SYDNEY, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — New analysis of Woodside’s amended turtle and whale management plans for its Browse gas proposal has revealed supposed ‘mitigation methods’ still risk extinction of green turtles, will risk killing endangered whales and will likely accelerate the sinking of the only local turtle nesting ground at Scott Reef.
The independent technical analyses, commissioned by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and prepared by Oceanwise and whale expert Dr. Olaf Meynecke, also reveals Woodside’s plans rely on outdated or misrepresented data, are not in line with requirements under the EPBC Act and directly oppose Australia’s Conservation Management Plan for Blue Whales.
Woodside was forced to resubmit its Turtle Management Plan and Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan after it was revealed WA’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued a preliminary rejection of the Browse project in 2024 due to ‘unacceptable impacts’ on nature at Scott Reef.
Hannah Schuch, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The EPA sent Woodside back to the drawing board for its Browse project because it was too risky for the endemic and endangered animals at Australia’s largest freestanding oceanic reef, Scott Reef.
“This new analysis shows that the ‘revised’ plans should not bring comfort to the EPA, the government or the Australian public, and still threaten to send green turtles extinct, sink a unique turtle nesting ground, and disrupt, injure or even kill endangered pygmy blue whales. Woodside has simply rolled its awful plan in glitter – the Browse plans are still too risky.”
The EPA is expected to hand down its recommendation on the Browse project this year.
Woodside’s planned Browse gas field would entail drilling up to 57 wells as close as two kilometres from Scott Reef, home to nesting sea turtles, endangered pygmy blue whales and dusky sea snakes.
Co-author of the Pygmy Blue Whale Plan analysis, Dr. Olaf Meynecke, said: “Woodside’s Management Plan for Scott Reef falls short of acknowledging the region as a critical habitat for pygmy blue whales. Scott Reef is an anchor point and whale hub for pygmy blue whales. The region provides shelter for mother-calf pairs during their long journeys from Indonesia to Australia and, most importantly, an area where they can feed to replenish nutrients when returning from their tropical breeding grounds.”
Schuch added: “Woodside can’t be trusted with Scott Reef. It was asked to put forward mitigation plans to ‘lower risk on the West Australian environment’, and it has presented a weak, gussied-up version of its original dangerous plans. The impacts on Scott Reef are still unacceptable, and Browse must be rejected.
“Scott Reef will be a major threshold test for this government’s legacy on nature protection–it’s time for Murray Watt to save Australia’s largest oceanic reef, Scott Reef, from Woodside’s massive fossil fuel project in the middle of endangered whale and turtle habitat.”
The analysis comes just days before Woodside is due to face shareholders and concerned community groups at its Annual General Meeting in Perth on Thursday. Each year, hundreds gather to protest Browse during the meeting, citing environmental and climate risks of Browse. This year, community groups, including Greenpeace, are calling on the Federal Government to save Scott Reef by saying no to Woodside’s Browse project.
—ENDS—
Contact: Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org or Emma Sangalli on +61 431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org
New analysis reveals Woodside’s amended Browse plans still too risky for turtles, whales
Climate Change
China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past
Aiqun Yu, Christine Shearer and Joe Hittinger work at Global Energy Monitor, a US-based organisation that seeks to provide the worldwide energy transition with transparent data and analysis.
With global oil and gas prices soaring at the start of the Iran war, China quietly broke ground on three major coal-to-gas and coal-to-chemical projects worth roughly $10 billion in two regions with abundant coal resources.
But as a Chinese saying goes, “three feet of ice does not form in a single day”. China’s push to use coal as a substitute for imported oil and gas has been gathering momentum since the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, prompting a recalibration of energy security priorities in Beijing and beyond.
The policy raises new concerns, threatening China’s climate goals and growing reputation as a global clean energy leader by creating renewed demand for coal.
A new expansion wave
Over the past three years, China has entered a new cycle of investment in so-called “modern coal chemicals”, differentiated from conventional coal chemicals. Four pathways – coal-to-gas, coal-to-liquids, coal-to-olefins, and coal-to-ethylene glycol – account for the bulk of new modern coal-chemical capacity under development.
According to Global Energy Monitor data, proposed and under-construction coal-to-gas capacity is approaching three times current operating capacity. Together, 34 projects under active consideration represent more than 1 trillion yuan ($150 billion) in planned investment and could add roughly 300 million tonnes of annual coal demand if completed, equivalent to South Africa’s entire coal mining capacity.
Most projects are in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Ningxia, regions with plentiful coal resources and relatively low mining costs. Xinjiang has emerged as the epicentre of the new boom, accounting for more than half of all proposed modern coal chemical projects.
Why the world abandoned coal chemicals
Coal chemicals are often presented as an emerging industry, but the technologies themselves are more than a century old.
Earlier “conventional” coal chemistry was a byproduct of coking, a process run primarily for iron and steel making. “Modern” coal chemistry instead uses gasification to convert coal into synthesis gas, a versatile building block for fuels, plastics, fertilisers and other chemicals that would traditionally be made from oil or gas.
These modern processes were developed in the early 20th century and expanded during periods of wartime fuel shortages. For example, Germany relied heavily on synthetic fuels during the Second World War while South Africa developed similar technologies in the apartheid era to reduce vulnerability to international sanctions.


Once cheap oil and gas became widely available, however, most countries moved away from coal chemicals, which required large amounts of energy, water and capital investment, and generally produced more pollution and carbon emissions than the conventional alternatives.
Today, only a handful of commercial coal gasification facilities operate outside China.
China has already tested this theory once
The current expansion is not China’s first attempt to build a major coal chemical industry.
A previous boom emerged during the 2010s, driven by many of the same arguments: high oil prices, concerns over energy security and expectations that technological improvements would unlock a new era of coal-based industrial growth.
Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up
The outcome was far from successful. Dozens of projects were proposed, but many were delayed, suspended or scrapped before completion, and there were difficulties among those that did get off the ground.
Three of China’s four operating coal-to-gas projects reportedly spent much of the past decade operating at a loss, and several large coal chemical facilities generated only marginal returns despite government support.
Policy support is driving the revival
Backers say technological improvements have made the industry more competitive than it was a decade ago.
Yet coal chemical projects remain highly dependent on oil and gas prices. When international prices rise, coal-derived products can appear competitive. When prices fall, the economics often deteriorate rapidly.
More than changes in technology, government policy has played a pivotal role in the sector’s revival.
Following power shortages in 2021 and the energy market disruptions that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy security became a national priority. Coal production expanded, particularly in western China, boosted by government support.
China’s solar exports reach “gigantic” record in March as energy crisis bites
A key policy change in 2022 exempted coal used as industrial feedstock from certain energy consumption controls, easing regulatory pressure on coal chemical projects.
The impact of such measures highlights the degree to which coal chemicals depend on expansive and favourable policy treatment to remain viable.
At the same time, the current expansion is creating new demand for an industry confronting structural decline as China races to renewables in electricity generation.
The cost to China’s climate leadership
Converting coal into fuels and petrochemical products also releases substantially more carbon dioxide than conventional oil- and gas-based alternatives, which themselves are a major source of emissions.
Proponents argue that coupling production with green hydrogen and carbon capture could resolve the emissions problem, but the arithmetic doesn’t support this.
Sinopec’s flagship Dalu coal-to-olefins plant, paired with a 10,000 tonne-per-year green hydrogen demonstration, displaces less than 2% of the plant’s annual coal use. Replicating this across the proposed buildout would consume enormous quantities of clean energy just to partially decarbonise an inherently dirty process.
China could instead leverage that same industrial capacity and policy support to lead the development of cleaner chemical pathways, such as green ammonia for fertiliser, bio-based and CO2-derived feedstocks for plastics, and e-fuels or biofuels where liquid fuels are still needed.
Rather than locking in another generation of coal-dependent infrastructure, China should learn from the lessons of the past and seek a cleaner and more viable industrial future.
The post China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past appeared first on Climate Home News.
China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past
Climate Change
Project Cosmos
Welcome to the Project Cosmos homepage.
The project was launched by Carbon Brief in June 2026 following an 18-month research and development effort.
The aim: to build the world’s largest database of climate change research.
Containing more than 1.8 million unique publications linked by 40 million citation relationships, the Cosmos database represents the most complete and expansive mapping of human knowledge on climate change ever assembled.
The articles and visuals below will guide you through how the Cosmos database was built, as well as all the subsequent analysis, including the Cosmos 500 rankings of most cited authors, publications and institutions.
The post Project Cosmos appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/project-cosmos/
Climate Change
Mapped: Inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database of 1.8 million climate studies
This is the vast “cosmos” of academic literature and evidence that underpins humanity’s knowledge of climate change.
Every “star” – all 1.8m of them – represents one of the studies inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database.
The coloured “nebulae” and “galaxies” within this cosmos illustrate where clusters of studies share similar citations and, hence, areas of common academic focus.
The post Mapped: Inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database of 1.8 million climate studies appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-inside-carbon-briefs-cosmos-database-of-1-8-million-climate-studies/
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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 Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测



