Doctors are calling on the Australian government to rule out new gas projects and phase out gas appliances, warning the fossil fuel poses a major public health risk.
Children and hospitality workers are among the most exposed to health risks from gas, they warn, although pollution from its extraction and climate change could cause wider harm.
Doctors for the Environment Australia released the findings from a report on Wednesday before its launch at Parliament House in Canberra.
The call comes as several new gas projects progress in Australia, including in the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory, and after the government approved the operation of Woodside’s North West Shelf project in Western Australia until 2070.
The report, called Gas and its Overlooked Health Risks, analysed national and international research on the impact of the fossil fuel.
It identified strong links between gas and asthma, including Australian modelling that found 12.3 per cent of childhood asthma could be attributed to gas cooking.
Adults were also at increased risk of persistent asthma and shortness of breath by exposure to burning gas, it said, and studies showed moving to electric cooking could improve health outcomes.
Hospitality workers were also risked high exposure to harmful pollutants from gas stoves in poorly ventilated kitchens, the report said, while workers in mining, manufacturing and laboratory settings faced other gas-related risks.
Australians had been told gas was a natural and clean energy source, Doctors for the Environment Australia executive director Dr Kate Wylie said, but the evidence did not support those claims.
“Gas is not clean or safe – it can harm our health at every stage of its life cycle,” she said.
“We need a clear plan to phase out this polluting fuel and support households and businesses to transition to clean energy, such as solar and wind.”
The report called for the government to stop approving new gas projects and introduce a clear timeline to phase out gas extraction, distribution, use and exports.
Targeted financial support would be needed to help some groups, including low-income households and renters, replace gas appliances and disconnect from the gas network. it said.
Governments in Victoria and the ACT should be commended for restricting gas connections to new residential and some commercial properties, Dr Wylie said, but national changes were needed.
“Governments must not delay action on major public health hazards,” she said.
“Australia has acted before to reduce exposure to dangerous pollutants when the evidence showed that the risks were unacceptable – fossil gas should be no different.”
Parts of Europe and the US have restricted new gas connections, the report said, while Ecuador funded a program to replace gas stoves in 750,000 homes and recorded health benefits.
Comments 3
Join the conversation. Comments are reviewed before they appear.
Had a gas bath heater in a flat in London and it malfunctioned so rang the gas company: "Yes madam how may people killed?" Me - none actually "hospitalised?" - none so far. They sounded very disappointed and said they would send a technician round in the next few days! Fortunately we had 2 bathrooms.
Gosh you a bit slow off the mark . Australia has been using gas for over 150 years and natural gas for 50 years . Better late than never I suppose.
Here's a ready-to-use reply:
---
Worth flagging a few things about this piece before taking it at face value.
**The "doctors say" framing hides who's speaking.** Doctors for the Environment Australia isn't a neutral clinical body — it's a self-described climate advocacy organisation of doctors, openly campaigning for gas phase-out since 2002. That's not disclosed in the article; it's just "doctors," which primes you to read this as clinical consensus rather than one advocacy group's interpretation of the evidence.
**No opposing voice is included anywhere.** Standard journalism on a contested scientific/policy claim would include a rebuttal — industry, government, or an independent epidemiologist. This piece has zero pushback quoted, despite pushback existing (see below). That's a classic one-sided technique: report the claim, skip the challenge.
**The core "12.3% of childhood asthma" stat is real but the causal framing is contested — and that's left out.** The number itself comes from a legitimate 2018 peer-reviewed MJA study. But it's a population attributable fraction (PAF), which measures *association*, not proven *causation*. There's an active, published epidemiological debate (Cox 2024, Li/Goodman/Long 2024) arguing these PAF-based claims overstate causality — one of the underlying study's own authors even acknowledged their analysis "does not assume or estimate a causal relationship." The article states it as a "strong link," full stop, with no hedge.
**Timing as a rhetorical tool.** The report was launched to coincide with the Beetaloo and North West Shelf approvals — deliberately positioned to maximise political pressure on live decisions, not just to present findings.
**Bottom line:** the individual facts cited (12.3% figure, Ecuador program) check out against independent sources — this isn't fabrication. The one-sidedness is structural: an advocacy group's report, repeated near-verbatim, with the causal uncertainty stripped out and no counter-expert given space.
Join the conversation
Tell us who you are to post a comment. We'll remember you next time.