The Albanese government has just caved in to pressure from mining executives. As a result, the long-promised reformed nature laws and national independent environment watchdog will not be legislated this term of government. It’s a bitterly disappointing back down where our wildlife, natural environment and communities stand to lose most.
A Decision with Real Consequence for Nature
Australia has one of the worst deforestation rates in the world. We are in the middle of an extinction crisis, with iconic species like the koala pushed to the brink of local extinction in Queensland and New South Wales.
Labor’s positive plan was supposed to address this accelerating environmental decline. It was meant to provide better protection for wildlife and forests and include an independent environment watchdog with real power to hold corporations accountable for environmental destruction.
This was based on years of discussion, consultation and an independent review conducted way back in 2020 that uncovered how broken our national system of environmental protection really is.
Yet instead of following through on these desperately needed nature law reforms, the government has walked away, at least for this term.
This decision follows heavy lobbying from fossil fuel and mining corporations as well as political pressure from Western Australia’s Premier Roger Cook who faces his own re-election in March this year.
A Compromise Deal Ignored
The government needed the votes of a combination of the Greens and independent Senators to get its proposed legislation through parliament. The legislation had already passed the lower house last year and negotiations had apparently led to a compromise deal.
But this was quashed following a concerted campaign from mining and fossil fuel interests, particularly in Western Australia.
A last ditch attempt to get this critical deal done in early February was made over the past week in the hope these reforms could finally be legislated just before the next election. But once again vested interests stood in the way and the reforms have been dumped for this term of government.
The government is now heading into an election without delivering on this critical promise.
“Rather than standing up for nature and wildlife, Prime Minister Albanese and WA Premier Roger Cook have caved to big fossil fuel and mining executives railing against environmental protection in the interest of profits. The outcome will be devastating — more forest and habitat destruction, more wildlife killed, and a diminished natural environment for all Australians.”
– Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Australians Want Real Environmental Protections
Australians care deeply about nature. We love our beaches, forests, and unique wildlife. We don’t want to see koalas driven to extinction or ancient forests bulldozed for logging or mining projects.
The government cannot afford to ignore the public’s demand for real action on nature protection.
A recent poll showed that 75% of Australians support strengthening national environmental law to protect nature, with just 4% opposing and the rest undecided.
As we head rapidly towards another federal election, it’s time all political parties acted on the strong public support and demand for nature laws that work.
What You Can Do
Together, we won’t let fossil fuel and mining companies dictate Australia’s nature laws.
We’re demanding that all parties make these critical nature law reforms a priority in the first 100 days of parliament.
Here’s how you can take action:
- Add your name to our petition calling on the Albanese government to implement strong nature protection laws that will end Australia’s deforestation crisis
- Contact your local MP and demand they stand up for nature, not corporate polluters.
The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.
Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).
In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.
This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.
Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.
As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.
The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.
Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF.
However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.
With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round.
The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.
In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.
According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”.
In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.
Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.
The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut
SYDNEY, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — Ahead of tonight’s Federal Budget, the following statement can be attributed to David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“As the Albanese government hands down the budget, it has an obligation to both look after households today, and to set Australians up for a flourishing future.
“The government has an opportunity to give Aussies a fair shake of the sauce bottle by taxing gas corporations fairly, accelerating the clean, affordable renewable solutions we already have, backing its own nature law reforms with appropriate funding and by protecting our oceans, forests and climate from polluting gas projects.
“The massive swell for fairly taxing gas corporations shows the public mood has permanently shifted; most Australians rightly do not accept that gas corporations like Woodside and Santos should make obscene war profits, while everyday people face soaring bills, and natural wonders like Scott Reef are threatened by reckless gas drilling projects.
“The global energy shock has exposed the dangers of our dependence on coal, oil and gas, and made clear that our future security and prosperity is in clean, affordable and homegrown wind and solar power.
“This must be a budget to benefit Australians, not gas corporations.”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s 2026 Federal Budget expectations can be found here.
–ENDS–
Notes:
Greenpeace has spokespeople available for interview before and after the budget announcement, including experts who can speak on Australia’s climate and emissions, the gas tax, Woodside’s Browse project, Labor’s new nature law, and our renewable future.
Media contact:
Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbenard@greenpeace.org
Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace
Climate Change
‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling
PERTH, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — In response to Woodside’s Browse economic modelling released yesterday, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:
“Greenpeace has analysed Woodside’s report on the polluting Browse gas project against independent modelling of WA’s energy system and emissions, and found glaring holes in the case made for the project.
“Woodside has reached a new low by modelling WA’s emissions reduction and energy transition pathway based on wildly expensive and risky decarbonisation options simply to justify its reckless Browse development at Scott Reef, initially rejected by the WA Environmental Protection Authority on environmental grounds.
“The WA Government cannot allow climate policy to be directed by climate vandals like Woodside. The clearest way to get WA’s emissions down is by setting clear emission reduction targets, which Greenpeace continues to call for.”
Key points from Greenpeace’s analysis of Woodside’s modelling follow:
- Gas is the most expensive form of available electricity generation, according to the CSIRO; IEEFA also found that Browse gas would be about four times higher than the current average production cost of domestic gas in WA.
- Direct air capture (DAC): The model assumes WA will be able to capture 6.9Mt of CO2/year by 2050. Worldwide, the current total volumes captured are 0.01 Mt CO2/year. DAC is currently priced at a minimum of $USD-400/tonne with many estimates ranging higher. Even reduced to $200/tonne, the cost per year of the volumes modelled becomes a staggering $1.38 billion, or $34.5 billion by 2050.
- Carbon dumping, or carbon capture and storage (CCS): The model requires 40 times the amount of sequestration that occurred last year at WA’s only CCS operation on Barrow Island (32.4Mt compared to 1.3Mt). Barrow Island CCS has consistently failed to meet requirements and last year alone cost $344m (at 265 AU$/tCO2). At those prices the Woodside modelling results in a cost per year by 2050 to be $8.6 billion.
- Woodside’s Pluto gas facility has been supplying less than 4% to the WA market, far short of the 15% required under the WA domestic gas reservation policy.
- Woodside includes $1.6 billion payable via the Offshore Petroleum Levy. The Levy was implemented to offset offshore decommissioning costs to the taxpayer but is set to expire in 2030 — 3 years before the Browse field is proposed to come online.
-ENDS-
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here
Media contacts:
Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling
Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut
Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace
‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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 Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测