Scientists’ understanding of how climate change and habitat loss could drive plant and fungi extinctions is being hamstrung by knowledge gaps in how many species currently exist, a new report warns.
More than 90% of fungi have yet to be found and formally described by scientists, according to a new report from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
The “State of the World’s Plants and Fungi” report, which is based on both peer-reviewed and preliminary studies, also says that almost half of all flowering plant species could be at risk of extinction.
Habitat and land-use changes are the biggest threat to plants and fungi, but climate change is expected to become an even larger issue in the future, the director of science at Kew tells Carbon Brief
Below, Carbon Brief outlines five key findings from the report.
- Three in four unknown plant species are at risk of extinction
- Climate change is having ‘detrimental’ impacts on fungi
- Plants are currently going extinct 500 times faster than before humans existed
- Scientists have assessed the risk of extinction for less than 1% of known fungi species
- Almost half of flowering plant species are under threat
1. Three in four unknown plant species are at risk of extinction
Thousands of new plant and fungi species are named by scientists each year, but many still remain unnamed.
Around 90% of fungi species have yet to be described, making this formal identification process particularly “urgent” for fungi, the report notes. It estimates that it would take 750-1,000 years to name all of the remaining unknown fungi species.
Thousands of plants remain unnamed, including up to 100,000 “vascular” plant species. (Vascular plants are a large group of plants that are characterised by having a vascular system for transporting water. This includes trees, shrubs, grasses and flowering plants.)
More than three in four plant species that have not yet been formally described by scientists are likely threatened with extinction, the report says.
The new research by Kew scientists analysed data from the World Checklist of Vascular Plants and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species – a global assessment of the extinction risk status of different animals, plants and fungi. The report was launched during a three-day conference held in Kew Gardens in London this week.
The researchers examined the links between the year a plant species was formally described and its extinction risk.
The findings, outlined in the chart below, show that the later a species is formally identified and described by science, the higher chance it has of being deemed at risk.
Based on this finding, Kew scientists are calling for all newly described plant species to be “presumed threatened with extinction unless proven otherwise”, the report says.
The IUCN extinction criteria used does not give a timeframe estimate for when an extinction is likely to occur.
Understanding extinction is “critical to conserving biodiversity”, the report adds. But unless formal naming accelerates, it says, “we are in danger of losing species before they have been described”.
This would mean “losing all of the potential that that species has”, Dr Matilda Brown, a conservation science analyst at Kew, said at the launch of the report.
The director of science at Kew, Prof Alexandre Antonelli, says that unless there is a “real shift” in trends, the number of unknown species at risk “will be even higher” in future.
He tells Carbon Brief that this would result in “basically all the new species that are found being threatened”. He adds:
“It just takes time to formally assess species and that timeline could be fatal basically because most resources for conservation are not allocated until you have a formal threat categorisation of a species. Therefore, we think that it’s very sensible to recommend all [undescribed] species be treated as such.”
The number of threatened plants has risen “shockingly” in recent years, says Dr Martin Cheek, a senior research leader at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In the report, he writes:
“When I started out as a taxonomist 30 years ago, you wouldn’t really even consider that a species you were publishing might go extinct; you just assumed it was going to still be around in the wild.
“Now, you might work out that you have [a] new species and go and look for its natural habitat only to not find any at all.”
2. Climate change is having ‘detrimental’ impacts on fungi
The main threat to both plant and fungi species is habitat loss and land-use change in the form of forestry, agriculture or residential and commercial development.
For example, timber production can reduce areas of older, natural forest, which can leave behind less deadwood and fewer old trees for fungi to populate.
Climate change is having “detrimental” impacts on fungi in different ways, the report says, with changes in temperature and moisture levels having a direct impact.
There have already been widespread plant and animal population extinctions caused by climate change, detected in almost half of 976 species examined, according to the UN’s authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC also says that one in 10 species is likely to face a “very high” risk of extinction at 2C of global warming, the upper limit of the Paris Agreement. This rises to 12% at 3C, 13% at 4C and 15% at 5C.
Fungal diversity depends on plants, so any climate-related habitat change that negatively impacts plants “in turn affects their co-existing fungi”, the report says.
Antonelli explains that there is a certain “shortage of knowledge” on the specific role of climate change in extinction risks for many plant and fungi species.
However, climate change is “tremendously” significant to extinction risks and its impact is “expected to increase over time” to possibly become the biggest risk in future, Antonelli adds. He tells Carbon Brief:
“Every time a species is assessed, the experts assessing it will determine whether climate change is or is not a contributing factor to its threat.
“In many cases, the real acute changes we are seeing are in terms of habitat degradation and deforestation, or destruction of grasslands. But it’s harder to really know or predict how much climate change is going to affect particular species because there has not been [as much] experimental research testing that.”
He says more research is needed to test the effects of drought, heatwaves, extreme weather events and gradually increasing mean temperatures on species’ “fertility or seed prediction or dispersal”.
There are other ways climate change can affect extinction risks for plants and fungi, such as by driving increased droughts or reducing resilience to new diseases, Antonelli notes:
“Even though pathogens and disease are a separate category in the threat assessments, those two could be interplaying.”
The graphic below shows the different predictors of plant extinction risk and their significance in risk predictions. The main risk identified in the report is the number of “botanical countries” in which a species is present – an area used to define a plant’s distribution that may diverge from official country lines. This is because their area of inhabitance is already limited to begin with.
Brown says that “people aren’t taking extinction seriously enough”. She adds in the report:
“We wanted to show that extinction is being underrated and underestimated, and that we need to do something about it.”
Antonelli says that there are other climate benefits to increasing knowledge of plants and fungi, including understanding the different carbon storage abilities of species.
A recent study estimated that fungi attached to plant roots each year remove 13bn tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, the equivalent of around a third of annual fossil-fuel emissions.
The authors noted that this estimate is based on the best available evidence, but should still be “interpreted with caution”.
3. Plants are currently going extinct 500 times faster than before humans existed
On average, more than two plant species have gone extinct each year for the past 250 years, according to a 2019 study cited in the report.
This is 500 times faster than the “background extinction rate” – the rate of extinctions absent from human interference. Plants that were scientifically described more recently are becoming extinct twice as fast as those described before 1900, the study adds.
Nearly 600 plant species have been driven to extinction in modern times – but almost as many have been rediscovered after being declared extinct.
The map below shows the geographic distribution of recorded plant extinctions that have occurred in recent centuries. Darker colours indicate a higher number of extinctions. The study notes that the pattern is “strikingly similar” to that of animal extinctions, with a disproportionate number of extinctions occurring on islands.
Nearly every recorded plant species that has gone extinct was found only in a single area or region.
The Kew report says that these “endemic” plant species may be “particularly affected by habitat destruction and climate change” as their ranges are small to begin with.
Just 10 nations host more than half (55%) of endemic plant species, the report adds, with Brazil, Australia and China hosting the highest number.
The report says this is a significant point for countries to understand the “extent to which the unique species they host are threatened with extinction” and to include this in their conservation strategies.
Other studies have put the modern extinction rate closer to 1,000 times faster than pre-human extinction rates. And still others predict that this could rise to 10,000 times faster, if all species that are currently “threatened” go extinct within the next century.
Brown notes that a lot of human-caused changes to biodiversity patterns are “leading to homogenisation”. She adds in the report:
“By carting species around the world and losing unique threatened species, we are making regions that were once really distinct much more similar, so we are blurring the edges of our global biogeographical regions.”
4. Scientists have assessed the risk of extinction for less than 1% of known fungi species
“Fungal interactions are absolutely essential to ecosystem health,” Antonelli tells Carbon Brief.
Around 155,000 fungi species have been documented in scientific literature. But, of these, only 625 known fungi species have had their extinction threat assessed by the IUCN Red List – just 0.4%.
Over the past two decades, a concerted effort by scientists and hobbyists has seen the number of fungi species evaluated on the IUCN red list go from just two in 2003 to a predicted 1,000 by the end of this year.
The report estimates that there are 2.5m fungi species around the world, meaning only 0.02% have had their global extinction threat level assessed.
Bridging this gap, the report says, is “challenging but possible”.
More than 20,000 fungi and lichen species have had their extinction threat level assessed nationally – with a strong bias towards assessments in the global north. These national-level “red lists” can help policymakers identify priority areas for conservation and guide decision-making around land management.
The image below shows the number of IUCN red-list assessments for different groups of organisms. It shows that fungi are by far the least assessed organism.
The report calls for increased engagement with communities and citizen science projects to help document the as-yet-unnamed species.
Dr Kiran Dhanjal-Adams, postdoctoral researcher at Kew, notes in the report that, although many species have not been formally described by science, they “are, in fact, well known by Indigenous communities”. He says:
“Species extinctions and cultural extinctions are inextricably interlinked. With the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [GBF] highlighting the importance of Indigenous and local communities in conservation, we have the basis for strengthening partnerships and increasing our capacity to describe species in a way that can help raise conservation interest and funds to support local communities, as well as shedding light on ‘darkspots’.”
The new report identifies 32 plant “darkspots” – areas estimated to be the most lacking in information on plant diversity and distribution. These include Colombia and New Guinea.
5. Almost half of flowering plant species are under threat
The Kew report says that 45% of all known flowering plant species are potentially threatened with extinction.
This figure and others outline the “scale” of the “biodiversity crisis”, Antonelli tells Carbon Brief, adding:
“I am absolutely struck. I think it’s a disaster and it’s a really extremely serious situation. But, that said, we do know there are solutions and we are absolutely confident that we can turn this around.”
Scientists used a dataset of more than 53,000 red-listed species to also train a model to predict extinction risks of all the unassessed flowering plant species, the report explains.
Their findings indicate that “epiphytes” – plants that grow on other plants – are the “most threatened plant form”.
The report helps to address some “basic questions” about biodiversity and furthering understanding of species numbers, locations, threats and support needs, Antonelli says.
This information is “fundamental” to meeting the global goals and targets aimed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by the end of this decade. These were agreed between almost every country in the world at the COP15 biodiversity summit last year. Antonelli tells Carbon Brief:
“All species are important and invaluable to ecosystems, but I think there’s a real danger of not being able to create the baseline information about plants on time for those priorities for conservation and restoration to be designed.”
The post Kew report: Five key extinction risks facing the world’s plants and fungi appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Kew report: Five key extinction risks facing the world’s plants and fungi
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS.
Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.
Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.
The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.
The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.
Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output
Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.
Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.
-
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
Foreign banks involved in Indonesia’s $20-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership have also funded companies working on coal power expansion, a TBIJ and Climate Home News investigation reveals -
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power
Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.
Stronger environmental enforcement
Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.
This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.
The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.
The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.
In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.
None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.
Unequal benefits
For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.
-
Nickel mining for electric vehicles is destroying lives in Indonesia
Indonesia’s abundant nickel reserves are crucial for a low carbon world. But extracting them is ruining local peoples’ lives and causing rampant deforestation -
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Indonesia supplies the EV industry with critical battery materials but the sector’s rapid expansion is infringing the rights of Indigenous peoples -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach
In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.
Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.
The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.
None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.
The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
Climate Change
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.
The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.
An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.
Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.
“The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”
Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.
“The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.
“The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”
After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.
Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.
“Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits