Inverloch Rock Bag Seawall, Inverloch, Victoria, Australia. Source Facebook, fair use, low resolution image to identify the subject. Image annotated.

What Fuel Crisis? New Aussie Call to Tax Fossil Fuel Giants for Climate Damage

Essay by Eric Worrall

Locals ignored the advice of experts in beach sand erosion management. Now the council is blaming fossil fuel companies for the mess.

Coastal council pushes for levy on fossil fuel giants to fund disaster recovery

By Bec Symons and Danielle Kutchel
ABC Gippsland

In short:

Bass Coast Shire Council in south-east Victoria wants the federal government to charge big polluters to help councils and communities recover from environmental disasters. 

The council says fossil fuel companies should be held partly responsible for extreme weather events.

What’s next?

The council will write to Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen asking for a levy to be imposed on fossil fuel companies. 

Councillors voted to approve the motion, five votes to four.

“We give away the majority of our gas for free, and we’re exporting it overseas,” Cr Morgan said.

“Australians should be getting a fair share of the returns from the resources that belong to us, and we should use that money to pay for climate damage.”

In the tourist town of Inverloch, more than 70 metres of foreshore at the surf beach has been lost to erosion since 2012.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-04/bass-coast-council-pushes-fossil-fuel-levy-for-recovery-fund/106624424

In 2025 locals supported a less than optimal plan to prevent beach erosion – pushing for a rock wall to protect an area of beach, rather than building tried and tested groynes, to force ocean currents to drop more sand on the beach;

Inverloch locals losing beach to erosion support disputed rock bag wall fix

By Danielle Kutchel
ABC Gippsland
Sat 2 Aug 2025

A report written by Inverloch resident and retired engineer Keith Godridge proposes installing a rock bag revetment along the beach to prevent further erosion.

This proposal was endorsed by a majority of those at the meeting.

University of Melbourne coastal geomorphologist David Kennedy said there was a problem with seawalls like those at Silverleaves and Inverloch.

He said while they might prevent erosion in their location, they could cause it at either end of the wall.

Mr Kennedy said the most feasible solution would be an integrated coastal plan, taking into account sand movements around the coast in the whole area and potentially groynes (structures built perpendicular to a shoreline), renourishment and walls.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-02/erosion-rock-walls-phillip-island-inverloch/105586884

Groynes should be a no-brainer in a situation like this. Unlike seawalls, which cause gouging and undermining adjacent to the sea wall as currents become turbulent thanks to encountering the sea wall, groynes act to slow down the current which is carrying away the sand, causing the flowing water to drop any sand it is carrying.

Rock Groyne at Sea Bright Beach, New Jersey. By TomwsulcerOwn work, CC0, Link

Instead of researching practices which have been successfully deployed countless times in nearby Melbourne and many other places, the Bass Coast Shire council decided to go their own way.

To add to the mystery, Bass Coast Shire Council did install groynes in Cowes in 2021 and was apparently pleased with the result – but went with a sea wall in Inverloch.

To be fair I’m not blaming engineer Keith Godridge for suggesting a seawall – from the picture at the top of this article that rock bag seawall successfully protected what looks like a pleasant picnic area. But expecting such a sea wall would protect the rest of the beach was at best an optimistic proposition. If anything the seawall likely accelerated the erosion, if building the seawall narrowed the passage for the sideways moving current which is stealing all their sand. The forces pushing such currents are enormous, if you narrow the passage, the water often responds by flowing faster, and picking up more sand.

This greedy local government call for more taxes on fossil fuel couldn’t have come at a worse time.

Australia really, really needs to convince fossil fuel companies that Australia is a safe place to invest, to build new refineries, to address the fragility of our long distance fuel supply chain.

Threatening arbitrary new taxes is not an incentive to invest. A local government council blaming climate change and fossil fuel companies for their own poor choices, and adding their voice to demands for more taxes on fossil fuel, this is the last thing Australia needs in this difficult time.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 13 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Hultquist
May 4, 2026 10:40 am

Let’s go for a rock bag revetment around all of Australia on a vote of 5 to 4.
Just guessing that the “5 for” voters are as knowledgable of nature as the rocks in the bags. All the money of the Carbon-based fuel companies can’t fix stupid. 

Reply to  John Hultquist
May 4, 2026 11:02 am

A rock bag revetment is an environmentally friendly coastal or riverbank erosion control system consisting of polyester netting bags filled with small rocks . . . .

Mr.
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2026 12:07 pm

Steve, the issue as I understand it isn’t mainly about whether or what was done as a beach erosion control measure.

It was about the Council calling for a tax shakedown of the gas producers / exporters, with said tax proceeds to be paid to the Councils.

I’m faced with installing some pigeon roosting barrier netting in my roof eaves.
Should I demand a levy to cover my costs on the property developers who built all the warehouses in my area that attract the pigeons?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Mr.
May 4, 2026 4:15 pm

Gas companies should sue the council .

Goose / Gander .

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2026 5:19 am

oh oh but but polyester means microplastics run round screaming !

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2026 5:21 am

oh and it takes FF to MAKE polyester to make the bags hmm oh dear never mind

sherro01
May 4, 2026 11:39 am

As an experienced ‘hard’ scientist who has researched climate change claims since 1992, I am at a complete loss about how to connect coastal erosion to fossil fuel companies in any bad way. Actually, without fossil fuels it would be much more difficult to build remedies like groynes and rock walls. For example, without gelegnite (made from fossil fuels) how are you supposed to turn big rocks into small rocks to make these structures? With a hammer and hands full of blisters?
Geoff S

Mr.
Reply to  sherro01
May 4, 2026 12:13 pm

And wouldn’t it be such a fun day at the beach for the kiddies to be stacking rocks & stones on the groyne with their little bare hands instead of using a diesel fueled excavator to drop the materials where they need to be?

(which could also qualify the kiddies as lithium miners, come to think of it?
How environmentally friendly all round!)

SxyxS
Reply to  sherro01
May 4, 2026 2:16 pm

As an experienced scientist you should have realised that the core of climate science
is to connect any “negative” scenario somehow to climate change to support the narrative,
no matter how absurd the claim.

And the absurdity in this case is that the coastal erosion scenario by the own crazy logic of climate science is not even possible, because those coasts should have been under water for quite some time.
No coasts = No coastal erosion.

oeman50
Reply to  sherro01
May 5, 2026 4:32 am

People just don’t get the point. There was no beach erosion before “climate change.” There were no waves washing up the beaches. Surfers should thank the FF companies!

hdhoese
May 4, 2026 11:46 am

I’ve seen lots of ‘seawalls’ from totally incompetent to barely not too dumb, both including where I live. From the picture in the link. (“The Inverloch surf lifesaving clubhouse is at risk due to erosion. (Supplied: Andrew Harrison Photography Inverloch”)). This one looks about as dumb as the building location there, also such still occurs where I live among too many other places. I have a Gobi block which only weighs 13.8 pounds, all measurements in inches, that was forced over three feet high and well onto land, a lot lighter than other rocks I’ve seen after they were moved not so far. If they don’t understand this wonder if they know how to save lives there? Amazing how many are over a century behind the literature. ‘Attrition Science’ at its best!

Gulliver, F. P., 1895. Cuspate forelands. Bull. Geol. Soc. America. 7:399–422. 
Gulliver, F. P. 1899. Shoreline topography. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 34:151-258. 

strativarius
May 4, 2026 11:53 am

Climate crisis? Where? In their heads.

May 4, 2026 12:15 pm

Leftists demonstrate that (some) humans still revert to polytheism, blaming modern gods for weather and climate—fossil fuels, Big Oil, “capitalism,” etc. The ancients blamed Thor, Baal, Neptune, Poseidon, Tempestus and others. But leftists are smart enough to blame the ones with lots of money so they can tax and sue confiscate it for their own purposes. It turns out that their own purposes always result in massive fraud, waste, regression and degeneracy. Elect leftists at your own peril.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  stinkerp
May 4, 2026 2:25 pm

You forgot beachfront mansions.

May 4, 2026 1:04 pm

Story Tip

IPCC scraps climate catastrophe scenario: The great alarm machine loses its favorite instrument
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has withdrawn its most dire doomsday scenario for 2100. This undermines the foundation of many climate lawsuits, government forecasts, and media reports that have used extreme threats to drive policy for years.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is removing one of the most popular scare tactics used in climate policy. The extreme scenario of global warming by four to six degrees Celsius by the year 2100 is to disappear from the next IPCC report. The very prediction that has been used for years to generate fear, justify policies, keep courts busy, and fill media pages is now no longer considered a viable guiding principle for this century.
This doesn’t mean the climate debate is collapsing. But a very significant part of its most dramatic backdrop is beginning to crack. The new upper limit of the IPCC scenarios is around 3.5 degrees of warming compared to the pre-industrial era. That remains high. It remains consequential. But politically, it’s something entirely different from the four to six degrees that were used in headlines, expert opinions, and legal briefs like an official seal of doom.
This correction will be particularly unpleasant for all those who had long since accepted the old extreme value as a certainty. Many climate lawsuits of recent years were based on precisely this catastrophic scenario. Even dire projections of a sea-level rise of more than one meter by 2100 were heavily supported by it. Now, forecasts, tables, and political justifications must be re-evaluated.

Only partly translated.

May 4, 2026 1:12 pm

The left — Making energy more expensive to combat climate change is good. Also the left — Making energy more expensive to keep Iran from getting nukes is bad.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 4, 2026 2:06 pm

totally schizophrenic!

mleskovarsocalrrcom
May 4, 2026 2:38 pm

This is why CC is so popular with the Liberals …. just about anything goes with it when you want to take someone else’s money to pay for naturally occurring weather damage. Groynes have been used successfully in Southern California for controlling beach erosion and helping local economies with beach goers.

The Expulsive
May 4, 2026 2:55 pm

What’s the line…oh yeah: They’re a weird mob

Bob
May 4, 2026 3:53 pm

What can I say? More greedy ignorant government.

May 4, 2026 4:19 pm

I guess we get to add “littoral transportation” to the phenomenon caused by ‘climate change’. Not that the list wasn’t long enough already.

Leon de Boer
May 4, 2026 5:40 pm

Obviously the greenies have taken over the council and wanted a PR stunt. That proposal is going nowhere as a local council can only apply taxes on land holdings in there area. Any other tax requires legislative backing from their respective state.

Meanwhile the Australia net-zero campaign took a nose dive and the greenies will be crying
Western Australia is preparing to become the first Australian state to abandon it’s net-zero targets

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/wa-government-preparing-to-abandon-its-emissions-reduction-targets-documents-reveal/ar-AA22nfB4

Reply to  Leon de Boer
May 4, 2026 6:33 pm

The humans in Oz exhale 28 million kg of CO2 everyday. To this should be added all the CO2 exhaled by domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. There are more sheep in Oz than there are humans. There are large herds of wild camels. Mining and agriculture operations consumes vast amounts of diesel fuel and produce huge amounts of CO2. There can never by net zero in Oz.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Leon de Boer
May 5, 2026 5:25 am

? at the same time they announced 10 new econutter projects?

May 4, 2026 8:00 pm

If the council are using fossil fuels in any way and for any purpose then they are the ones causing the damage from the burning of the same fossil fuels.

Look in a greenie’s dictionary and the word ‘hypocrite’ will have been removed

George Kaplan
May 4, 2026 10:19 pm

Note that the deputy mayor has been politically active in what was the Australian Sex Party- later merged with a cycling party, and a pro-euthanasia party, though it may be defunct now with the leader jumping ship to a Cannabis legalisation party.

I can’t see any councillors explicitly saying they’re Greens, but …

observa
May 4, 2026 11:54 pm

It’s a bit more complex than chucking rocks in the ocean and before folks go building on the seafront for the view they need to have studied what’s been going on with the coastline but alas only when they’re running out of front yard-
Vertical Seawalls vs Sloped Revetments: Understanding the Trade-offs – Magryn Engineering

ozspeaksup
May 5, 2026 5:18 am

the mouth is a GREEN! and you can bet getting someone else to pay for their Fkups sounded better than taking responsibility themselves or paying for it