China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are investing in low-carbon sources and helping push the country’s energy transition towards a “critical turning point” where coal power starts to decline, a new report finds.
The report, by thinktank Ember, finds that, in the decade to 2020, central government-controlled power companies (central SOEs) had increased their wind and solar capacity nearly five-fold, surpassing 200 gigawatts (GW).
By 2022 – the most recent data available in the report – central SOEs accounted for about 40% of China’s installed solar capacity and 70% of its wind capacity.
Together with local government-controlled energy firms (local SOEs), these companies have made a “significant contribution” to shrinking coal’s share of China’s electricity mix, which has dropped from more than 70% in 2000 to less than 60% in 2023.
Moreover, coal is contributing less to meeting China’s rising electricity demand, the report says. From 1991-2000, 85% of the incremental electricity demand was met by coal, while in 2011-2020 this figure dropped to only 47%.
The report adds that, if current trends continue, coal power in China “will being to decline in absolute terms”, a turning point that could trigger a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the country’s electricity sector – and its emissions overall.
While SOEs’ diversification strategies have reduced their reliance on coal, however, the report says that these entities remain closely bound up in the “coal-electricity ecosystem”.
As such, the turning point away from coal power could trigger “potential tensions and conflicts” – particularly in coal-reliant regions of the country – that will need to be addressed in order for China’s energy transition to continue.
The transition journey of SOEs
SOEs are organisations set up to carry out commercial activities on behalf of the government.
They play a “crucial role” in China’s economy, particularly in key sectors, such as energy. According to the World Bank, SOEs accounted for 23-28% of China’s GDP in 2017.The leading nine power-sector SOEs are dubbed as “five bigs and four smalls” (五大四小). Collectively, these firms control more than half of China’s electricity generation capacity, as shown in the figure below.
Power-sector SOEs are particularly dominant in terms of the “coal power market (煤电市场)”, Ember notes, with private capital only accounting for a 5% share.
This gives power-sector SOEs a key role in China’s energy transition.
In addition, as a hybrid of corporate organisation and government ministry, SOEs’ development plans closely follow the central government’s overall blueprint.
Their governing body, the state-owned assets supervision and administration commission (SASAC), issued a “guiding opinion” mandate for SOE’s energy transition in 2021, after president Xi Jinping declared the “dual carbon” goal in 2020.
(The “dual carbon” goal is to peak emissions before 2030 and become “carbon neutral” before 2060. Read Carbon Brief’s China country profile for more detail.)
The mandate says that in order to “lay a solid foundation for achieving carbon peak” by 2030, SOEs should “incorporate over 50% of renewable energy in their generation capacity mix by 2025”.
Another recent report, by thinktank Climate Energy Finance (CEF), finds that the “five big” SOEs have poured tens of billions of yuan (billions of dollars) into the buildout of renewable energy, since this document was issued.
With capital expenditure being aligned with energy diversification goals, CEF says all “five bigs” already met the SASAC target in 2023.
Ember’s study on central SOEs finds their wind and solar capacity increased nearly five-folds since 2011, surpassing 200GW in 2020, roughly equivalent to the total installed capacity of Germany.
In 2022, central SOEs accounted for about 40% of China’s solar capacity and 70% of the wind capacity, adds Ember, leading China to approach “a critical turning point in its transition towards a clean electricity future”.
The Ember report says if current trends in energy transition continue, coal power will “begin to decline in absolute terms” – a similar conclusion to recent Carbon Brief analysis.
Pushing down coal’s share
Coal’s share of China’s electricity generation is declining. As shown in the figure below, coal’s share (black) dropped from nearly 80% in 2000 to about 60% in 2023.
(It fell further still, to a record-low 53% in May 2024, according to Carbon Brief analysis.)
Meanwhile, the combined share of wind (dark green) and solar (light green) grew from about 4% in 2015 to almost 16% in 2023, says Ember.
In addition, the role of coal in meeting the growing electricity demand is diminishing, as shown in the figure below.
Ember finds about 85% of the incremental electricity demand from 1991-2000 was met by coal (black), falling to 76% in the decade to 2010 and only 47% in the decade to 2020.
The contribution of renewable energy (green), including wind, solar, hydro, bioenergy and other sources, steadily increased over the same time period.
In 2023, China’s demand for electricity grew 6.7% compared to the previous year – higher than the average annual demand growth of about 6% between 2013 and 2022.
Ember says that, although hydropower decreased by about 59 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2023, wind and solar met 46% of the increased demand, followed by bioenergy and nuclear.
“If hydro had remained at 2022 levels, non-fossil fuel generation would have met more than half of the demand increase in 2023, further pushing coal power out of the generation mix,” adds the report.
(Carbon Brief’s previous analysis shows the decline of hydropower was due to a series of droughts in 2022/23.)
Muyi Yang, author of the Ember report, tells Carbon Brief that the surge in low-carbon energy means an “absolute decline” in coal power is “very likely to soon begin”.
Yang also thinks “the recent announcement of the ‘coal power low-carbon retrofitting action plan’ signifies that China has started to prepare for the new era of coal generation”.
The action plan, released by China’s top planner National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), is allocated to a number of SOEs, including the “five bigs”.
However, the Shuang Tan newsletter says the action plan is designed “to test the selected technologies at a few carefully chosen [SOE] coal power units”. Moreover, since the action plan did not set a “performance target”, it is “unlikely to drive industry-wide transformation”, adds the newsletter.
‘Crossing the river by touching the stones’
Despite the progress to date in diversifying China’s electricity supply – and the business models of the country’s power sector SOEs – major challenges lie ahead, Ember says.
A number of central SOEs also have major interests in other parts of the coal ecosystem.
Central SOE China Shenhua, for example, spent 8bn yuan (about $1bn) on coal mining development and exploration, and only 824m yuan (about $113m) in hydropower in the first half of 2023, according to a report by CEF.
Nevertheless, Shenhua parent company CHN Energy’s overall portfolio still complies with SASAC’s general energy diversification goal, CEF says. This is largely due to another subsidiary – Longyuan Power – being one of the largest wind power companies in China.
The Ember report explains:
“This [coal-electricity] ecosystem is characterised by extensive cross-industry and cross-ownership linkages encompassing coal production and supply, logistics, the coal chemical industry, power generation and the manufacturing of related equipment and facilities. Consequently, an absolute decline in coal generation will inevitably impact other interconnected and interdependent segments of this system, with far-reaching ramifications, particularly within the broader socio-economic assemblages that have evolved around it.”
“Reduced coal generation presents substantial challenges”, says Yang, “economic restructuring, including switching to ‘green industry’, will require comprehensive support”.
The challenges are more significant in major coal-producing provinces, such as Shanxi. In 2022, coal and its related industry contributed 80% of tax revenues and provided 55% local jobs for the province, according to Chinese financial media outlet Caixin.
Ember says that this illustrates why diversification of power-sector SOEs is, on its own, insufficient. It explains:
“Diversification strategy by large generation SOEs is useful, as it weakens the incumbent utilities’ commitment to the existing coal-dominated power system, making deeper transition…possible. However, its effectiveness begins to wane when considering its inability to adequately address the tensions and conflicts that may arise from the absolute decline in coal power and the wider impacts associated with it.”
The report continues by suggesting that coal-dependent regions will also need to develop tailored diversification strategies to address the “unique challenges” they face. It says:
“By diversifying the economic base of these areas, a smoother transition can be facilitated, mitigating the adverse effects on local communities and workers who have long relied on the coal-electricity sectors.”
Yet challenges remain, Ember says, because clean-energy industries may not bring benefits to the same regions that have long relied on coal.
Yang says “the key issue here is not about the magnitude of the benefits [of renewable energy], but their distribution”. He adds:
“Many modelling studies have confirmed that the clean energy transition is beneficial and can create growth and jobs, more than sufficient to offset reduced economic activities from conventional fossil fuel supply chains.
“By leveraging their substantial resources and infrastructure, SOEs can lead the development and integration of renewable energy projects, enhance grid stability, and ensure a reliable energy supply.”
Finally, the report suggests that China takes the path of “gradualism and experimentation” to navigate the challenges inherent in the transition away from coal. It says:
“Often likened to ‘crossing the river by touching the stones’, these approaches are widely recognised as pivotal to China’s economic success. They allow for careful testing and adjustment of strategies and policies, facilitating the adaptation of broader policy directives into pragmatic, localised actions tailored to specific circumstances. Additionally, they help promote consensus-building among a diverse range of stakeholders by incorporating iterative improvements based on practical experience and feedback.”
The post ‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report
After a successful first installment, Climate Home News is extending its “Clean Energy Frontier” series on supply chains for clean energy technologies for a second year and is seeking pitches.
Delivering the solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and other clean technologies the world needs to meet its climate goals requires a massive expansion of the supply chains responsible for producing them.
From mining and processing critical minerals, to assembling, transporting and installing these technologies across the world, the transition away from a fossil fuel-powered society requires a huge shift, which could help support the creation of thriving economies and millions of jobs.
At the same time, the transition away from coal, oil and gas requires a multitude of new resources, the extraction and processing of which can cause social and environmental harms if improperly managed.
Delivering a fast and fair energy transition means avoiding the pitfalls of the extractive fossil-fuel economy and building new industries which can benefit workers and communities everywhere.
What we are looking for
Our “Clean Energy Frontier” series aims to produce hard-hitting accountability journalism on these issues.
In our first series, we reported on lithium mining booms in Zimbabwe and Argentina; explored India’s dream of building its own solar supply chain; uncovered accusations of rights abuses linked to an Indonesian nickel park; delved into efforts to recycle rare earths in Canada; and examined Swedish company Northvolt’s sodium-ion battery plans.
In our second series, we are looking for longform stories (1,500-1,700 words) that explore how the energy transition can help support sustainable development, address inequalities and create jobs.
We are interested in stories that illustrate the opportunities and challenges of the transition and how it can be funded (especially in developing countries), spotlight geopolitical and trade tensions and efforts to address them, expose harms, and examine how technologies are transferred from wealthy to poorer countries.
Each story should blend on-the-ground reporting with investigative or explanatory journalism.
We particularly welcome strong character-driven stories and the use of data or satellite images to unveil new trends. The ideal story will have an original angle that captures the attention of our international audience.
We plan to publish six deeply reported articles between November 2024 and June 2025. We are seeking stories from around the world and we encourage journalists from developing countries to send us their ideas.
Stories should be accompanied by visual elements, including high-quality photos and video, and we encourage partnerships between journalists and photographers.
How to pitch
Join us for an hour webinar at 12pm GMT on August 20 2024 to find out what we expect from your pitches. Sign up here.
We welcome pitches from journalists with at least three years’ experience. You must have fluent spoken and written English. Journalists from all countries are welcome to apply. It helps if you have worked with international media before and have awareness of climate change issues.
Your pitch should include:
- The top line of the story and essential context in no more than 250 words. If we like the idea, we will ask for more detail
- The sources you would interview
- Any travel requirements
- A short summary of your journalism experience, including links to three recent stories you are proud of
- A link to the portfolio of the photographer you are planning to work with.
We can offer a competitive reporting fee, as well as an additional budget to commission photographers and cover travel and accommodation expenses. Travel costs will be negotiated in advance and reimbursed subject to valid receipts.
Please send your pitches with the word ‘Pitch’ in the subject line to project editor Chloé Farand by emailing chloe.farand [at] outlook.com.
The post Call for pitches: Climate Home News seeks story ideas on clean energy supply chains appeared first on Climate Home News.
Call for pitches: Climate Home News seeks story ideas on clean energy supply chains
The UK government could approve 13 new oil and gas projects in the North Sea, with the fuel produced emitting 350m tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) if burned, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
The Labour government, which took power last month, has ruled out issuing new oil and gas licences for the North Sea.
However, it has not ruled out approving projects that already have a licence, but have not yet received consent to begin development.
A former senior official tells Carbon Brief that the government may now be “compelled” to greenlight them due to the risk of legal action from oil and gas companies.
Official documents show that up to 13 such licenced projects are likely to seek development consent from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), led by Ed Miliband, and the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA). Many of these projects could seek such consent within months.
The projects could collectively produce 858m barrels of oil equivalent. If all of this fuel was burned, it would produce 350MtCO2e, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
This is equivalent to the annual emissions of 111 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries, which have a combined population of 649 million.
A wide range of scientific evidence shows that new fossil-fuel projects globally are “incompatible” with the world’s ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Since the landmark Horse Hill judgment in June, DESNZ will likely need to consider the emissions produced from burning fossil fuels when deciding whether to grant development consent to new projects for the first time.
A spokesperson for DESNZ chose not to comment on the 13 projects, instead reaffirming to Carbon Brief that the department “will not issue new licences to explore new fields”, but will not revoke existing licences.
- What is the government’s stance on North Sea oil and gas?
- How much new oil and gas could be approved under Labour?
- What does this mean for efforts to tackle climate change?
What is the government’s stance on North Sea oil and gas?
The Labour party achieved a landslide victory in last month’s UK general election, with a campaign that promised major changes to the country’s climate and energy policies.
In its manifesto, Labour said it “will not issue new licences” for oil and gas, but that it “will not revoke existing licences”, leaving uncertainty around whether it will grant development consent to new projects that already have a licence.
The process for new North Sea oil and gas projects moving from obtaining a licence to reaching first production is complex, leading to a lot of confused reporting – with journalists often incorrectly describing Labour’s policy to end new licences as a “ban on new drilling”.
Under the previous Conservative government, multiple oil and gas licensing rounds took place.
Licensing rounds are carried out by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), a company owned by DESNZ that acts as the UK’s oil and gas regulator.
(It is often pointed out that the NSTA is in the awkward position of being responsible for both ensuring the oil and gas sector reaches net-zero and maximising the economic recovery of oil from the North Sea.)
The most recent oil and gas licensing round took place from October 2022 to January 2023, leading to 82 licences being awarded to companies.
All of the licences awarded were production licences. This type of licence enables a company to explore for and then drill to extract oil and gas.
However, before they can set up operations and start drilling, they must obtain development consent from the NSTA, DESNZ and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK’s national regulator for workplace health and safety.
The “field development roadmap” below gives a sense of the various stages involved for a North Sea oil and gas project looking to obtain development consent.
The role of DESNZ in granting development consent for new oil and gas projects is highlighted in green.
Specifically, DESNZ is responsible for considering the environmental impact of a new oil and gas project.
As part of the environmental impact assessment, companies are asked to prepare an environmental statement, giving information on how the project could negatively affect the environment and what they plan to mitigate this. This could include, for example, how drilling activity could harm whales and dolphins living in the North Sea.
Until recently, when it came to the climate impact of their projects, companies only had to give information on the emissions caused by their operations. For example, from the energy used on oil rigs.
They did not have to provide DESNZ with data on the emissions that would be caused by burning the oil and gas they produce, which account for the vast majority of the emissions from a fossil-fuel project.
However, in June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment ruling that all fossil-fuel projects seeking approval in the UK should provide decisionmakers with information on the emissions caused from burning the oil and gas that they plan to produce.
Delivering the majority judgment, Lord Leggett stated that the end use of any fossil-fuel extraction was always combustion, necessitating decisionmakers to take into account these emissions:
“The combustion emissions are manifestly not outwith the control of the site operators. They are entirely within their control. If no oil is extracted, no combustion emissions will occur.”
Lawyers tell Carbon Brief that the judgment means that North Sea oil and gas companies seeking development consent will now need to provide DESNZ with data on the emissions from burning the fuel extracted by their projects.
After considering the environmental impact of a project, DESNZ can either grant consent, request further information or refuse consent, if it considers the potential environmental impacts of the new project to be too large.
This decision, ultimately, lies with the secretary of state, Ed Miliband.
As noted above, Labour has not been clear on its position on development consent for new oil and gas projects that already have a licence.
Although DESNZ technically has the power to refuse new oil and gas projects on climate grounds, it might be difficult to do so in practice, says Adam Bell, head of policy at the consultancy group Stonehaven and former head of energy at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (which has now been split into DESNZ and two other departments). He tells Carbon Brief:
“To say no, the secretary of state would need to demonstrate that the relevant project would indeed have significant environmental impacts. What ‘significant’ in this context means is very much up for grabs and the regulations do extend the secretary of state scope to refuse a project on climate impact grounds.
“However, such a contention would be difficult to stand up in court unless the secretary of state could demonstrate that the project would have a greater impact on the climate than an imports counterfactual. This would be challenging.”
Because of this, the government might be forced to greenlight oil and gas projects seeking approval, Bell says:
“My expectation is that unless the government takes the position that any further extraction anywhere globally increases the risk of climate change – with consequent impacts on international relations – they will be compelled to consent the projects.”
Commenting on the chance of the Horse Hill judgment making a difference, he adds:
“My expectation is that how emissions [from burning oil and gas] are considered will be crucial; whether purely on territorial grounds or in the context of global emissions.
“One can make the case for projects on the former, and the framework for doing so is, ironically, [the] Paris [Agreement] and nationally determined contributions. On the latter, it becomes much harder to consent to projects.”
(See: “What does this mean for efforts to tackle climate change?”)
How much new oil and gas could be approved under Labour?
According to a 2024 overview from the NSTA, 13 new oil and gas projects are at a phase where they could soon be seeking development consent.
The NSTA says these projects would collectively produce 858m barrels of oil equivalent. When burned, this would produce around 350MtCO2e, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
The graphic below, which has been adapted from the NSTA’s overview, uses bubbles to indicate the relative size of the 13 projects that are likely to seek development consent, in terms of their oil and gas resources.
A spokesperson for the NSTA would not provide Carbon Brief with any further information on the projects represented in its overview, arguing this information is “commercially sensitive”.
However, Carbon Brief understands that some of the larger projects likely to seek development consent include the controversial Cambo oil project, the UK’s second-largest undeveloped oil and gas discovery in the North Sea, as well as the Buchan oil redevelopment project and the Avalon oilfield project.
Labour has previously publicly ruled out greenlighting the Cambo oil project – despite not ruling out approving other large oil and gas projects. (As noted above, it may be challenging for DESNZ to do this in practice.)
(Labour has also publicly pledged to stop the Rosebank oil and gas project, another large project that was approved for development by the previous Conservative government. The decision to approve Rosebank will face a legal challenge from environmental groups later this year.)
The NSTA spokesperson said that it is possible that not all of the 13 projects will “reach the stage” of seeking development consent. (A project with a licence may encounter economic or viability issues in its early stages.)
They added that “some may apply in the next few months”, while others will seek consent “over a longer time period”.
What does this mean for efforts to tackle climate change?
There is a wide range of evidence to show that new fossil fuel projects globally could blow efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C, the aspiration of the Paris Agreement.
A scientific review of all known feasible routes for keeping to 1.5C published in 2022 concluded that developing new oil and gas fields is “incompatible” with the target.
It followed on from a landmark road map to net-zero released by the International Energy Agency in 2021, which said there are “no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our [1.5C] pathway”.
(In 2023, the IEA updated its wording to say that “no new long lead time conventional oil and gas projects are approved for development” in its 1.5C pathway.)
The latest UN Emissions Gap Report in 2023 said that the coal, oil and gas extracted over the lifetime of producing and under-construction mines and fields as of 2018 “would emit more than 3.5 times the carbon budget available to limit warming to 1.5C with 50% probability, and almost the size of the budget available for 2C with 67% probability”.
While the scientific case against new fossil fuel expansion is clear, North Sea advocates sometimes argue that the extraction of oil and gas in the UK has lower emissions than the global average and, therefore, offers an advantage.
In 2022, the UK’s climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, published an analysis examining whether there is currently any climate benefit to using oil and gas produced in the UK, rather than that imported from overseas.
It found that the emissions intensity of oil and gas produced in the UK is lower than the global average, suggesting there may be a small “advantage” to domestic production.
But, although the UK has a climate “advantage” in terms of emissions during production when compared to the global average, it is not outperforming Norway, the country from which it currently sources most of its oil and gas imports.
An analysis published in 2022 found that, on average, UK production in the North Sea was nearly three times more emissions intensive than Norwegian production.
Furthermore, potential small climate “gains” from using domestic oil and gas over imports could be undermined because extracting more fossil fuels could impact global demand.
Namely, if the UK produces more oil and gas, it could contribute to falling prices and, thus, rising demand, fuelling more use and higher emissions.
Previous CCC analysis found that, even if every 100 units of new UK gas production only adds 14 units to global gas demand overall, the upstream emissions advantage would be wiped out by higher usage elsewhere.
Similarly, it concluded that the upstream emissions advantage for oil would be wiped out even if every 100 units of new oil production only added three units to global oil demand.
It is also worth noting that oil and gas produced in UK waters is sold to the global market and does not “belong” to the UK.
Around 80% of oil produced in UK waters is currently exported. Similarly, during the global energy crisis, UK gas exports soared.
The 13 projects looking to obtain development consent would produce 858m barrels of oil equivalent, the NSTA says. This is equal to around two years of UK oil and gas production at current levels.
However, the North Sea is already in decline. Oil production peaked in 1999, while gas production in the UK continental shelf peaked in 2000.
The journey to net-zero will see petrol and diesel cars replaced by electric cars, fossil-fuel boilers replaced by heat pumps and gas power stations replaced with low-carbon alternatives, such as renewables, nuclear and storage. All of this will see oil and gas demand plummet over the coming decades.
This means that new oil and gas will not do much to boost UK energy security – something noted by DESNZ. Referring specifically to oil and gas licences, a spokesperson tells Carbon Brief:
“We will not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”
Prime minister Keir Starmer has previously said that restoring the UK’s reputation as a climate leader is a key priority for his government.
Committing to stopping all new oil and gas projects, rather than just ending new licensing rounds, could give a boost to these efforts, says Tessa Khan, an environmental lawyer and executive director of Uplift, the North Sea oil and gas transition campaign group. She tells Carbon Brief:
“Signalling an end to new oil and gas exploration will be a significant step forward in restoring the UK’s reputation as a climate leader. However, to really bring the UK into alignment with climate science, it needs to go even further and reject any new oil and gas developments – not just licences.”
She adds that setting a clear plan for ending new oil and gas projects – rather than leaving uncertainty over new projects – could help the sector prepare for a just transition:
“Clarity about the future of the oil and gas sector will help to plan a responsible transition that protects the workers and communities that have ties to the industry. If the UK takes these steps, it can set a real example of climate leadership.”
The post Analysis: UK could approve 13 new oil and gas projects despite North Sea pledge appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK could approve 13 new oil and gas projects despite North Sea pledge
Woodside’s Burrup Hub an irredeemable threat to WA’s oceans and marine life. It’s also the biggest fossil fuel threat in Australia and the fifth most polluting gas project in the world.
The Burrup Hub project is what Woodside calls its plan to drill the Scarborough gas field (which is already well under construction), drill the Browse gas field underneath Scott Reef and extend the life of a massive gas plant called the North West Shelf LNG Plant, which processes gas for export.
The Burrup Hub represents an irredeemable threat to Western Australia’s marine life – putting 54 threatened species and up to 12 marine parks at risk. But the destruction won’t end there – the project will emit over 6.1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the gas from the Burrup Hub will be sold overseas.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has been working for over 2 years to stop the Burrup Hub – it is Australia’s biggest climate threat, and poses catastrophic risks to the pristine environment of WA.
The story so far
Fossil fuel company Woodside has had its sights set on the Browse gas field for a long time. The company’s first attempt to drill it was defeated by a huge community campaign centred in the Kimberley in northern Western Australia. Then in 2019, Woodside was back – this time with a plan to pipe the Browse gas onshore to its existing LNG processing plant, extending its life until the 2070s.
The first stage of Woodside’s Burrup Hub, Scarborough, is under construction, with 30 gas wells being drilled off the coast of Exmouth, WA. Woodside has risked killing whales by deafening them with seismic blasting, dug up endangered turtle habitat, and when it is complete, Scarborough puts UNESCO-protected Ningaloo Reef within the danger zone for an oil spill.
Now, Woodside is proposing the next stage of the Burrup Hub: up to 50 more gas wells to be drilled around Scott Reef. The closest well will be just over 2km from the edge of the reef, with Woodside planning to extract gas from directly underneath the coral reef. The void left after removing the gas is likely to cause the reef to sink.
Scott Reef is a globally significant marine ecosystem, home to hundreds of species, including sea snakes, sharks, rays and sawfish. It provides critical habitat to endangered pygmy blue whales and vulnerable green turtles.
The new gas from Browse needs to be processed before it could be sent overseas. So, Woodside hopes to extend the life of its ageing North West Shelf LNG plant until the 2070s.
Woodside Has Not Won Yet
While Scarborough is currently being drilled, Woodside needs environmental approvals from Federal Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, and WA Environment Minister, Reece Whitby, to drill for new gas at Browse and extend the life of the North West Shelf LNG Plant.
Despite the accelerating climate crisis and Australia’s commitment to phase out of fossil fuels, projects like the Burrup Hub can still be approved because Woodside only needs to account for emissions on Australian territory. Because Woodside would sell over 80 per cent of the gas it drills from the Burrup Hub overseas (most of it royalty-free), it doesn’t need to include the emissions from gas burnt outside Australia when getting environmental approvals.
An industry source has confirmed to the media that Western Australia’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has essentially written off the company’s Browse project as too dangerous to proceed. This almost never happens under our current environmental and climate laws. These revelations make clear what we’ve long known to be true—that Woodside’s disastrous Burrup Hub project, including its Browse site, is likely to be a disaster for our precious environment, our reefs and threatened species.
Almost half a million Greenpeace supporters have signed our petition calling on Minister Plibersek to rule out the project, and the chorus against the Burrup Hub project is growing stronger every year.
And here is how we win
There is a clear path to stopping mega gas projects like the Burrup Hub – using the Federal environmental protections we do have in place, which protect ‘unique plants, animals, habitats and places’, to stop Woodside’s plans.
There are also state laws in WA that protect the environment. The WA EPA has stated they have serious concerns about Browse, and their view is that it poses an ‘unacceptable’ risk to the environment.
That is why Greenpeace AP is doing everything we can to document the pristine biodiversity of Scott Reef, showing just how critical it is to protect our unique oceans and marine life.
The Environment Ministers in Perth and Canberra need to hear how much Australians value our natural environment and want it protected. Without public outcry, the only voices politicians hear is Woodside and the fossil fuel lobby, who seek to downplay and minimise the environmental threat of offshore gas drilling.
Marine scientists, NGOs and Greenpeace have examined Woodside’s proposal closely and have identified several severe threats to our environment that could convince the Minister to say ‘no’ to the Burrup Hub on environmental grounds. The risks include:
- The sinking of Scott Reef into the ocean (because the gas is extracted from underneath it) causing turtle nesting grounds to wash away;
- Underwater noise pollution impacting whale foraging and migration;
- Chemical dumping from the construction phase and production rigs poisoning plankton, fish and marine turtles;
- Artificial lighting and flaring (burning off released gas) disorientating turtle hatchlings and sea birds
- A gas and oil spill, covering Scott Reef and surrounding marine parks in condensate, creating an environmental catastrophe.
The decision of our Governments to approve or reject the Burrup Hub project will define their environmental legacy for decades to come.
Burrup Hub: Irredeemably Bad
While the federal government made a disappointing commitment to continue approving fossil gas drilling when it released its gas strategy, the Burrup Hub is in its own category of ‘bad’, because:
- Scott Reef is a pristine and idyllic coral atoll teaming with marine life and providing critical habitat for threatened species;
- The Burrup Hub’s Browse project is an enormous new and exceptionally dirty gas field;
- Most of the gas will be sold overseas, royalty-free;
- The community in WA are rallying against the project to protect our oceans; and
- The Government wants to invest in a future made in Australia using clean energy, not lock Australia into gas until 2070.
But to defeat Woodside’s expensive PR and army of lobbyists, we need to use people-power to show our Government that Australians are united behind one message: we must protect our environment from the Burrup Hub mega gas project.
What is next for Greenpeace
The news that the WA EPA agrees that Browse is a uniquely terrible idea has, quite literally, added wind in the sails of our campaign to Stop Woodside.
Right now, our new campaign vessel, the Oceania, is on its way to Western Australia, where we will be connecting with the growing community who oppose Woodside’s disastrous Burrup Hub, and amplifying their calls to stop this monstrous project.
In Canberra, we will be taking the voices of the almost half a million Australians who have signed our petition to stop the Burrup Hub directly to Parliament. We will send a message to our elected leaders, loud and clear, that Australians reject Woodside’s Burrup Hub.
Defeating the Burrup Hub would be one of the single most effective things we can do to fight for a safer climate, and a thriving environment.
Will you help?
‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report
Call for pitches: Climate Home News seeks story ideas on clean energy supply chains
‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
Clouds now contains plastic, contaminating ‘everything we eat and drink’
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change10 months agoClouds now contains plastic, contaminating ‘everything we eat and drink’
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos9 months ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months agoHow Climate Change Endangers Wildlife and Ecosystems
-
Climate Change10 months agoFarmers turn to tech as bees struggle to pollinate
-
Climate Change Videos9 months ago
-
Green Living8 months ago5 Reasons to Love Lomi + How to Use It