewable energy alternatives already cheaper, cleaner, and less susceptible to geopolitical tensions, Australia's continued support for Japan's mythical fossil fuel abatement technologies is placing it on the wrong side of history. Though the comparison may have seemed unlikely some years ago, these diplomatic efforts to greenwash fossil fuels stand in stark contrast to China, which is well on the way to realizing its vision of being the region's renewable energy export superpower.
As humanity stands on the precipice, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called for world leaders to scale up ambition to avoid irreversible climate damage. At a recent summit with world leaders he proclaimed that 'the world is moving forward, full-speed' and added: 'No group or government can stop the clean energy revolution.'
Diplomatic efforts between Australia, South Korea, and Japan must reflect this imperative. Australia's commitment to the Clean Energy Transition Partnership has marked an end to its public financing of the international fossil fuel sector, and the Albanese government must now take active steps to welcome South Korea and Japan into the agreement. Bilateral decarbonization agreements must be struck to support an orderly transition away from fossil fuel reliance. And in the lead up to COP31, Australia must set a clear standard that rejects the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists in multilateral climate negotiations.
But above all, Australia, South Korea and Japan must embrace the diplomacy of the future: no new coal, oil, and gas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
14 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
US-Japan deal's 9-1 investment profit split limited in scope: Tokyo
Japan's lead trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa said that returns on investments would be decided by private companies. (Photo by Chihiro Uchiyama) SHUNSUKE USHIGOME and YUKA FURUBAYASHI TOKYO -- A nine-to-one profit-sharing split trumpeted by the White House in the U.S.-Japan trade deal will apply to only a limited set of Japanese investments in America, according to according to materials released Friday by the Japanese government. The agreement includes up to $550 billion in financial support for U.S.-bound investment, some of which will have a nine-to-one profit-sharing split favoring the U.S. "based on each side's contribution and risk burden," the document said.
Nikkei Asia
44 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
US auto industry blasts Japan tariff agreement as 'bad deal'
Japanese automakers such as Honda Motor will benefit from lower tariffs on exports to the U.S., but still face higher rates on exports from Mexico. © Reuters AZUSA KAWAKAMI NEW YORK -- The 15% tariff rate on Japanese autos and auto parts agreed in this week's deal between the U.S. and Japan has angered the U.S. auto industry, which still faces a 25% rate on its imports from elsewhere in North America. The three major American automakers -- General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis -- buy parts from countries with low labor costs, such as Mexico, to assemble in American factories. They also bring in finished vehicles from Mexico and Canada, as well as South Korea in GM's case. GM and Stellantis import around 40% to 50% of the vehicles they sell in the U.S.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Increased Imports of U.S. Rice Likely to Have Limited Impact in Japan; Aircraft Agreement, LNG Project May Cause Issues
The outline of the Japan-U.S. trade and investment agreement announced Wednesday by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump included key U.S. demands such as increased imports of U.S. rice and other agricultural products and the purchase of about 100 commercial aircraft. Questions have been raised about the feasibility of some elements of the deal, such as a proposed joint project on Alaskan liquefied natural gas. Imports of U.S. rice were a major focus during the bilateral negotiations. Japan annually imports 770,000 tons of rice tariff-free under a 'minimum access' framework. Tokyo and Washington have agreed the proportion of these imports allocated to U.S. rice will be expanded by 75%. 'The total rice import quota won't increase,' Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Shinjiro Koizumi told reporters Thursday. 'During the negotiations, we achieved our goal of keeping the quota at its current level.' Koizumi insisted the impact of the deal on domestic rice farmers would be imported 346,000 tons of U.S.-grown rice under the minimum access framework in fiscal 2024, accounting for 45% of the quota. Boosting the U.S. share by 75% would lift the volume of tariff-free U.S. rice imports to about 600,000 tons, or almost 80% of the total. If realized, imports of rice from Thailand, Australia, China and other nations would be reduced and the framework would be heavily tilted in favor of the United States. As things stand, 670,000 tons of the rice imported under the framework is used as animal feed or for processing. If the proportion of rice set aside for these two uses stays unchanged even after imports of U.S. tariff-free rice are increased, the impact on consumers is likely to be small. Japan will also purchase $8 billion (about ¥1.2 trillion) in U.S. agricultural products including corn, soybeans and fertilizer. Japan's imports from the United States in 2024 included about ¥459.3 billion worth of corn and about ¥187.6 billion worth of soybeans. It may be challenging to increase the imports from the current level. The imported corn is expected to be used for feed as well as fuels such as bioethanol, and some in the government view achieving the increase as not difficult. 'Increasing these imports won't present any problem,' a senior Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry official told The Yomiuri Shimbun. 100 aircraft The Trump administration also leaned on the Japanese government to purchase about 100 commercial aircraft manufactured by Boeing Co. Major Japanese airlines will be paying close attention. Airline companies have been increasing orders for aircraft as they boost international and domestic routes due to the growth in inbound tourism and other factors. In the past two years or so, three of Japan's major airlines have announced plans to purchase a total of about 100 aircraft. A large aircraft has a price tag of tens of billions of yen. Airlines must carefully consider aircraft purchases while taking into account the fact that some have a service life of about 20 years. If airlines are forced to order more aircraft than they need in the years ahead to uphold the Japan-U.S. agreement, there are concerns that profits could deteriorate. In some cases, an aircraft accident or fault can result in an airline grounding and being unable to use any of that model of aircraft while they are inspected. To mitigate this risk, airlines also possess planes made by Europe's Airbus SE and other manufacturers. However, this balance could be upset if orders become heavily skewed toward Boeing. Some observers have also pointed out that Boeing's production capacity might not be able to keep up with a surge in orders arising from the agreement. Alaska LNG project The Alaska LNG project will involve building a massive new pipeline stretching about 1,300 kilometers from the state's north down to its Pacific coast in the south. Once completed, this pipeline project is forecast to export 20 million tons of LNG per year, equivalent to 30% of Japan's annual demand. If the pipeline becomes a reality, LNG could be shipped from Alaska to Japan in about eight days, about half the time it takes LNG from the Middle East to reach Japan. This project also offers the advantage of diversifying Japan's LNG suppliers. 'The route doesn't pass through any areas with geopolitical risks,' said Yukio Kani, chair of JERA Co., Japan's largest power generation company. 'It's a fantastic concept.' The biggest challenge facing this project is the cost. The pipeline will need to navigate three mountain ranges and 800 rivers and streams, and development is projected to cost about $44 billion (about ¥6.4 trillion). One official at a major power generation company was apprehensive about the pipeline project. 'The project will need to gain the understanding of locals concerned about its impact on the environment. The risks are too high,' the official said.
