More than one-tenth of UK foreign aid spent on climate-related projects since 2010 has been channelled through consultancies, a new Carbon Brief investigation reveals.
To obtain these figures, Carbon Brief analysed more than 25,000 transactions listed on the government’s Development Tracker website from projects that contribute to the UK’s International Climate Finance (ICF).
While most UK climate funds are spent via large international bodies, such as the World Bank and UN agencies, a large proportion has been entrusted to the private sector.
At least £2.11bn has been handed to dozens of management consultancies, such as KPMG, PwC and Adam Smith International. They have provided guidance on everything from hydropower dam construction in Nepal to farm diversification in Ethiopia.
These consultancies are nearly all headquartered in the UK and other global-north countries. Experts tell Carbon Brief there is opposition among some developing countries to climate aid being funnelled first through foreign consultancies rather than disbursed directly via local actors.
This also comes at a time of wider scrutiny from politicians and academics of the outsized role relatively expensive private consultants play in public life.
Climate transactions
The UK has committed to providing “climate finance” to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. The government distributes this money primarily through ICF, which is part of the foreign-aid budget.
Most UK climate finance is spent via a combination of UN agencies, development banks, international NGOs, management consultancies, foreign governments and local charities.
These organisations are entrusted by government departments with carrying out projects, conducting research and dispersing funds in developing countries.
While much of the money will have gone directly to projects, all of these organisations take cuts along the way to pay staff and other expenses. The spending decisions they make affect how much of it ends up directly benefiting climate-vulnerable people and funding low-carbon infrastructure.
Data on all the financial transfers from the UK government to these entities can be found on the “transactions” section of every project page on the government’s Development Tracker website. This includes everything from accommodation costs for aid staff through to large contributions to UN funds.
In June 2023, Carbon Brief extracted transaction data from every ICF-tagged project on the government’s Development Tracker website.
(This includes every project that contains a component of climate-related funding, but many projects also cover other issues, such as education and healthcare. Therefore, figures are higher than Carbon Brief’s previous reporting on the climate-specific portions of these funds.)
In total, £19.12bn has been “disbursed” to or “placed at the disposal of” recipient agencies, governments and other entities between 2010 and 2023. In addition, a far smaller sum of £832.96m is classed as “expenditure”, which covers money spent on goods and services.
Of the funds disbursed, information is missing for £4.86bn worth of transactions, where “receiver organisation” is listed as “N/A” or similar.
Consultant spending
The government has channelled £2.52bn of its ICF-labelled funds – 13% of the total – through private companies. Most of this money, £2.11bn, was spent via organisations Carbon Brief has identified as consultancies.
This amounts to 11% of the total – or 15%, once anonymous transactions are excluded.
Broadly speaking, management consultancies are companies that provide advice on how to run other organisations more effectively. They range from small, specialist companies to the “big four” accounting firms, which are multinational companies and span a large range of activities.
The share of total spending placed at the disposal of these companies for climate-related projects, including the largest recipients, is shown in the chart below.
The UK government has both scaled up its spending on consultants and made it easier for public-sector bodies to hire them in recent years. At the same time, their role in public life has been under growing scrutiny. Academics, politicians and officials have criticised the “outsourcing” of responsibilities to expensive private contractors.
In 2020, UK Treasury minister Theodore Agnew warned that a growing reliance on consultants “infantilises the civil service”. A 2016 National Audit Office report found that hiring outside specialists cost the government twice as much as an equivalent staff member.
Responding to these concerns in her speech at the Labour party conference this week, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves vowed to “slash” consultancy spending by half, if her party wins the next election.
The Conservative government has cut overall foreign-aid spending in recent years, citing the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The data extracted by Carbon Brief shows that, while consultancy spending within climate-related funds has also dropped year-on-year since 2019, the proportion of these funds going to consultancies has remained fairly constant. Indeed, an investigation by Climate Home News in 2018 identified a similar proportion being funnelled to these organisations.
54 consultancies
The table below shows the 54 consultancies that have been handed UK government funds to carry out climate-related projects since 2011.
Nearly all of these consultancies are headquartered in developed countries – 49 in total – and 33 of those are based in the UK. (Some consultancies have large regional branches in developing countries, but these have been combined together for this analysis.)
(Carbon Brief also identified an additional 76 consultancies listed under “expenditures” that have been paid far smaller sums, totalling just £8.04m, to carry out “technical and advisory work”.)
The biggest consultancy recipient since 2011 has been Adam Smith International (ASI), a “global advisory company”, which has been handed a total of £333.21m. An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief the organisation “[does] not recognise” the figure derived from UK government reporting.
ASI’s biggest climate-related project, for which it received £100.14m between 2012 and 2017, was the Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF).
The consultancy led an international consortium that implemented this programme and provided advice to the Nigerian government. This included designing various climate-related projects such as rolling out solar mini-grids and clean cookstoves for rural areas.
According to ASI, “in the power sector, NIAF’s headline achievement has been its role in the privatisation process”. An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief that, at the time the consultancy stopped managing the NIAF project in 2017, its “efforts to bolster the power supply” were saving Nigerian consumers more than £1bn per year.
The company has faced controversy in the past and was accused by MPs on the International Development Committee in 2017 of displaying a “serious lack of judgement”, following allegations that it had invented testimonials or pressured beneficiaries to provide positive feedback.
At the time, ASI issued a lengthy document responding to the allegations and stating it acted in “good faith”. It has continued to receive climate-related funds since, although its annual disbursements have dropped significantly since 2016.
The consultancy IMC Worldwide, which has now been renamed DT Global, has been another major recipient of UK climate-related funds, accruing £267.16m in total.
One of its larger projects is Accelerating Investment and Infrastructure in Nepal, for which it has received £12.88m to advise the Nepalese government. Specifically, for this project the consultancy’s focus has been overcoming “delivery bottlenecks” to making large-scale investments in projects such as hydropower dams.
Large portions of spending have also gone to “big four” firms KPMG and PwC. Across their UK-based operations and offices in developing countries, these companies have received £242.37m and £204.37m, respectively.
Across several regional offices, KPMG has received £242.37m in funds from the UK’s ICF budget. Its biggest project was the Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters project, which saw KPMG East Africa handed £117.40m between 2014 and 2019.
This project involved KPMG managing grants awarded to 15 projects, ranging from helping farmers in Ethiopia to diversify their activities to preparing vulnerable people in Senegalese cities to prepare for flooding. The consultancy also monitored project progress.
PwC has received £204.37m in funds, including £33.81m for a project titled Private Sector Development programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 2013 and 2022.
The consultancy implemented a component of the project called Essor, which focused on improving “the country’s business environment” and “equitable and affordable access to renewable energy”. This included developing a bidding process for solar mini-grids and attracting external investors to the DRC by identifying barriers to entry.
Local capacities
International climate finance is explicitly framed as a way for relatively wealthy, developed countries to support climate action in developing countries, given their greater responsibility for causing climate change and capacity for dealing with it.
Reliance on consultants from the global north to carry out climate-finance programmes overseas can, therefore, be contentious.
Clare Shakya, a climate finance expert at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), tells Carbon Brief that while consultancies tend not to be transparent about the rates they charge, she estimates they are in the region of 20% of the grant value.
Given this, Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, tells Carbon Brief, the large amount of ICF funding that likely remains in developed countries is “against the spirit of supporting the development of local capacities”. He adds:
“Funding actions at the local level to tackle climate change, particularly adaptation, works best when investing in local capacities and communities rather than international consultants. There is a long history of sending international consultants to developing countries to assist in tackling climate change, which has not resulted in any real benefits after the international consultants leave the country.”
Faten Aggad, a climate diplomacy expert and adjunct professor at the University of Cape Town, tells Carbon Brief:
“Many international consultancy companies have no boots on the ground [and] recruit ad-hoc consultants – many of whom do not understand the context in which they operate.”
Least developed countries (LDCs) and small-island states, in particular, have pushed for funding for more long-term climate action rather than the project-based activities consultancies often support, according to Shakya. She adds:
“The poorest and most climate-impacted countries are clear that business-as-usual in climate finance is not working for them. Short-term projects driven by external experts are failing to provide the support they need to transform to low-carbon development and greater climate resilience.”
Some developing countries have also emphasised the need for climate finance that directly flows to local communities. The LDC group, which represents 47 nations at UN climate talks, has called for 70% of climate finance to support “local-level action” by 2030. LDC chair Madeleine Diouf Sarr tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s really important that climate finance that is available is spent wisely and used effectively. Climate finance must respond to and address the real needs and priorities of the countries it sets out to support, as identified by those countries.”
An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief that the consultancy “ardently ensures optimal value for money in [its] projects”, with “competitively and responsibly structured” fees and “transparency in [its] financial dealings, including profitability and expenditure”.
They also state the organisation “places a paramount emphasis on both leveraging and strengthening local capacities in all our projects”, with the “majority” of ASI funds being used to engage national consultants and partner with local groups.
To illustrate this, they note that the NIAF programme in Nigeria increased its team composition from 60% to 80% Nigerian nationals during ASI’s tenure, and saw some consultants take up senior roles in the Nigerian government.
Both KPMG and PwC declined to comment on Carbon Brief’s findings or the criticism of consultancies running climate-finance projects. They also declined to share information on how much money they retain as fees for their services on these projects. DT Global did not respond to a request from Carbon Brief for comment.
The UK government declined to comment on its use of consultancies to administer climate-finance projects.
Other climate fund recipients
Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that most climate-related, foreign-aid spending is channelled into multilateral institutions, such as UN bodies and development banks. In total, they received £6.49bn – one-third of the total spending.
By far the largest recipient of UK disbursements is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development – a branch of the World Bank that lends money to developing countries. It has received £1.40bn in total.
This is followed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Unicef and the UN World Food Programme, which received £1.01bn, £904.24m and £750.05m, respectively.
Joe Thwaites, a senior advocate for international climate finance at the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), tells Carbon Brief that the UK is generally “better” than other wealthy countries at distributing money via multilateral institutions.
He says this is often a more popular option with developing countries – as evidenced by the long push for a new “loss and damage” fund – because they can often have more input into how money is spent. Thwaites adds:
“When it’s a multilateral fund it’s easier to have a say…whereas, if you’re in a bilateral relationship, there’s a big power inequity there.”
Far less money is sent directly to governments and public-sector organisations – just £2.49bn in total. This is less than the money channelled via the private sector.
Roughly one-quarter of this public-sector money has gone to governments and agencies in developed countries. This could mean paying for anything from the UK Met Office helping with typhoon forecasting in the Philippines to the German development agency GIZ assisting with a water management project in South Africa.
This leaves just £1.86bn – or 13% of the UK’s climate-related spending since 2011 – that goes directly to governments in developing countries.
A small selection of developing-country governments have received large sums of money directly from ICF funds. For example, Ethiopia’s ministry of finance and economic development has received £509.52m and the government of the Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has received £431.24m.
A large variety of NGOs have also received big disbursements from the UK government to carry out climate-related projects in developing countries.
While around £327.87m has gone to national NGOs located in target countries, far more – £1.87bn – has gone to large international NGOs, such as Population Service International (£116.84m), Norwegian Refugee Council (£97.47m) and Save the Children UK (£91.68m).
By far the largest NGO recipient has been BRAC, a Bangladesh-based international NGO, that has been given £448.07m, largely as part of a partnership to provide basic service to the poorest people in Bangladesh – including “increased access to climate resilient services”.
Methodology
In June 2023, Carbon Brief extracted data from the “transactions” tabs on every ICF Development Tracker page to understand which organisations were being given money by the UK government to carry out these projects. Data was extracted by Tom Prater using Import.io and Octoparse.
This analysis is based primarily on “disbursements” data – defined by the government as “the amount placed at the disposal of a recipient country or agency”. As well as projects that are 100% International Climate Finance (ICF), this data also covers projects that cover a mix of ICF and other types of development aid, such as education and healthcare.
The Development Tracker website includes data on “organisation type” for each transaction. However, this data was not included for around £4.54bn worth of transactions. Carbon Brief manually filled in missing entries where possible, using the same categories employed by the UK government and referring to the organisation profile pages on the global development news platform Devex as a guide.
Devex was also used by Carbon Brief to identify the country in which institutions were headquartered and whether they could be described as “consultancies”. For some smaller consultancies or ones that have been closed down, Carbon Brief identified them as consultancies using the UK government’s Companies House website.
Some transactions could not be assigned an organisation type or any other details. Examples include those listed as “corrections” or “journal transactions”, which indicate cases where accounting corrections have been made. In some cases, the name of the organisation is “withheld”.
This analysis covers transaction data listed for ICF projects overseen by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). However, the majority of transactions listed under BEIS and Defra did not provide information about which organisations were involved.
The post Revealed: Tenth of UK’s climate-aid spending goes via private consultancies appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Tenth of UK’s climate-aid spending goes via private consultancies
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