
The new Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt just made a decision that has left climate and ocean defenders across the country stunned and outraged. The Albanese Government has given environmental approval for Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project to keep operating until 2070—a full 45 years into the future. The decision was provisionally granted by Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt today giving Woodside 10 days to respond to conditions.
Lets Be Clear
The North West Shelf project is already one of the biggest sources of climate pollution in the country – it spews out more than anything approved under Scott Morrison and is on par with the Adani Carmichael coal mine. And now our new Environment Minister just gave it a greenlight to continue operating until 2070, releasing a further 4.4 billion tonnes of climate pollution.
What Does This Mean?
This approval allows decades of fossil fuel emissions, just as our Pacific neighbors are telling Australia to listen to climate scientists and do the opposite. Gas pollutes just as much as coal, and is causing global temperatures to rise. The UN has warned if we are to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5°C we have to replace polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from renewable sources. Yet, this decision has the potential to keep one of the dirtiest projects in the country alive well into the second half of the century.
It’s a slap in the face to Australia’s climate commitments and a betrayal of public trust. Communities who voted for climate action at the election just weeks ago did not vote for more gas, more pollution, and more climate disasters..

This Fight isn’t over: Woodside still wants to Drill Scott Reef
Here’s the part that isn’t being talked about enough: the gas that will keep the North West Shelf project alive for decades is expected to come from new gas fields, mainly Woodside’s proposed Browse Basin development—right underneath Scott Reef.
Without drilling for gas at Scott Reef, the North West Shelf project won’t have enough gas to justify its operation, as the gas fields closest to the facility are already depleted.
Scott Reef is one of the most spectacular, untouched coral reefs in Australia. It lies hundreds of kilometres off the Kimberley coast, in deep waters that are home to endangered sea turtles, pygmy blue whales, and vibrant coral ecosystems.
Browse gas lies directly beneath this fragile marine wonder.
If Woodside pushes ahead with Browse, Scott Reef faces industrialisation, drilling, and potential spills. That means the environmental approval for the North West Shelf isn’t just about extending an existing facility. It’s the first domino in a chain of destruction that could irreparably damage one of Australia’s last untouched reef systems.

We Can’t Let The Stand
This decision shows that even under new leadership, our environmental laws are failing. They allow approvals for mega-polluting projects while ignoring the bigger picture—like where the gas will come from, or what ecosystems it will destroy.
We need to speak up, louder than ever. Scott Reef has been put directly in the crosshairs of this polluting monster and Woodside will not stop until it has its hands on our precious wild places. Minister Watt still has a choice when it comes to future approvals like Browse. Public pressure is the only thing that can turn that choice into a climate win.

What You Can Do
Write to Minister Murray Watt and demand he protect Scott Reef and reject any new gas approvals. Here
Share this story with your networks. Most Australians don’t even know this decision has happened. Let’s change that.
Sign the petition to stop Woodside’s Browse project from going ahead.
We will keep standing up for oceans, for climate, and for future generations. With your voice, we will hold the line.
A License to Pollute: Woodside’s Dirty Deal Just Got a Federal Tick
Climate Change
How to Think About the Extractive Problem of Lithium Mining
Electrification of transportation and the power grid all but require lithium to make batteries—but mining it takes a toll on delicate ecosystems. Still, there are reasons for hope.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Thea Riofrancos, the author of “Extraction: The Frontiers of Green Capitalism.”
Climate Change
New panel of climate scientists calls for fossil fuel transition roadmaps
A new panel of experts, bringing together some of the world’s top climate scientists, has called on governments to develop roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels “anchored in science and justice”.
Launched on Friday in Santa Marta, Colombia, along with a set of 12 initial policy recommendations, the panel’s appeal came ahead of a key ministerial meeting on equitable ways to reduce dependence on coal, oil and gas during next week’s “First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”.
Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition
Presenting the panel’s recommendations in a packed Santa Marta Theatre, Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said the push for a global transition away from fossil fuels offers “a light in the tunnel” during a “very dark moment” of geopolitical conflict and climate extremes.
“Science is here to serve,” Rockström said. “We’re today launching the Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) as a service, as a global common good for all countries, all sectors, all regions to connect to the best science enabling a transition away from fossil fuels.”
The panel is urging countries to create “whole-of-government” plans to “dismantle legal, financial and political barriers” to the energy transition. Its insights are intended to inform top officials from 57 governments who will gather in Santa Marta for high-level discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Draft roadmap for Colombia
Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres said the panel “addresses a longstanding shortcoming” in international climate science, by creating a scientific body dedicated solely to overcoming the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.
“It’s a first-of-its-kind, designed to organise in the next five years the scientific evidence that allows cities, regions, countries and coalitions to take the big leap,” Vélez told the event in Santa Marta.
As an example of how countries can move forward – even when their economies are closely tied to the production and use of dirty energy – a group of European scientists presented a draft roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in Colombia, with inputs from the Colombian government. It will be used as a basis for further consultation in the Latin American nation to define the way forward.
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds and co‑author of the roadmap, said it shows “a clear pathway to economic and societal benefit”, with average annual investment of $10.6 billion producing net economic benefits of $23 billion per year by 2050.
The document says fossil fuels in Colombia can be phased out through energy efficiency measures, coupling renewable generation with energy storage, and switching to electrified transport. But, it adds, the government will need to plan for reduced revenue from fossil fuel exports, which roughly half by the mid-2030s.
“What matters now is moving beyond headline targets to create credible, policy-relevant roadmaps, enabling a just and effective transition,” Forster said in a statement. Brazil is also working on a national roadmap for its own economy, as well as leading a voluntary process to produce a global roadmap.
IPCC hobbled by politics
Currently, the world’s top climate science body – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – requires countries to sign off on each “summary for policymakers” of its flagship science reports. This has led to a politically fraught process that has increasingly seen some oil-producing governments making efforts to weaken its recommendations.
In a bid to focus scientific debates on the phase-out of fossil fuels, the new SPGET was created based on a mandate from last year’s COP30. It is also meant to come up with scientific recommendations at a faster pace than the IPCC’s seven-year cycle.
Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), called the new scientific panel “historic”, as it will be “more specific, more targeted and potentially more agile” with its advice on phasing out coal, oil and gas than the IPCC’s exhaustive scientific synthesis reports.
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
One of the SPGET members, Peter Newell of the UK’s University of Sussex, said “there are many different challenges along the way – and not all of them have to do with lack of evidence”, but the phasing out of fossil fuels “is one part of the story and it’s important to address it”.
The panel will be co-chaired by Cameroonian economist Vera Songwe, PIK’s chief economist Ottmar Edenhofer and Gilberto M. Jannuzzi, professor of energy systems at Brazil’s Universidade Estadual de Campinas. It will be composed of between 50 and 100 scientists divided into four working groups: transition pathways, technological solutions, policies and finance.
Under the 12 insights for the Santa Marta process, the panel recommended banning new fossil fuel infrastructure, mandating “deep cuts” in methane emissions, implementing carbon levies on imports, and de-risking clean energy investments via interventions from central banks, among others.
The post New panel of climate scientists calls for fossil fuel transition roadmaps appeared first on Climate Home News.
New panel of climate scientists calls for fossil fuel transition roadmaps
Climate Change
New loss and damage fund could run out of money next year
Despite not yet paying out any money, a UN-backed fund meant to address the loss and damage caused to developing countries by climate change could face “liquidity issues” by the end of next year, its head warned today.
With ten projects already requesting $166 million in total, the fund’s Executive Director Ibrahima Cheikh Diong warned a board meeting in Zambia that the fund was likely to be “oversubscribed” and should anticipate cashflow problems.
A framing paper prepared by the fund’s secretariat similarly warns that “given the current status of the capitalization of the Fund, there is a risk of the Fund exhausting its capital by the end of 2027, which could result in a loss of operational momentum and expose the FRLD to reputational risk”.
Since governments agreed to set up the fund at UN climate talks in Egypt in 2022, wealthy nations have promised $822 million, but delivered just $449 million.
The fund is expected to approve its first projects at its next board meeting in July. Early proposals submitted include strengthening responses to floods in Bangladesh and the Nigerian city of Lagos, and improving water infrastructure in Jamaica following Hurricane Melissa last year.
Millions not billions
ActionAid Zambia climate justice coordinator Michael Mwansa told the board meeting that he was concerned about “the failure of the Global North governments to deliver on their climate finance obligations, making it largely impossible to scale up [the fund’s initial stage] significantly, if at all”.
“Pledges remain nowhere near the billions and even the trillions needed to address loss and damage to the Global South”, Mwansa added, highlighting reports which found that financing loss and damage could cost developing countries up to $400 billion a year.
The fund’s board discussed its strategy for raising more money at its meeting this week while climate campaigners called, in an open letter, for it to aim to secure $50 billion a year from developed countries starting next year, rising to $100 billion a year by 2031 and $400 billion by 2035.
The World Bank-hosted fund aims to have revenue-raising rounds known as replenishments every four years, with the first in 2027.
Governments have agreed to “urge” developed countries to contribute but only to “encourage” other nations to do so and the fund’s secretariat wants to appoint a “high-level champion” to lead the replenishment team.
The fundraising strategy will be discussed further at the next board meeting in the Philipines in June.
Campaigners’ open letter calls for developed countries to contribute more and for them to introduce taxes on fossil fuel companies, financial transactions, luxury air travel and wealth to raise money for the fund.
“Rich countries must be held strictly accountable for the devastation they have caused,” said Climate Action Network International head Tasneem Essop. “Their failure to fulfil their responsibility to the Loss and Damage Fund is not just an oversight; it is a shameful betrayal of humanity.”
The post New loss and damage fund could run out of money next year appeared first on Climate Home News.
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
