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
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits