NEWCASTLE, Sunday 30 November 2025 – Greenpeace Australia Pacific activists have scaled and blocked a coal ship, bound for the Port of Newcastle today, during the Rising Tide People’s Blockade, deploying a banner with a message to the Australian government: “Phase Out Coal and Gas”.

Photos and video here – footage to be uploaded by 2pm AEDT

Three activists are secured to the anchor chain and sides of the ship, stopping its operations, and have unfurled the five-metre-long banner in a peaceful protest demanding the Australian government set a timeline to phase out fossil fuels including exports, and stop approving new coal and gas projects.

Australian musicians Oli and Louis Leimbach from Lime Cordiale joined the action with Greenpeace while activists painted a message to the Australian government on the ship’s side, using non-toxic soluble paint, reading: “TIMELINE NOW!”

It comes after Australia signed onto the significant Belém Declaration for the Transition Away From Fossil Fuels on the sidelines of COP30 in Brazil last week, but then doubled down on its support for coal and gas.

Oli Leimbach from Australian band Lime Cordiale, who performed at Rising Tide’s Climate Concert and joined the Greenpeace action said: “Rising Tide’s Climate Concert last night was such a beautiful festival; so many passionate people came together in a peaceful way to demand change from the government. By taking action today, we added another little exclamation mark on their voices. Stoked to be here with Greenpeace — it’s time to phase out coal and gas.”

Dr. Elen O’Donnell, doctor and Greenpeace activist who boarded the vessel, said: “We are taking action today, alongside thousands of people who have joined Rising Tide’s blockade, to show Australia’s leaders that if the government won’t act, the people will. Australia is the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, and its outsized role in the climate crisis calls for serious action. Every shipment of coal that leaves this port contributes to more devastating bushfires, floods and cyclones. As a doctor, I have seen first-hand the impacts of climate disasters on people in Australia and around the world — I’ve seen how our government’s obsession with fossil fuels is harming people and killing our planet.

“From the side of this vessel we can see ships far out to the horizon, many of them on their way to collect coal. These industries, and the Australian people, are owed a clear plan and timeline for the phase out of coal and gas. We are risking arrest because we don’t want a future reliant on coal and gas.”

Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The urgency of the climate crisis cannot be understated. Fossil fuel production is soaring and pushing climate pollution to deadly new highs.

“At COP30 in Brazil, the Australian government joined the landmark Belém Declaration — its strongest statement yet that acknowledges our international commitment to limit warming to 1.5°C means no new fossil fuels. But just days later the Albanese government doubled-down on coal and gas — completely at odds with Australia’s obligation and responsibility to address emissions as one of the world’s largest coal and gas exporters. It’s a joke.

“The Albanese government continues to approve new coal and gas projects at breakneck speed, expanding production faster than any other country, and with no clear exit strategy. Australian workers, communities and the public have been left in the lurch and deserve better.

“The clean energy transition is here and there is no going back. We have the solutions and what matters is what we do now — Australia must deliver a clear timeline to phase out fossil fuels, including exports, and commit to no new fossil fuel projects. Real leadership is judged on action, not talk. 

“Greenpeace, alongside Rising Tide and thousands of everyday people, are taking actions big and small this weekend to send a united message to the Albanese government — we don’t need new fossil fuels, and we will continue to hold you to account.”

The ship was due in to port at around 12:15pm AEDT. Newcastle is the world’s biggest coal port. The Rising Tide People’s Blockade is a week-long annual peaceful protest at the Port of Newcastle calling for an end to new coal and gas projects and increased funding to support workers during the transition away from coal.

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Kimberley Bernard: +61 407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org or Lucy Keller: +61 491 135 308 or lkeller@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace activists block coal ship from entering world’s largest coal port at Rising Tide blockade

The op-eds and TV segments coincided with the gubernatorial campaign in the Garden State.

By Rambo Talabong

Media companies owned by Rupert Murdoch have found a “scapegoat” in clean energy for the rising electricity prices in New Jersey, according to two reports from watchdog Media Matters.

Murdoch Media Wrongly Pinned NJ High Electricity Costs on Clean Energy, Says Watchdog

The European Commission has rejected requests by green groups to review the status of 16 controversial projects it has designated as “strategic” to shore up the bloc’s supply of critical minerals needed for the energy transition, despite environmental concerns.

Campaigners accused the European Union’s executive arm of being more interested in labelling projects as “strategic” to accelerate their development than ensuring they meet its environmental standards.

Legal experts told Climate Home News that despite the EU’s rhetoric on developing sustainable mining standards, it will be very difficult for local communities and NGOs to use the judicial system to enforce compliance with environmental safeguards.

Earlier this year, the European Commission labelled 47 mineral extraction, processing and recycling projects within EU member states as “strategic“, granting them preferential treatment for gaining permits and easier access to EU funding.

Spanning from the north of Sweden to Portugal and southern Spain, these projects are due to help the EU reach targets for sourcing more of the minerals it needs for clean energy and digital technologies within its own borders in an environmentally friendly way, while reducing its dependence on imports from China.

However, NGOs and local communities have accused the European Commission of a lack of transparency and of failing to engage civil society over the selection of these projects, most of which are in the early stages of development and are yet to obtain the necessary permits or conduct detailed environmental impact assessments.

Civil society groups challenged the decision to include around a third of projects on the strategic list, arguing that the commission had not properly assessed their sustainability. They also cited risks of social and environmental harm and human rights violations.

EU: Environmental compliance lies with member states

In total, 11 requests for review covering 16 of the projects planned within the EU were filed under the Aarhus Regulation, which gives NGOs the right to ask the European Commission to review administrative decisions if they are considered to violate the bloc’s environmental law.

In a single response shared with green groups this week, and seen by Climate Home News, the commission found that the requests to review the projects’ status were “unfounded”.

“A thorough assessment confirmed that all points raised by the NGOs had already been properly addressed during the selection process. All the projects concerned therefore retain their status as strategic projects,” a European Commission spokesperson told Climate Home News. They did not respond to detailed questions about their assessment.

Under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which was adopted last year, the commission can designate mineral projects as strategic if they meet a shortlist of criteria, including that the project “would be implemented sustainably” and monitor, prevent and minimise environmental and adverse social impacts.

The strategic status can be revoked if projects no longer meet the criteria.

However, the commission said it was not its job to carry out a full and detailed assessment of whether the projects fully comply with EU environmental laws, adding that it is only required to make an “overall assessment”.

Rather, it argued, member states have the responsibility to ensure the projects fully comply with EU environmental standards including impacts on biodiversity and ground water as well as waste management.

The commission also refused to examine the social impacts of the projects on community livelihoods, health and human rights – which could arise from environmental degradation – arguing that this was outside the scope of the review mechanism under the Aarhus Regulation.

Campaigners have strongly criticised the response.

“Cosmetic”sustainability criteria

Ilze Tralmaka, a lawyer at Client Earth, told Climate Home News the commission’s decision showed that the designation of mineral projects as “strategic” doesn’t make them safe or sustainable, despite creating a legal presumption that they serve the public interest and protect public health and safety.

“While on paper, there is mention of sustainability, in practice, it’s almost cosmetic,” she said. “It seems the environmental standards are just briefly looked at and that the policy of declaring these projects as strategic is more important than real engagement with the sustainability criteria.”

Client Earth argues that while securing supplies of minerals for the energy transition is a legitimate goal, the status of strategic project is being “misused” to fast-track questionable mining projects.

Tralmaka said the European Commission should engage where there are “unanswered questions, or if there is credible information about these projects being potentially unsafe”.

Client Earth was part of a group of NGOs that challenged the decision to designate the Barroso lithium project in Portugal as a strategic project.

“Textbook example of how not to do a green transition”

London-listed Savannah Resources is planning to dig four open pit mines in the northern Barroso region to extract lithium from Europe’s largest known deposit. The company says it will extract enough lithium every year to produce around half a million batteries for electric vehicles.

However, local groups have staunchly opposed the mining project, citing concerns over waste management and water use as well as the impact of the mine on traditional agriculture in the area.

Earlier this year, a UN committee found that Portugal had failed to respect citizens’ rights to information and public participation in the case of the Barroso project. Portuguese authorities denied the breach.

Efforts to green lithium extraction face scrutiny over water use

The commission said it was satisfied with the project’s overall sustainability credentials and that campaign groups should take a case to their national court if they are concerned about the legality of any project.

“This decision shows that the EU is willing to trade rural lives and irreplaceable landscapes for a political headline,” said Nik Völker of MiningWatch Portugal. “The truth is, the Mina do Barroso mine offers minimal benefits and enormous risks: a textbook example of how not to do a green transition.”

Savannah Resources did not respond to a request for comment.

“Murky” standards make legal challenge hard

Simon Simanovski, a business and human rights attorney with German law firm Günther Rechtsanwälte, has advised dozens of communities affected by projects designated as “strategic” under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act over the past year.

For him, the commission’s response creates a disconnect between its role as a decision-making body and the responsibility for enforcing the bloc’s environmental laws, by pushing it to member states. That, he said, creates “murky standards”.

This, he added, will make it “really difficult” to challenge inadequate environmental safeguards through the courts. “It means that there is no effective judicial protection… and that the projects will happen,” he told Climate Home News.

However, Simanovski still expects some campaign groups to try filing a case before the general court of the European Court of Justice to challenge the European Commission’s response and ask it to review its assessment of the projects.

Simanovski represents communities in Serbia that are also challenging the “strategic” designation of the Jadar lithium mine – one of an additional 13 “strategic projects” located outside EU countries – which has seen massive local opposition.

The commission is expected to respond to requests to review those external strategic projects in January.

The post EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition