What if fossil fuel projects came with a death toll? An extraordinary climate court case in Sweden changes the conversation.
If every fossil fuel announcement from the government came with a human cost label, maybe Australians would begin to understand the kind of crime our leaders are actually committing.
Focusing on the heatwaves alone, on average, the rising global heat is now killing one person a minute worldwide. Or to be more precise: there are 57 heat-related deaths per hour, according to The World Health Organization. On average 489,000 heat-related deaths per year.
Fossil fuels are not just tonnes, dollars and projects. They are consequences. They are funerals displaced into the future. And the people paying the price are not the people making the decision.
In April 2026, something remarkable happened in Sweden. For the first time ever, a court case has used what researchers call the “1000-tonnes rule” – the estimate that for every 1,000 tonnes of CO₂ emitted, one future premature death is caused due to climate-related consequences – heatwaves, floods, bushfires, crop failures, disease, storms and other impacts intensified by global heating.
Why does this matter?
Because a group of Extinction Rebellion climate scientists and activists in Sweden had blockaded an airport. Flights were disrupted for a day and, according to calculations presented in court, around 8,000 tonnes of aviation emissions were avoided.
So their lawyer, Celina Linderholm, argued that the protest had effectively helped save eight human lives.
And incredibly, the court partly accepted the reasoning.
Fifteen activists were acquitted. Two organisers received fines. But the larger principle had entered a courtroom for the first time.
The case may turn out to be one of those small legal moments we later realise marked the beginning of a much bigger shift.
. . .
Inspired by the Swedish lawyer, let’s try a similar kind of back-of-envelope maths for the actions of the Albanese and Allan Labor governments here in Australia.
They have just approved the Annie gas field in the Otway Basin, off the Victorian coast near the Twelve Apostles. It is expected to supply up to 65 petajoules of gas – more than a third of Victoria’s annual gas use – starting around 2028.
Burning 65 petajoules of gas would release roughly 3.3 million tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Using the “1000-tonnes rule”, that would correspond to around 3,300 future premature deaths.
Not in the company accounts. Not in the government media release. Not in the glossy language about “energy security”. But in heatwaves. In floods. In bushfires. In failed crops. In dead human bodies.
And then there is the federal government’s new $10 billion fuel security package. The Prime Minister says it will establish a government-owned fuel reserve of around one billion litres – mainly diesel and aviation fuel – and increase Australia’s fuel stockholdings.
One billion litres of fossil fuel, when eventually burned, would produce roughly 2.5 to 2.7 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions. Translated through the same rule, that corresponds to another 2,500 to 2,700 future premature deaths.
How about every fossil fuel announcement came with a human cost label?
“This gas field may supply energy for five years – and contribute to around 3,300 future premature deaths.”
“This fuel reserve may strengthen supply security – and, when burned, contribute emissions linked to around 2,700 future premature deaths.”
Because this is the truth we keep hiding. Fossil fuels are not just tonnes, dollars and projects. They are consequences. They are funerals displaced into the future. And the people paying the price are not the people making the decision.
. . .
There is of course an even bigger picture. That new billion-litre fuel reserve the Albanese government is celebrating – in the context of Australia’s total fossil fuel consumption, it is actually only a relatively small fraction of what the country burns every year.
Australians consume roughly 55 billion litres of petroleum products annually – petrol, diesel, jet fuel and other fossil fuels. Burning that amount of fuel releases somewhere in the order of 130 to 140 million tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year. Translated through the same “1000-tonnes rule”, that corresponds to roughly 130,000 to 140,000 future premature deaths. Every single year.
Again: not deaths that appear immediately on a government spreadsheet. But deaths spread through heatwaves, floods, fires, food insecurity, disease, displacement and climate instability across the globe.
Suddenly the language changes. The issue is no longer simply “energy policy”. Or “fuel security”. Or “economic growth”. It becomes a question of responsibility. Because if the scientific estimate is even approximately correct, then fossil fuel expansion is not just environmentally destructive. It is deadly at a scale most people have never emotionally processed. Let alone expressed.
That is exactly why this Swedish courtroom moment matters. For the first time, a courtroom has seriously engaged with translating emissions into human lives. Not abstract tonnes or average degrees. Lives.
Protecting Australians from future fuel shortages is one thing. But what about protecting them from the worsening bushfires, floods, heatwaves and storms that fossil fuels are helping drive?
Australians would be far better protected if the $10 billion the Albanese government is now planning to spend on so-called “fuel security” infrastructure were instead used to help Australia get off fossil fuels.
Imagine if $10 billion were used to electrify Australia’s transport system instead. Do the maths: That amount could reduce the price of 1,000,000 electric vehicles by $10,000 each. A million Australian households switching from petrol to cheaper, cleaner and quieter transport – permanently reducing fuel dependence while cutting pollution and climate risk at the same time – would reduce Australia’s fuel use by a billion litres of petrol a year. Which is equivalent, according to the ‘1000-tonnes rule’, to avoiding around 2,300 premature deaths every year.
Spending billions on storing more fossil fuel in 2026 is like preparing for yesterday’s world instead of building tomorrow’s. Real security is not more oil tanks. Real security is helping Australians become less dependent on oil altogether.
For decades, fossil fuel pollution has mostly been discussed in terms of economics, inconvenience or future risk. Linderholm’s argument reframes it in direct human terms: emissions are not abstract. They have a body count. The exact numbers can be debated, sure. But the moral logic is now much harder to dismiss.
#FossilFuelsKill
Photo on top: Celina Linderholm, lawyer at Advokatbyrån Thomas Bodström.
Sources:
- Facebook post by Extinction Rebellion Sweden
- Dagens ETC article on the Swedish climate court case – in Swedish language
- Energy.gov.au: Australian petroleum statistics
- Elgas: Australia consumes roughly 55 billion litres of petroleum annually, Australian Petroleum Statistics 2025 Data & Forecast
- The Guardian – 17 March 2026:
One million EVs could reduce fuel use by one billion litres a year
“Electric vehicles reduce exposure to global oil price shocks and shift energy consumption to electricity largely produced domestically, expert says.” - ABC News – 7 May 2026:
Annie Gas Field Project approved for waters near Twelve Apostles in Otway Basin
“The Victorian and federal governments have approved plans for a company to drill for offshore gas in waters near the Twelve Apostles. It will provide about 4 per cent of the Australian east coast’s gas demand over a five-year period. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has welcomed the Otway Basin project’s approval, which it believes would support business confidence.”
Related
www.keelingcurve.ucsd.edu