Since Donald Trump returned to the White House last year, his administration in the US has laid off thousands of scientists and frozen research grants worth billions of dollars.
The cutbacks have had far-reaching consequences for all areas of scientific research, extending all the way to Earth’s fragile polar regions, researchers say.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, polar researchers explain how Trump’s attacks on science have affected efforts to study climate change at Earth’s poles, including by disrupting fieldwork, preventing data collection and even forcing researchers to leave the US.
One climate scientist tells Carbon Brief that the administration’s decision to terminate the only US icebreaker used in Antarctica forced her to cancel her fieldwork at the last minute – with her scientific cargo still held up in Chile.
As US polar scientists reel from the cuts, Trump has caused a geopolitical storm with threats to take control of Greenland, the self-ruling island which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
Below, Carbon Brief speaks to experts about what Trump’s sweeping changes could mean for climate science at Earth’s poles
- Why is the US important for polar research?
- How has Trump affected US polar research in his second term?
- What could the changes mean for international climate research at Earth’s poles?
- What could be the impact of Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland on climate research?
Why is the US important for polar research?
The US’s wealth, power and geography have made it a key player in polar research for more than a century.
Ahead of Trump’s second term, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency that funds US science, was the largest single funder of polar research globally, with its Office of Polar Programs overseeing extensive research in both the Arctic and Antarctica.
The US has three permanent bases in Antarctica: McMurdo Station, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and Palmer Station.
In Alaska, which the US purchased from Russia in 1867, there is the Toollik Field Station and the Barrow Arctic Research Center. The US also has the Summit Station in Greenland.
US institutes operate several satellites that provide scientists across the world with key data on the polar regions.
This includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Joint Polar Satellite System, which provides data used for extreme weather forecasting.
Over the past few years, US institutes have led and provided support for the world’s largest polar expeditions.
This includes MOSAiC, the largest Arctic expedition on record, which took place from 2019-20 and was co-led by research institutes from the US and Germany. [Carbon Brief joined the expedition for its first leg and covered it in depth with a series of articles.]
The US has historically been “incredibly valuable” to research efforts in the Arctic and Antarctica, a senior US polar scientist currently living in Europe, who did not wish to be named, tells Carbon Brief.
“For a lot of the international collaborations, the US is a big component, if not the largest,” the scientist says.
“We do a lot of collaborative work with other countries,” adds Dr Jessie Creamean, an atmospheric scientist working in polar regions based at Colorado State University. “Doing work in the polar regions is really an international thing.”
How has Trump affected US polar research in his second term?
Since returning to office, the Trump administration has frozen or terminated 7,800 research grants from federal science agencies and laid off 25,000 scientists and personnel.
This includes nearly 2,000 research grants from the NSF, which is responsible for the Office for Polar Programs and for funding a broad range of climate and polar research.
Courts have since made orders to reinstate thousands of these grants and some universities have settled with the federal government to unfreeze funding. However, it is unclear whether scientists have yet received those funds.
As with other areas of US science, the impact of Trump’s attacks on polar research have been far-reaching and difficult to quantify, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
Key scientific institutions affected include NASA, NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado.
In December, the Trump administration signalled that it planned to dismantle NCAR, calling it a source of “climate alarmism”. At the end of January, the NSF published a letter that “doubled down” on the administration’s promise to “restructure” and “privatise” NCAR.
NCAR has been responsible for a host of polar research in recent years, with several NCAR scientists involved in the MOSAiC expedition.
“NCAR is kind of like a Mecca for atmospheric research,” the US polar scientist who did not want to be named tells Carbon Brief. “They’ve done so much. Now their funding is drying up and people are scrambling.”
At NOAA, one of the major polar programmes to be affected is the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which regularly issues updates about Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
Last July, Space reported that researchers at NSIDC were informed by the Department of Defense – now renamed the Department of War under Trump – that they would lose access to data from a satellite operated by the US air force, which was used to calculate sea ice changes.
Although the Department of Defense reversed the decision following a public outcry, the uncertainty drove the researchers at NSIDC to switch to sourcing data from a Japanese satellite instead, explains Dr Zack Labe. Labe is a climate scientist who saw his position at NOAA terminated under the Trump administration and now works at the nonprofit research group Climate Central. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It looked like they were losing access to that data and, after public outcry, they regained access to the data. And then, later this year, they had to switch to another satellite.”
He adds that the Trump administration’s layoffs and budget cuts has also forced the programme to scale back its communications initiatives:
“A big loss at NSIDC is that they used to put out these monthly summaries of current conditions in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic called Sea Ice Today. It was a really important resource to describe the current weather and sea ice conditions in these regions.
“These reports went to stakeholders, they went to Indigenous communities within the Arctic. And that has stopped in the past year due to budget cuts.”
Elsewhere, the New York Times reported that a director at the Office for Polar Programs found out she was being laid off while on a trip to Antarctica.
US polar research took another hit in September, when the NSF announced that it was terminating the lease for the Nathaniel B Palmer, the only US icebreaker dedicated to Antarctic research.
The statement gave just one month’s notice, saying that the vessel would be returned to its operator in October.
Creamean was among the scientists who were affected by the termination. She tells Carbon Brief:
“I was supposed to go on that icebreaker in September. I have a project funded at Palmer Station, along with colleagues from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. We were supposed to go set up for an 18-month study there. We have the money for the project, but we just didn’t get to go because the icebreaker got decommissioned.
“It was a big bummer. We shipped everything down to South America. All of our cargo is still sitting in Punta Arenas [in Chile].”
Elsewhere, other scientists have warned that the termination of the icebreaker could affect the continuity of Antarctic data collection.
In a statement, Dr Naomi Ochwat, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that decades of data on changes to Antarctic glaciers taken from the deck of the Palmer had been vital to her research.
For some, one of the most worrying impacts of Trump’s attacks on US polar science is on the careers of scientists, which will likely lead to many of them leaving the country.
All of the researchers that Carbon Brief spoke to said they had heard many stories of US polar scientists deciding to relocate outside of the country or to leave the profession altogether.
Creamean is one of the polar scientists to make the difficult decision to temporarily leave the US. She says:
“I’m actually moving to Sweden for a year starting in May. I’m going to do a visiting science position [at Stockholm University]. I’m hoping to come back. But if things are not looking good and things are looking more positive in Sweden, maybe I’ll stay there. I don’t know.”
Labe tells Carbon Brief that the “brain drain” of US scientists is the “biggest story” when it comes to Trump’s impact on polar research:
“I think one of the long-term repercussions is just how many people will be forced out of science due to a lack of opportunities. I think this is something that will grow in 2026. There were a lot of grants that were two-to-three years and, so, were still running, but they will be ending now.”
What could the changes mean for international climate research at Earth’s poles?
With all research at Earth’s poles relying heavily on international collaboration, Trump’s attacks on science are likely to have far-reaching implications outside of the US, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
One implication of budget and personnel cuts could be the loss of continuous data from US researchers, bases and satellites.
Many US polar datasets have been collected for decades and are relied upon by scientists and institutes around the world. This includes records for Arctic and Antarctica’s oceans, sea ice, atmosphere and wildlife.
Trump’s impact has highlighted to scientific organisations outside of the US how vulnerable US datasets can be to political changes, says Labe, adding:
“From a climate perspective, you need a consistent data record over a long period of time. Even a small gap in data caused by uncertainty can cause major issues in understanding long-term trends in the polar regions.
“Other scientific organisations around the world are realising that they’re going to have to find alternative sources for data.”
Creamean tells Carbon Brief that, while some datasets have been discontinued, researchers have made an effort to keep records going despite personnel and budget constraints. She says:
“I know at Summit Station in Greenland they had some instruments that were pulled out that had been measuring things like the surface energy budget for a long time. That dataset has been discontinued.
“Thankfully, some programmes have been able to somehow hold on and continue to do baseline measurements. There’s a station up in Alaska [Barrow] where, as far as I know, measurements have been maintained there. That’s good because some measurements up there have been happening since the 60s and 70s.”
Trump’s changes could also cast uncertainty over the US’s role in taking part and offering support to upcoming collaborative Arctic and Antarctic expeditions.
In addition to helping scientists better understand the impact of climate change on Earth’s polar regions, these expeditions have also enabled countries with testy geopolitical relationships to come together for a common goal, the US polar scientist who did not want to be named tells Carbon Brief.
For example, the MOSAiC expedition from 2019-20 saw the US and Germany work alongside Russian and Chinese research institutes to study the impact of climate change on the Arctic, says the scientist, adding:
“It was an international collaboration that involved people who should be geopolitical enemies. Science is a way that we seem to be able to work together, to solve problems together, because we all live on one planet. And, right now, to see these changes in the US, it’s quite concerning [for these kinds of collaborations].”
The retreat of the US from polar research might see other powers step up to fill the gap, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
Several scientists mentioned the Nordic countries as possibly taking a larger role in leading polar research, while one said that “China seems to be picking up the slack that’s left behind”.
China currently has five Antarctic research stations – Great Wall, Zhongshan, Kunlun, Taishan and Qinling – along with one Arctic station in Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard.
The Financial Times recently reported on China’s growing ambitions for Arctic exploration, involving its fleet of five icebreakers.
What could be the impact of Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland on climate research?
In recent months, Trump has whipped up a media frenzy with threats to take control of Greenland, the world’s largest island lying between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, which is self-governing and part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Last month, he clarified that he will not try to take Greenland “by force”, but that he is seeking “immediate negotiations” to acquire the island for “national security reasons”.
Trump’s interest in the island is likely influenced by the rapid melting away of Arctic sea ice due to climate change, which is opening up new sea routes and avenues for potential resource exploitation, reported the Washington Post.
His comments have sparked condemnation from a wide range of US scientists who conduct fieldwork in Greenland.
An open letter signed by more than 350 scientists “vehemently opposes” Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland and expresses “solidarity and gratitude” to Greenland’s population. It says:
“Greenland deserves the world’s attention: it occupies a key position geopolitically and geophysically. As climate warms, rapid loss of Greenland’s ice affects coastal cities and communities worldwide.”
A breakdown in diplomatic relations between the US and Greenland could prevent scientists from being able to carry out their climate research on the island, one of the scientists to sign the letter wrote in a supporting statement:
“Scientific access to Arctic environments is essential for research which secures our shared future and, directly, materially benefits American citizens. It is deeply upsetting that these essential relationships are being undermined, perhaps irreparably, by the Trump administration.”
Dr Yarrow Axford, one of the letter’s organisers who is a palaeoclimatologist and science communicator based in Massachusetts, told Nature that Trump’s comments could put Greenland climate research at risk, saying:
“We Americans have benefited from all these decades of peaceful partnership with Greenland. Scientific understanding of climate change has benefited tremendously. I hope scientists can reach out to Congress and point out what a wonderful partnership that is.”
In addition to the US-run Summit Station, there are at least eight other research stations in Greenland, operated by a range of institutions from across the world.
A major focus of research efforts in the region is the Greenland ice sheet, Earth’s second-largest body of ice which is rapidly melting away because of climate change.
The ice sheet holds enough freshwater to raise global sea levels by around more than seven metres, if melted completely.
Any political moves that could “jeopardise” the study of the Greenland ice sheet would be detrimental, says Creamean:
“Greenland is a ‘tipping point’ in that, the ice sheet melting, that could be one of the biggest contributors to sea level rise. It’s not like we can wait to study it, it needs to be understood now.”
The post Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS.
Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.
Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.
The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.
The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.
Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output
Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.
Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.
-
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
Foreign banks involved in Indonesia’s $20-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership have also funded companies working on coal power expansion, a TBIJ and Climate Home News investigation reveals -
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power
Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.
Stronger environmental enforcement
Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.
This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.
The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.
The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.
In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.
None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.
Unequal benefits
For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.
-
Nickel mining for electric vehicles is destroying lives in Indonesia
Indonesia’s abundant nickel reserves are crucial for a low carbon world. But extracting them is ruining local peoples’ lives and causing rampant deforestation -
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Indonesia supplies the EV industry with critical battery materials but the sector’s rapid expansion is infringing the rights of Indigenous peoples -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach
In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.
Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.
The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.
None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.
The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
Climate Change
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.
The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.
An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.
Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.
“The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”
Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.
“The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.
“The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”
After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.
Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.
“Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
-
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