A “collapse” of key Atlantic ocean currents would cause winter temperatures to plunge across northern Europe, overriding the warming driven by human activity.
That is according to new research, published in Geophysical Research Letters, which looks at the combined impact of the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and global warming on temperatures in northern Europe.
Scientists have warned that human-caused climate change is likely causing AMOC to weaken and that continued warming could push it towards a “tipping point”.
The study suggests that, in an intermediate emissions scenario, greenhouse gas-driven warming would not be able to outweigh the cooling impact of an AMOC collapse.
In this modelled world, one-in-10 winters in London could see cold extremes approaching -20C.
Winter extremes in Oslo in Norway, meanwhile, could plummet to around -48C.
The cold temperatures are projected to be driven by the loss of heat transfer from the tropics via ocean currents, as well as the spread of sea ice to northern Europe in the winter months.
The research does not look at when AMOC might tip – instead, it focuses on scenarios in the far future when this has already happened, so as to explore what impact it would have.
Lead author Dr René van Westen, a researcher in oceanography at Utrecht University, says Europe might stand alone as the one region set to get “cooler in a warmer world”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“If the AMOC collapses, we need to prepare for substantially cooler winters. Winter extremes will be very substantial for some regions. Temperatures could go down to -50C in Scandinavia. At -40C and lower in Scandinavia – everything breaks down over there.”
The research is being published alongside an interactive map, featured below, which highlights how a collapsed AMOC under different warming scenarios could impact temperature averages, extremes and sea ice across Europe.
‘Will warming or cooling win?’
AMOC is a system of ocean currents which plays a crucial role in keeping Europe warm. It transports warm water northwards from the tropics to Europe and cold, deep waters back southwards.
The potential collapse of these ocean currents – caused by the influx of freshwater from melting ice as well as rising air temperatures – is seen by some scientists as a “tipping point” that, once triggered, would be irreversible on human timescales.
However, there is significant scientific debate around whether human-caused climate change is causing the AMOC to slow down – and whether and when it might “tip”.
(The “tipping” of AMOC is often referred to as a “collapse”, “breakdown” or “shutdown”.)
Some scientists have argued that ocean currents have been slowing down since the mid-20th century, whereas others say there has been no weakening since the 1960s.
On the risks of an approaching tipping point, some researchers have estimated a collapse could occur this century, but others have questioned the robustness of the early warning signals being interpreted as evidence of a forthcoming shutdown.
(Regular direct measurements of AMOC’s strength started in 2004. To estimate the ocean currents’ health prior to this, scientists turn to a number of methods, including looking at palaeoclimate records, running climate model “hindcasts” and analysing historical patterns in sea surface temperature.)
A paper published last year by van Westen and colleagues, which ranked second in Carbon Brief’s round-up of the most talked-about climate papers of 2024, found that the present-day AMOC is on a trajectory towards tipping.
That paper set out some of the climate impacts of such an event, including a 10-30C drop in average monthly winter temperatures in northern Europe within a century and a “drastic change” in rainfall patterns in the Amazon.
The scientist’s latest offering provides a more detailed look at how an AMOC tipping event might impact Europe, using simulations produced by the Community Earth System Model (CESM).
The research models the impact of an AMOC collapse in combination with the impacts of human-caused climate change, instead of looking at the collapse of the ocean currents in isolation.
Van Westen says the research was designed to answer the question of how warming from greenhouse gas emissions could offset cooling from an AMOC shutdown. He tells Carbon Brief:
“[A question we wanted to address was] what would happen in a scenario where we have climate change and an AMOC collapse. Will it get cooler over Europe, or will it get warmer? Will regional warming win or will the cooling win?”
Simulating AMOC ‘collapse’
To answer this question, the scientists run a raft of climate simulations, exploring different combinations of global temperature rise and AMOC collapse.
Specifically, the scientists explore the collapse of AMOC under three scenarios:
- An “intermediate” climate scenario (RCP4.5), which is in line with current global climate policies.
- A very high-emissions scenario (RCP8.5) where warming hits 4C above the pre-industrial average by 2100.
- A “pre-industrial” scenario, without any human-caused global warming.
Across all three scenarios, the researchers run multiple simulations 500 years into the future, stabilising global temperature rise at 2C and above 4C from 2100 onwards. The researchers explore scenarios where AMOC is stable and when it has tipped.
The paper does not discuss the level of warming at which AMOC might tip – instead, it focuses on a point in the future after it has occurred, when the ocean currents and the climate have “equilibrated to a new background state”.
To simulate an AMOC collapse in the climate model under the two warming pathways, the researchers apply high levels of freshwater forcing to the north Atlantic.
Van Westen acknowledges the level of freshwater forcing applied to the model to create an AMOC shutdown is “unrealistic”, but says the adjustment is necessary to override a “bias” in climate models. He explains:
“[Climate models] have an overly stable AMOC. So, we need to add this kind of freshwater flux to get the AMOC in a more unstable regime which corresponds to actual observations.”
The paper focuses largely on impacts under the intermediate scenario with AMOC collapse. Under this combination, AMOC shutdown causes some global cooling, resulting in a world that is around 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels.
Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam University who was not involved in the research, tells Carbon Brief the new study is “highly welcome”. He explains that “not many” studies have investigated the combined impact of global warming with AMOC collapse since a paper he co-authored in 1999, and adds:
“[The new study] uses a sophisticated climate model with good regional resolution – far better than what was possible 26 years ago. The model confirms the long-standing concern that an AMOC collapse would have massive impacts on European climate, in this case focusing on temperature extremes.”
Dr Alejandra Sanchez-Franks, senior research scientist in the marine physics and ocean climate group at National Oceanography Centre, who was also not involved in the research, says the study’s conclusions should not be used to explain how the European climate will respond in the near-term to changes in the strength of AMOC. She tells Carbon Brief:
“The study uses an idealised experiment with unrealistic freshwater changes to force an AMOC collapse. Very importantly, the author’s conclusions refer to the European climate 200 years after an AMOC change and do not describe what will happen to European temperatures and sea ice in the years and decades following an AMOC collapse.
“Therefore, the study does not serve to tell us how an AMOC tipping point or collapse will affect us immediately.”
‘Out of the freezer and into the frying pan’
The most “striking” finding of the paper, according to van Westen, is that an AMOC collapse in a world that is 2C warmer will result in a Europe that is cooler than it is today.
The research notes that – under this scenario – north-west Europe is set to face “profound cooling”, characterised by more intense winter extremes.
Summer temperatures, on the other hand, would be expected to remain just slightly cooler than they would in a pre-industral climate – meaning that Europeans would experience dramatic swings in temperatures throughout the year.
Increased winter storms and greater day-to-day temperature fluctuations are also expected in this scenario. This is due to a greater temperature contrast between northern Europe and southern Europe, which would be less impacted by a weakened AMOC.
The research notes that cooling from the reduced heat transfer from ocean currents would be amplified by “extensive” sea ice expansion to the coasts of north-west Europe. (Sea ice reflects incoming solar sunlight, resulting in less heat uptake and cooler temperatures overall.)
The map below shows the extent of sea ice in February under the scenario where AMOC collapses and the world is 2C warmer. It shows how Arctic sea ice – when at its yearly maximum – would cover the coasts of Scandinavia and much of the island of Great Britain.
Prof Tim Lenton, chair of climate change and Earth system science at the University of Exeter, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief it is “hard to over-stress how different” the climate simulated by the model is from present-day conditions. He says:
“The extreme winters would be like living in an ice age. But at the same time summer temperature extremes are barely impacted – they are slightly cooler than they would be due to global warming, but still with hotter extremes than the preindustrial climate.
“This means the seasonality of the climate is radically increased. In extreme years it would be like coming out of the freezer into a frying pan of summer heatwaves.”
The research also looks at the impacts of a shutdown of AMOC in a world that is 4C warmer.
It suggests that, under this scenario, cooling related to the shutdown of ocean currents would not outweigh global warming. Northern Europe would not experience extensive sea-ice expansion or the strong cooling projected under the 2C scenario.
Instead, temperatures would be expected to increase throughout the year and particularly in the summer months. However, northern Europe would be expected to see warming below the global average.
Frigid cities
While the paper itself uses the Dutch town of De Bilt as a case study, the researchers have published projections for a range of European cities under the scenarios explored in the study.
For example, the data shows that, under AMOC collapse in a 2C-warmer world, London could experience an average winter temperature of 1.9C, roughly 17.6 freezing days each year and one-in-10-year cold extremes of -19.3C.
In the Norwegian capital of Oslo, average winter temperatures are projected to plunge to -16.5C, with maximum daily temperatures not surpassing 0C for almost half the year, or 169 days. The research suggests the Norwegian city could experience cold extremes of -47.9C.
The map below shows projected cold extremes under 2C of warming and AMOC collapse in cities in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK. It shows how temperatures could drop to -29.7 in Edinburgh, -19.3C in London and -18C in Paris.
Van Westen says the findings are “highly relevant for society and policymakers” because they “shift the narrative” about the direction of Europe’s future climate. He explains:
“Parts of the Netherlands and parts of the UK will experience spectacular cold extremes down to -20C or even lower. Our societal structure and our infrastructure is not built for these cold extremes.”
The paper is being published alongside an interactive map, shown below, that shows ice cover, temperature averages and extremes across Europe under five of the scenarios explored in the study. These are: a pre-industrial world with a stable AMOC, a pre-industrial world with a collapsed AMOC, a 2C world with a stable AMOC, a 2C world with a collapsed AMOC and a 4C world with a collapsed AMOC.
Future research
Scientists not involved in the study said the work would need to be followed up with further exploration of the interplay between global warming and potential AMOC collapse.
Dr Bablu Sinha, leader of climate and uncertainty, marine systems modelling at the National Oceanography Centre, told Carbon Brief:
“Given that observational data is limited, theoretical climate modelling approaches need to be taken to properly investigate this topic. Van Westen and Baatsen motivate the need for more detailed investigation into the combined impacts of global warming and AMOC decline on European extreme temperatures.”
Dr Yechul Chin, researcher at Seoul National University’s climate system lab, tells Carbon Brief:
“Although [this research] demonstrates the potential for more extreme weather under combined global warming and AMOC collapse scenarios, significant uncertainties remain that must be resolved before we can quantify risks or devise robust mitigation strategies.
“Projections about AMOC have a large spread and it means that alternative AMOC trajectories and different levels of warming could substantially widen the range of possible outcomes.”
His comments are echoed by Rahmstorf from Potsdam University, who points out that the “exact outcome” for Europe hinges on the development of “two opposing trends” – global warming due to greenhouse gases and regional cooling due to AMOC weakening. He says:
“The balance between those two will depend on the speed and extent of these trends and will, therefore, depend on the emission and AMOC weakening scenarios.
“Therefore, the more scenarios will be explored with different models in future, we will see a range of different outcomes for Europe as well as other parts of the world. A large uncertainty in this respect will remain.”
The post Ocean current ‘collapse’ could trigger ‘profound cooling’ in northern Europe – even with global warming appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Layers of red dust coat South Africa’s Saldanha Bay, a legacy of the one billion-plus tonnes of iron ore exported from what was once a quiet coastal fishing town in the 1970s. Now the government wants to turn this area into the “oil and gas hub of South Africa”, but opposition from local communities and civil society could force a change of plan.
Since 2014 South Africa has developed a strategy for taking “full advantage” of its marine resources, known as Operation Phakisa. It has resulted in the mapping of more than 95% of the country’s nearly 3,000-kilometre coastline for offshore oil and gas exploration.
The plan seeks to “drill 30 exploration wells in 10 years”, which it estimates could lead to the production of an average of 370,000 barrels of oil and gas per day over 20 years, with Saldanha Bay earmarked as a key logistics hub. It also aims to develop other marine sectors like aquaculture, maritime transport and ocean tourism.
However, two major court cases against the government and oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies have challenged those plans, as coastal residents, allied with national civil society groups, have pushed back against oil concessions held by the multinationals, arguing they were not consulted, and that towns like Saldanha Bay could face social and environmental harms from the fossil fuel extraction.
-
Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels
Despite a leadership gap, outgoing environment minister Irene Vélez Torres says the anti-fossil fuel coalition can “live without Colombia” -
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds
Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager at legal nonprofit Natural Justice, said the cases in South Africa could set a precedent for the whole region. “When communities win in the courts, the successes serve as inspiration for other communities to advocate [for] their rights in their own contexts,” she explained.
She added that the legal challenges to Operation Phakisa also develop climate litigation in the African context, and could impact how environmental impact assessments are conducted going forward.
Globally, as the oil and gas industry sets its sights on the ocean, with over 85% of new discoveries in 2024 made offshore, scientists and activists warn it could threaten marine life and coastal communities, and weaken the ocean’s ability to trap excess heat from the atmosphere, fuelling planetary warming further.
Taking oil companies to court
About 300 kilometres north of Saldanha Bay, the Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, backed by nonprofits The Green Connection and Natural Justice, has taken TotalEnergies to court over its plans to drill for oil and gas in a 30,000-square-kilometre block off South Africa’s west coast.
The oil exploration block is in a biodiverse marine area bordering Namibia and South Africa known as the Orange Basin, which is a “highly relevant” sanctuary for endangered species, according to Nelson Mandela University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Research.
Among other grievances, the cooperative maintains that the company’s environmental impact assessment was flawed, failing to consider the project’s contribution to climate change, and that the government “placed the profits of a multinational corporation above the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities”. The Western Cape High Court concluded hearings in late March and is expected to deliver a ruling later this year.
Walter Steenkamp, chairperson of the Aukotowa Cooperative, is concerned that the oil and gas drilling will lead to increased inequality, asking “for whom is the development? Definitely not for us.”
In a written statement, TotalEnergies told Climate Home News that it “is a responsible operator fully committed to complying with all applicable South African legislation”.
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Communities and climate impacts at stake
On the other side of the country, along South Africa’s eastern coastline, community-based nonprofit Sustaining the Wild Coast and partner organisations challenged Shell and Impact Africa’s exploration permit, arguing that the firms had failed to consult impacted communities – a legal requirement under South African law.
Co-plaintiff Sinegugu Zukulu also said in 2022 that “oil and gas will lead to more emissions, and in the face of climate change, this is wholly irresponsible”.
Following two rulings against the companies by lower courts, the case is now before South Africa’s highest Constitutional Court, which has reserved judgment since September 2025. A ruling against the companies would be final, effectively ending the exploration permit.
Legal expert Groenink-Groves said oil exploration applications under Operation Phakisa have been “granted largely without properly assessing the devastating impact an oil spill could have on small-scale fishers, the risks of drilling in ultra-deep waters, [and] without accounting for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploitation”.
She added that exploration applications have often failed to consider coastal management laws and in some cases, cross-border and regional environmental risks.
Shell and South Africa’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to written requests for comment.
South Africa’s offshore oil ambitions
Fishers around South Africa, many of whom have for generations relied on marine resources for survival, say the country’s offshore oil and gas push is sacrificing their livelihoods for profit.
“Why do they want to destroy our heritage? We can’t afford to say yes to oil and gas because the ocean is our source of life,” said Carmelita Mostert, a member of advocacy group Coastal Links and third-generation Saldanha Bay fisher.
Yet with unemployment above 30%, alongside high levels of poverty and wealth inequality, the government sees Operation Phakisa as a vehicle for socioeconomic development.
South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe has described the court cases as “anti-development”, and claimed that the environmental organisations are funded by the CIA.
Sifiso Dladla, a campaigner with human rights organisation groundWork, argued that the close relationship between the government and the fossil fuel industry – including its 3% contribution to gross tax revenue – limits the potential success of movements pushing for an inclusive energy system. Politicians “need money to win elections. Mining companies need the government to protect them,” he said.
Patrick Bond, a political economist and sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, said Operation Phakisa only makes economic sense if its social and environmental harms are ignored, adding that “if a genuine social cost of carbon analysis were done in any African fossil fuel project, there would be few – if any – able to justify the projects economically”.
At a global scale, Bond said oil multinationals have the financial backing of European governments – including France’s $2.8 billion stake in TotalEnergies – which can help make local resistance more effective where it has international allies to amplify the messages.
For Saldanha Bay fisher Mostert, the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of coastal communities. “It is my hope that we can stand strong and protest,” she said. “If oil and gas is not allowed, our lives will be much easier and better – but if oil and gas goes ahead we will be in absolute agony.”
The post South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
Climate Change
Millions of kilograms of marine life taken from Australia’s marine protected areas every year, FOI finds
SYDNEY, Tuesday 11 August 2026 — New data obtained by Greenpeace Australia Pacific has found millions of kilograms of marine life are being taken from Australian marine parks by commercial fishers annually, as the government begins its review of the country’s Marine Parks Network.
The data, released to Greenpeace in response to a Freedom of Information request, relates to 18 of Australia’s 60 Commonwealth marine parks, and shows almost 2.2 million kg of marine life is being fished each year, raising concerns about the true catch numbers across all marine protected areas.
Greenpeace is calling for the Labor government to use the once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review, announced last fortnight, to ban industrial activities, including bottom trawling, longlining and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s Marine Parks Network, and increase fully-protected ocean sanctuaries within the network.
Elle Lawless, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“It’s chilling to think of the true scale of destruction happening inside all of Australia’s marine parks, and how much of our precious ocean wildlife, like dolphins, turtles or seabirds, could be pulled out of protected areas as bycatch.
“We’re talking about 6,600 kilograms of wildlife in one day, and that does not include what’s caught in the other 42 marine parks, many of which allow destructive fishing like longlining.
“Australia has made significant progress in securing 52% of its oceans in marine parks; however, this intent is undermined by zones that allow damaging industrial fishing activities, such as bottom trawling and longlining. The review of Australia’s Marine Parks Network is a critical opportunity to fix what isn’t working and finally give our oceans the real protection they deserve.
You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park on land, so why should they be allowed to trawl in a marine park?”
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomes the Albanese Government’s review of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network as a rare opportunity to strengthen our marine parks and ban industrial fishing in Australia’s marine protected areas.”
The documents reveal that the south-west network has the largest catch volume, at 887,160kg per year, followed by the Coral Sea network, which extends out from the Great Barrier Reef, losing significant wildlife at 808,840kg annually.
—ENDS—
Notes:
- More than half of Australia’s Marine Parks Network allow extractive industries, including industrial fishing and oil and gas mining.
- The data, supplied by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, does not specify how much of the catch is fish or bycatch, like non-target fish, turtles or seabirds, and is available on request.
- Read Greenpeace’s new report: Trawling the Bottom Line
Australia’s network of marine parks is the largest in the world, covering more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth waters. You could be forgiven for assuming that a marine park is much like a national park on land: a highly protected place where people can enjoy nature while conservation efforts help habitats recover and wildlife thrive. You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park, so why should they be allowed to bottom trawl in a marine park?
The reality is that not all marine parks are equally protected. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided.
More than half of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network allows industrial activities like oil and gas mining, and industrial fishing.
Our survival, and the survival of our planet, depends on the ocean. The ocean produces more oxygen than all of our forests combined, sustains communities and regulates the earth’s temperature. It’s home to wondrous wildlife and important ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests.
We love our big blue backyard
Australia’s ocean is teeming with life that is found nowhere else on earth. Schools of colourful fish, vibrant coral reefs, endemic shark nurseries, pods of dolphins, families of whales, playful seal pups and threatened Jurassic-era turtles call Australian waters home.
Since time began, from the turquoise waves to the deep blue, the ocean has connected our shorelines and communities, fed us, guided us and grounded us. We are intrinsically connected to our big blue backyard – more than 85% of us live within 50km of the shoreline. For tens of thousands of years, people have lived in harmony with the ocean and the wildlife within it, caring for and being sustained by its rich waters. Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on Earth but our Marine Parks Network is falling short to properly protect them.
Australia’s marine parks aren’t living up to their name
The Australian Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers commonwealth waters 5.5km from the coast. The network is divided into 7 regional management areas, overall the network contains 60 marine parks. Zoning types determine what activities are allowed in each area. Over half of the network allows industrial activities, risking our most precious and threatened ocean wildlife.
Within many of our marine parks, destructive industries are allowed to fish, trawl, dig and mine using barbaric and cruel methods. Here are some of the zones explained:
- Bottom Trawling: Special Purpose (trawl) zones allow bottom trawling. This covers 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares. Bottom trawlers bulldoze the seafloor with weighted nets, deforesting our underwater forests; a cruel, indiscriminate and inefficient way to fish.
- Other Industrial Fishing: Includes “Habitat Protection Zones, ““Multi Use Zones” and “Special Purpose Zones.” Fishing methods vary from park to park but many marine parks in these zones allow industrial fishing like longlining. Longlining involves setting lines that can be 100km long, bristling with deadly hooks designed to catch a specific fish species. But longlining is not a selective method of fishing – significant numbers of sharks, rays, turtles, dolphins and seabirds can be harmed or killed as bycatch in the process.
- Oil and Gas Mining: Many “Special Purpose” and “Multi Use” zones allow seismic blasting and oil and gas mining. 30 marine parks or 65 million hectares of Australia’s highest conservation value areas for ocean wildlife are open for mining and exploration of oil and gas.
- Ocean Sanctuaries: National Park and Sanctuary zones are fully and highly protected marine parks designed to conserve wildlife and their habitat, where fishing, mining, and other industrial activities are not allowed.
Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to the ocean
In May, Greenpeace Australia Pacific sailed our campaigning vessel Oceania through some of Australia’s most beautiful and threatened marine parks. Our crew visited Jervis and Hunter marine parks to document their beauty, showcase what’s at risk and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these protected waters. Both of these marine parks allow bottom trawling and longlining methods of industrial fishing.
Industrial fishing is ripping the ocean apart across the planet. Longlining, also known as longline fishing, is an industrial fishing method that involves the use of a fishing line with thousands of baited hooks. These fishing lines can stretch over 100 kilometers in length and are set to capture a fish species, often tuna or billfish species. But it is not a selective method of fishing and often results in significant bycatch. This includes a range of non-target species like sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds which are often injured or killed as bycatch.
Bottom trawling involves dragging heavy weighted nets along the ocean floor. This fishing method is popular with commercial fishing companies, because it makes it easy to catch large quantities of fish in one go. But it also damages the seafloor, releasing carbon and can kill or injure non-target ocean life like coral, fur seals, dolphins and seabirds. You may have watched the reality of bottom trawling (and the benefits of ocean sanctuaries) in Ocean with David Attenborough, if not, add it to your watch list!
Fully protected ocean sanctuaries that ban industrial fishing and mining can protect ocean wildlife and underwater wonderlands for generations to come. Vast, robust sanctuaries create blue havens where ocean wildlife are safe from nets and hooks, and can truly rest, recover, thrive and replenish out into the surrounding waters. Ocean sanctuaries ensure a healthy ocean full of life.
A once-in-a-decade chance to fix what’s falling short
We have a unique opportunity to turn the tide.
The Australian Government is asking for your feedback on how our Commonwealth Marine Parks Network is managed. This is our once-in-a-decade chance to protect ocean wildlife, ban industrial fishing and create more ocean sanctuaries.
As part of the review the Government is asking for submissions from the public to hear from you on what improvements are needed to better protect our vast network of marine parks. Writing a submission is a powerful way to influence government decisions and create real change.
This is the moment to ban industrial activities like bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. But only if they hear from YOU. Add your name!
Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to:
1. Ban industrial activities from Australia’s Marine Parks Network: Ban industrial activities, such as industrial fishing, seismic blasting and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s marine parks.
2. Create more ocean sanctuaries: Increase fully protected sanctuaries in Australia’s marine parks based on science principles.
3. Connect Australia’s Marine Parks Network to the High Seas: mCreate seascape connectivity by linking Australian marine parks to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.
References
Substantiation that more than half of the Marine Parks Network permits industrial activity comes from a peer-reviewed systematic literature review (Phillips et al. 2025, PLOS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324). The study found that within the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network specifically, “all zones are considered partially protected areas, meaning areas where extractive activities are permitted, except ‘Pink zones’ (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) and ‘Green Zones’ (IUCN II).” In other words, every Commonwealth marine park zone type other than the network’s strict no-take sanctuary and national park zones (IUCN Ia and II) permits some form of extractive industrial activity. Since no-take zones are the minority zone type across the network by area, this supports the conclusion that the majority of the network’s area is zoned to permit industrial activity.
DCCEEW Australian Marine Parks spatial dataset (https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/erin::australian-marine-parks/explore), filtered by zone type. This confirms that 38.43% of the network’s area is zoned as Sanctuary or National Park zones (IUCN Ia and II). These are the no-take categories excluded from the peer-reviewed study’s definition of partially protected/industrial-permitting zones. The remaining 61.57% of the network falls within the zone categories the study classifies as permitting industrial activity (per The MPA Guide definition of “industrial” applied in Phillips et al. 2025), directly corroborating the peer-reviewed finding with current Commonwealth-specific spatial data.
For further information on activities permitted within the Marine Parks Network Zoning, you can refer to the Management Plans zoning and rules for each Marine Parks Network area, for example: Temperate East, Coral Sea, North.
Best of Earth911 Podcast: The Product Stewardship Institute’s Scott Cassel on Growing Extended Producer Responsibility
Will You Be Safer if Non-English-Speaking People Can’t Drive?
Is Trump the “Greatest President Ever?”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits