Connect with us

Published

on

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Santos? If you’re a cycling fan or an Adelaide local, it might be the Tour Down Under – the pro-cycling race happening this month in South Australia of which Santos is the major sponsor.

However the fossil fuel company got far less attention for another big event that took place earlier this month: a court date for an oil spill that took place a few years ago.

Santos: Spiller Down Under

On January 6 2025, Santos pleaded guilty and was convicted of substandard operations leading to an oil spill in 2022 off the coast of Western Australia, where 25,000 litres of oil were released into the Indian Ocean. The spill took place in waters which hold significant cultural importance for the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi people. Dead dolphins and other sea creatures were also found in the affected area shortly after the oil spill. For all of this damage the multi-billion dollar corporation was fined a measly $10,000 – nothing but a slap on the wrist.

For comparison, the maximum fine for an individual person in South Australia dumping only 50L worth of litter is up to $30,000, or 6 months in jail. Why are multi-billion dollar corporations allowed to get away with this?

This oil spill in 2022 is just one example on a long list of spills, leaks, and explosions on Santos projects that have harmed workers, marine life, and the environment.

In January 2023 another pipeline in South Australia had a major explosion. And in 2011 Santos was fined for breaching workplace safety laws after an explosion at the Moomba gas plant, on New Year’s Day in 2004. Come to think about it, this year’s fine was also a few days after new years in 2025. Are court cases and exploding pipelines becoming a new years tradition for the Adelaide headquartered company?

Also in 2023, a terrifying video from a Santos offshore gas project in WA shows several rope access technicians narrowly missing serious injury or death after a lift went badly wrong.

We could go on, but we’ll stop there for today.

The Great Cover Up: community sponsorships

The reason that major companies like Santos are sponsoring community events like the Tour Down Under is to bolster their reputation. They’ll go to great lengths to be associated with ‘helping out the community’ – almost as great as the lengths they will go to cover up their environmental damage.

When Santos spilled 25,000L of oil into the ocean in 2022, they failed to report it. A year later, an anonymous whistleblower accused Santos of a coverup.

“In defiance of their obligations, Santos had not mobilised environmental assessors to the island until a week after the incident,” said the whistleblower. “They could not have known the real scale of impact, it was never checked.” He also noted that he “was appalled at the culture and management within Santos, which demonstrated such wilful refusal to accept responsibility.”

Santos is not an anomaly. Many fossil fuel corporations have spills and explosions that they try to evade responsibility for, including Woodside – who now wants to be trusted to drill for gas near Scott Reef, threatening endangered whales, turtles, and sea snakes.

Companies like Santos and Woodside frequently sponsor community events because doing so buys them power. It smooths the way to their project approvals, and it makes communities reliant on the very fossil fuel companies who are responsible for the huge costs that then fall on communities when they have to clean up after environmental or climate disasters.

Fossil fuel companies like Santos are making climate change worse

It’s not just Santos’ spills and explosions that are causing harm, it’s the fossil fuels it produces for a profit.

Just 78 companies and state entities are responsible for over 70% of the toxic carbon pollution that’s driving climate change, but they’re leaving the rest of us to foot the bill for the massive cost of disasters they’ve helped to cause. Everyday Australians are currently paying $13 billion per year to clean up the impacts of climate change.

Let’s not forget that in 2022 alone, Santos raked in over US$3.8 billion.

We shouldn’t let billion-dollar companies profit off polluting while buying back social license from sponsoring local swim teams and sports competitions. Coal, oil and gas companies are the biggest contributors to climate change. They cause the damage – they should be paying to fix it.



Coal Fired Power Plant


Stop New Coal, Oil and Gas Projects

Sign the petition to demand the Australian Government stop new coal, oil and gas projects now.


Sign petition

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/article/santos-tour-down-under-why-fossil-fuel-companies-should-be-best-known-for-their-pollution-not-their-sponsorships/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.