Nestled among the undulating hills of Galicia in northern Spain, where wild horses and cattle have grazed for centuries, Europe’s hopes for clean energy security lie buried deep beneath the ground – for now.
The Mina Doade lithium project is one of 23 extractive mining sites designated as “strategic” by Brussels under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) to boost production of minerals vital for making solar panels, wind turbines and batteries for electric vehicles.
That designation means environmental permitting procedures will be streamlined, potentially fast-tracking Mina Doade’s final approval.
But the mining site lies just less than one kilometre from protected land, and the project’s sensitive location is fuelling opposition among conservation groups and local residents, who say it threatens rich biodiversity in the protected Atlantic wet heathlands and forest ecosystem as well as the area’s water supplies.
“They say lithium is strategic – but for us, water is,” said Ibán Losada, a young forestry worker, adding that the rolling grasslands around Mina Doade are home to threatened species such as the Iberian wolf and red kite.
Mina Doade’s owner, Recursos Minerales de Galicia, did not respond to several requests for comment. The project’s website emphasises a focus on limiting its environmental impact, saying it will minimise noise, dust and water consumption.
Clean energy vs biodiversity?
A Climate Home News investigation has found that Mina Doade is among 11 of the EU’s strategic mining projects that overlap land lying within one kilometre of Natura 2000 network of biodiversity-protected areas.
Three more strategic mining projects – in Finland, Romania and central Spain – directly overlap Natura 2000 land, an analysis of geospatial data showed.
Buffer zones of one or two kilometres are often used in academic papers and technical documentation to consider potential environmental impacts beyond the borders of such protected sites, for example on groundwater.
Beyond the strategic critical minerals projects announced last year, Climate Home’s reporting found that in a sample of three countries – Spain, Italy and Germany – 259 permits for the exploration or extraction of critical minerals partially overlap Natura 2000 sites, equivalent to 40% of the total number of permits recorded in national and regional land registries.
While mining is not prohibited on or near Natura 2000 areas, environmental experts and campaigners say operating mines in such areas increases the risk of harm to wildlife habitats and water supplies.
In Finland’s northernmost Lapland region, in a remote area where Sámi communities still herd reindeer, Anglo American’s Sakatti project aims to start producing copper, cobalt and other critical minerals during the next decade, despite its location on Natura 2000 protected land.
The two other strategic projects which partially overlap Natura 2000 sites are a graphite project in Romania and a tungsten project in Spain, Climate Home’s investigation found. Graphite is used in lithium battery anodes, while tungsten is also used in batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines.
Asked to comment about Sakatti’s location, London-listed Anglo American said protecting the region’s unique biodiversity was “paramount”.
Most of the mine’s operations would take place underground to ensure a “minimal surface footprint”, and access to the mine would be from outside the protected area’s buffer zone, the company said in a statement.
It said it planned a series of environmental compensation measures agreed in partnership with local communities, including protecting habitat and restoring degraded wetlands in the area, as well as the voluntary purchase of 2,910 hectares of forest land elsewhere.
Sakatti has not yet been given the green light, and Finland’s state-owned land administrator Metsähallitus told Climate Home News the project’s Natura 2000 assessment did not eliminate uncertainties about its potential impact on groundwater in the Viiankiaapa mire reserve that it partially overlaps.
Environmental balancing act
The findings of Climate Home’s investigation highlight the environmental balancing act faced by Europe as it seeks to shore up its clean energy security by boosting domestic production of metals such as lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt – all vital for the bloc’s clean energy industries.
Under the CRMA, the EU aims to mine 10% of its annual critical raw materials needs domestically by 2030 to reduce its dependence on China by fast-tracking the approval of extractive projects designated as strategic, such as Mina Doade. At the moment, the EU produces about 3% of the critical minerals it needs.
-
Green groups sue EU over inclusion of Portuguese lithium mine on priority list
Campaigners argue that the Barroso lithium mine poses serious environmental risks and should be removed from the EU’s list of “strategic” mineral projects -
EU weakening of corporate sustainability rules ‘jeopardises’ climate action, critics say
A major revision to the EU’s law on corporate due diligence removes a requirement for large companies to publish plans to align their business model with global climate goals -
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Brussels says requests by NGOs to reassess the “strategic” designation of new mining projects because of environmental concerns are “unfounded”
But the goal for increased domestic production puts further pressure on Europe’s Natura 2000 network, which covers 18% of the bloc’s total land area and is a pillar of the EU’s pledge to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore all degraded ecosystems in need of recovery by the middle of the century.
“In the name of seemingly climate goals, energy transition, and also obviously military goals, we’re cutting very essential environmental standards that not only protect nature, but also people,” said Cléo Moreno, legal counsel on EU environmental law at ClientEarth, an NGO.
Growing global concern over mining surge
Beyond Europe, too, concern is growing over how to ensure the switch away from fossil fuels does not exacerbate environmental damage from mining.
According to 2024 research by S&P Global Sustainable, 71% of global transition-mineral mines are located in ecologically sensitive areas.
But advocates of efforts to boost European mining say the bloc’s stringent environmental safeguards mean damage can be limited, averting mining disasters more common in other mineral-rich countries in Africa and Latin America.
Where mining has led to environmental impacts, “remediation measures should be implemented” over mine closure… “otherwise we risk importing (minerals) from distant regions where transparency, labour conditions, and environmental safeguards are uncertain,” said Ester Boixareu, a specialist on energy transition minerals at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME-CSIC), a state body.
Some environmental campaigners warn, however, that this logic could make European countries complacent about the potential damage from ramping up critical minerals output.
“The EU is in the process of lowering those same environmental standards it prides itself on having,” said Ilze Tralmaka, a law and policy advisor on environmental democracy at ClientEarth, pointing to the fast-tracking of approvals for the “strategic” projects.
Bypassing safeguards?
Being designated as strategic means that while projects must still comply with member states’ environmental laws, they are eligible for faster approval through streamlined bureaucracy and can more easily access EU-backed capital.
Critics of the CRMA fear it could pressure national and local authorities to approve mining projects, despite environmental risks.
Classifying certain projects as strategic “is an attempt to bypass the safeguards normally required under the Nature directives”, said Gabriel Schwaderer, executive director of EuroNatur, a nature conservation foundation based in Germany.
The EU’s Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Birds (2009/147/EC) directives are the cornerstone of the Natura 2000 network, contributing to EU and global biodiversity goals by improving coverage and protection of threatened species and habitats, reducing land-use pressures inside protected areas compared with surrounding land.
In Germany, Michael Reckordt of Berlin-based NGO PowerShift warned that the pressure to approve projects more quickly comes at a time when staffing levels are being reduced across federal departments, including environmental agencies.
“With the CRMA, the aim is to give a permit or get a licence within 27 months, and on the other hand … highly intensive projects are now reviewed by fewer people,” Reckordt said.
Asked to comment on the risks of developing critical raw materials projects on or near Natura 2000 areas, the Commission’s directorates-general for environment and for internal market and industry said member states were responsible for permitting, monitoring and carrying out environmental assessments.
They said that while the Commission provides detailed guidance on assessing risks to Natura 2000 sites, “there are no specific thresholds set in the EU nature legislation in relation to the significance of negative impacts” because “such assessment has to be done on a case-by-case basis”.
It can step in if a country clearly fails to apply EU law, for example by launching infringement procedures, their statement said.
The EU Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled against member states for inadequate environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and for permitting the degradation of protected sites.
Recycling and lithium waste recovery
Industry advocates say mining can be compatible with environmental protection if the right controls are put in place and properly implemented.
“In many contexts, the real challenges lie in enforcement capacity, institutional capability, and the cultural shifts required to implement policies effectively,” said Gemma James, a spokesperson for nature and biodiversity at the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, an investor-led initiative.
“We have seen examples where nature-related risks have stopped production. Therefore, investors need to promote effective management in relation to nature (and) need to set common expectations, reduce inconsistencies, and help avoid a ‘race to the bottom’,” James said.
At the same time, “a level playing field” is needed globally to ensure that companies obey the same rules regarding operating in protected areas.
Mining advocates also point to the potential of emerging technologies to make Europe’s green transition less destructive, from recovering lithium from mine water to urban mining and large-scale e-waste recycling.
But such solutions remain underdeveloped, and environmentalists say mining has no place on, or near, protected land, instead suggesting Europe’s policymakers turn their attention to reducing demand for critical minerals.
-
‘America needs you’: US seeks trade alliance to break China’s critical mineral dominance
The US has signed nearly a dozen mineral deals with countries as it called for the creation of a trading bloc to diversify supply chains away from China -
Argentina’s pioneering glacier law on the line as Milei bets on copper rush
President Javier Milei wants Congress to relax groundbreaking glacier protection legislation to boost mining, but opponents say the environmental risks are too great -
China maximises battery recycling to shore up critical mineral supplies
Beijing is bracing for a tsunami of spent EV batteries by taking steps to boost recycling – a strategy that could also cut its reliance on imports of clean energy minerals
“Recycling, substituting or increasing material efficiency should represent a priority at all times,” said Anne Larigauderie, biologist and former executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent international body.
An alliance of NGOs has formed the EU Raw Materials Coalition, calling for measures that would ease demand for critical minerals, such as reducing car and battery sizes, promoting car sharing and public transport, and pursuing policies to curb overall consumption.
Confronted with the conflicting demands of industry and anti-mining campaigners, policymakers face a difficult task, said Julio César Arranz, a senior geologist at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME), a state body.
“To what extent does declaring an area protected imply a categorical ‘no’ to mining?” he said. “Those in favour of mining argue that if done carefully, it can be done anywhere. Environmentalists, on the other hand, contend that there are places where nothing should ever be permitted.
“Those of us in the administration often find ourselves somewhere in between.”
This investigation was supported by Free Press Unlimited’s Collaborative and Investigative Journalism Initiative (CIJI) grant programme.
Main image: The Vedra Valley in Lombardy, Italy, where a zinc mining project is being developed, is located inside a Natura 2000 site
The post Rush for critical minerals tests Europe’s resolve to protect nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
Rush for critical minerals tests Europe’s resolve to protect nature
Climate Change
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
UK newspapers have already published 63 editorials this year calling for more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
The national outlets, including the Sun, the Daily Telegraph and the Times, argue that the nation “needs” more North Sea drilling to provide “home-sourced oil and gas” amid a “full-blown energy crisis”.
These newspapers seek to blame energy secretary Ed Miliband’s “net-zero crusade” for curbing UK fossil-fuel production – despite supplies dwindling for decades before he took the role.
The push for North Sea drilling in newspaper editorials – considered a publication’s formal “voice” – is part of a wider rejection of net-zero policies by the UK’s right-leaning press.
Figures ranging from ex-Labour prime minister Tony Blair to hard-right Reform UK leader Nigel Farage have repeated similar arguments that more drilling will “boost” the UK economy.
Even US president Donald Trump has weighed in, attributing, in part, the resignation of Keir Starmer as UK prime minister to him “fail[ing] badly” on North Sea oil.
Despite these claims, experts say trying to extract the last barrels of domestic oil and gas would have no impact on people’s energy bills and very little effect on energy security.
More drilling
North Sea oil and gas production is a highly politically charged issue in the UK, especially under the current Labour government.
When Labour won the general election in 2024, the new government committed to a “phased and responsible” transition away from fossil-fuel extraction in the North Sea.
As part of this pledge, it ruled out issuing new exploration licences for oil and gas. Since then, the government has allowed some “tiebacks”, where new drilling is undertaken close to existing sites.
Roughly 90% of the fossil fuels that are likely to be extracted in the North Sea have already been burned. North Sea oil and gas extraction was, therefore, already on a clear downward trajectory long before Labour came to power, having dropped 75% between 2000 and 2024.
Nevertheless, many newspapers have relentlessly called for more oil and gas production, framing the Labour policy as “self-destructive” and compromised by “green ideology”.
This has ramped up significantly in 2026. Just six months into the year, newspapers have already published 63 pro-North Sea editorials, according to analysis by Carbon Brief. This is more than double the number published in 2025, as shown in the figure below.
Right-leaning newspapers have led this campaign, with the Sun alone publishing 25 editorials, while the Daily Telegraph and the Times have published 10 each.
‘Full-blown energy crisis’
The biggest surge in pro-North Sea drilling editorials came in March, as the Iran war escalated and a global energy crisis began to take shape. Newspapers published 24 such editorials that month, despite the crisis largely arising from the world’s reliance on fossil fuels.
The Daily Express said the UK needed more “home-sourced oil and gas” and the Daily Mail highlighted the “perverse limit on domestic fossil-fuel production”.
As the weeks progressed, the Sun lamented price rises and potential fuel shortages, proposing North Sea drilling as a solution to the “full-blown energy crisis”.
Yet, UK oil and gas is sold by private companies on the open market at international rates. This means UK consumers have no particular right to the fuels or control over the prices they are bought for.
The Sun claimed – without evidence – that if the North Sea had been prioritised, the UK “might just have the cheapest electricity in the world”. It also said net-zero “forces us to spend billions” on imports.
In fact, the UK’s high energy prices are primarily the result of its reliance on gas to generate electricity.
The nation is reliant on oil and gas imports, in part, because the North Sea is a “mature basin” that saw its output collapse long before the UK even had a net-zero target.
Renewables and low-carbon technologies – often dismissed by the same newspapers – are expected to have a far greater impact on cutting imports than new drilling ever could.
Miliband’s ‘crusade’
Much of the criticism by these newspapers of Labour’s North Sea stance is tied to their highly personal criticism of Miliband. Of the 63 editorials arguing for more drilling, nearly three-quarters also attacked him as a “net-zero zealot” on a “green crusade”.
The Times said the energy and net-zero secretary was pursuing a “masochistic policy” by not expanding North Sea drilling and that he had “cloaked his zealotry in spurious rationality”.
This all fits with a broader trend that has seen right-leaning newspapers launch frequent, personal attacks on Miliband.
In the roughly two years since Labour won the election, giving the government a clear mandate for its net-zero policies, there have been around 230 editorials criticising Miliband.
(These have redoubled in recent days, amid rumours that he may be made chancellor under Andy Burnham, if the new Makerfield MP becomes the next prime minister, as is widely expected.)
Such attacks have increasingly spilled over into politics. Conservative shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho has accused Miliband of “fanaticism” and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has even likened him to a “Nigerian military dictator”.
The newspapers have also interpreted any support for North Sea drilling as a rebuke of Miliband. Both the Sun and the Daily Telegraph welcomed an essay by Blair, in which he argued that “we must…use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources”.
The Sun heralded Blair as Labour’s “most successful election winner” and said he “nailed the chief mistakes” of the current government, including:
“Allowing Ed Miliband free rein on net-zero – especially the banning of North Sea drilling.”
Several of the newspapers have also thrown their support behind the Conservative party, as it frames itself as an anti-net-zero, pro-fossil fuel alternative to Labour.
The Daily Mail described Badenoch’s proposal to drill more in the North Sea as a “concrete plan”, while the Sun – in an echo of Trump’s slogan – has simply urged her to “drill, Kemi, drill”.
The post Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
Climate Change
Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Heatwave scorches European agriculture
‘PUSHED TO THEIR LIMITS’: The record-breaking heatwave that swept through much of western and central Europe in recent weeks had myriad impacts across the continent, reported Carbon Brief. Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, explained: “Prolonged high temperatures place huge stress on livestock, dry out soils and reduce crop resilience, all while putting more pressure on nature.” The Times noted that “refrigerated warehouses were pushed to their limits” by the high temperatures.
POULTRY PROBLEMS: “At least several hundred thousand poultry” perished in France due to the extreme temperatures, the head of a French poultry-industry group told Reuters. A separate Reuters article said that “cows and pigs were suffering from heat stress” in Belgium, “which has raised concerns about milk and meat production”. Meanwhile, UK government data obtained by Carbon Brief showed that “twice as many animals died due to heat stress en route to slaughterhouses” amid record heat in 2025, compared to 2024.
FIRE AND ICE: The heatwave also had widespread impacts on the natural world. A wildfire scorched 200 hectares of moorland in Derbyshire, reported the Times. Derbyshire’s fire service said: “The ground is tinder dry and the slightest spark…could soon escalate to a major incident.” Agence France-Presse reported that “Swiss glaciers are set to lose an enormous amount of ice”, noting that this is the “second-earliest arrival on record of the tipping point known as ‘glacier-loss day’”.
UK 2050 farm plan
FARM CHANGES: The UK government launched a 2050 “farming roadmap” for England, setting out aims to make agriculture more resilient to climate change, increase domestic food production and boost nature recovery. The plan is “full of ambition”, but “falls short” on action and delivery, said National Farmers’ Union president Tom Bradshaw in a statement. Meanwhile, the government also announced £47m in funding for peatland protection and restoration schemes.
FOREST LOSS: UK companies may soon be required to “check that their supply chains are free from products linked to illegal land clearances”, reported the Times. The government revived plans for anti-deforestation rules for products such as soya, palm oil, cocoa and rubber, said the newspaper. The rules will initially target goods linked to illegal deforestation, but later move to a “blanket ‘deforestation-free’ standard”, it noted, adding that similar plans in the EU have been repeatedly delayed.
FRAUGHT FUND: UK energy secretary Ed Miliband was “poised to announce” a £400m commitment to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, but the plan was “shelved over ‘optics concerns’” amid a “bitter row over defence spending”, said the Times. Meanwhile, one of Europe’s oldest and largest trees died after “becoming stressed by a series of hot, dry summers”, reported the Guardian. The Major Oak, which has grown in England’s Sherwood Forest “for at least 1,000 years”, did not produce leaves this year, said the newspaper.
News and views
- OCEAN ACTION: The Our Ocean Conference concluded in Mombasa, Kenya, with more than 300 voluntary commitments from governments, civil-society groups, non-governmental organisations and others, said Carbon Brief. Observers told the outlet that “these pledges must now be backed up by action”.
- HOT SEAS: Record-high global ocean temperatures in June could lead the world to “uncharted territory”, said the Financial Times. Meanwhile, the Independent reported that a species of sea star thought to be extinct was found off the coast of California.
- EU PLANS: The European parliament approved rules to allow the use of gene-edited plants, marking a “major shift” in the EU’s approach to modified crops, reported Bloomberg. Meanwhile, Grilled, a new investigative newsletter, said the EU is “considering an overhaul of how it measures methane emissions from livestock”.
- BRAZIL BLAZES: Last year, fires caused a “significant spike in forest loss” across three areas in Brazil home to Indigenous peoples living in “voluntary isolation”, according to Mongabay. Indigenous leaders told the outlet that fire “affects their productive practices and destroys the biodiversity and vegetation they depend on”.
- DISCLOSURE DISPARITY: The Biodiversity Footprint Company analysed the climate- and biodiversity-related disclosures of “120 of the world’s largest listed companies”. It found that “companies disclose roughly two-thirds of assessed climate information, yet less than one-20th of the equivalent biodiversity information”.
- FRUITLESS: Fruit growers across the US south-western state of Utah “are reporting near-total harvest losses”, reported High Country News. It noted that a warm, dry winter, followed by a “record-breaking spring heatwave”, led orchards to bloom early, but the crop was then “devasta[ed]” by a “series of April freezes”.
Spotlight
‘Up and running immediately’: what’s next for the High Seas Treaty
This week, Carbon Brief speaks to Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, about the High Seas Treaty (also known as the agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or BBNJ). This interview was conducted at the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Carbon Brief: What connects BBNJ and climate change?
Rebecca Hubbard: The high seas cover half of the planet, or two-thirds of the global ocean. The ocean is essential for many things, including producing oxygen, absorbing carbon and absorbing the enormous amount of excessive heat we’ve produced as a result of burning fossil fuels. The ocean, including the high seas, cannot perform its critical climate-regulating role without healthy populations, without being healthy, and – at the moment – the high seas are not protected.
In fact, only around 1% of the high seas are protected and they’re under immense pressure from shipping, fishing, pollution [and] climate change – both heating and acidification. The High Seas Treaty, for the first time ever, gives us the legal framework to be able to protect the high seas. By being able to protect and better manage the high seas, we are assuring its critical role in protecting us from the worst of climate change.
CB: What were your hopes or expectations coming into this conference?
RH: My hopes were that we would get strong engagement and leadership from African states in the High Seas Treaty and we have seen that, which is really fantastic. There’s been a lot of support, a lot of leadership from African governments on the treaty and on their ambitions to not just complete their ratification processes, but to also start looking at creating marine protected areas. They want to be engaged and involved in leading and delivering those processes and I think that’s really exciting. It’s a great opportunity for the whole world. We can really get some exciting collaborations.
CB: What has been missing from the conversation here?
RH: I actually don’t think much has been missing, because I think there’s been a lot of different conversations. There’s been conversations around the need for finance to implement the treaty and this is something that’s common across all multilateral environmental agreements – certainly no stranger to the climate process. We’re going to need this huge amount of resources to implement the treaty. Where is that money coming from?
CB: We’ve got almost exactly six months until COP1 [the first Conference of the Parties for the High Seas Treaty scheduled for January 2027]. What needs to happen between now and then?
RH: We need as many more countries to ratify as possible. We hope that well over 100 countries will be party to the agreement by COP1, so that they can be at the decision-making table. We need countries to really prepare for that COP, so that they’re ready to really efficiently make the decisions founded off all of the work that we’re done through the PrepCom [preparatory commission] meetings [and] so that we can get the rules of procedure and the subsidiary bodies that are going to be essential to an effective implementation up and running immediately.
There is so much to do and we do not have time to waste with circular negotiations, rehashing resolved issues. We also need countries to continue to prepare for implementation, particularly back in their capitals – establishing inter-ministerial committees, so that you have a cohesive and united approach from governments that reflects a whole-of-government approach. That’s what’s going to be essential for effective implementation.
Watch, read, listen
‘ELEPHANT MARSH’: Mongabay delved into the knock-on effects of a 2023 cyclone on farming households living in Malawi wetlands.
REEF RESILIENCE: In bioGraphic, journalist Claudia Geib explored the unexpected resilience of a coral reef in Miami that is home to some critically endangered species.
TRUMP VS ALGAE: The Guardian Science Weekly podcast discussed the causes of algal blooms, in light of the green algae saga at the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool in Washington DC.
FRAUGHT FARMING: A century-old state law protects the water rights of just a handful of users on the Deschutes River at the expense of the region’s farmers, said Oregon Public Broadcasting.
New science
- Growing oil crops, such as oil palm and coconuts, potentially caused the long-term loss of 1.5% of global plant and animal species between 1995 and 2020, with largest impacts in the tropics | Nature Food
- “Climate-smart agriculture” is improving household resilience in Ethiopia, but scaling its benefits requires addressing “local realities and inequalities” | Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
- Drought has been linked to “abundance declines” and range shifts in 40% of 37 birds species living in the deserts of the western US | Conservation Letters
In the diary
- 1-3 July: UN Food and Agriculture Organization global conference on “smart farming” | Rome (webcast available)
- 13-31 July: Meeting of the International Seabed Authority assembly and council | Kingston, Jamaica
- 14 July: Launch of the “state of food security and nutrition in the world” report | New York City
- 27 July-1 August: Scientific and technical subsidiary body meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity | Nairobi, Kenya
The post Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
Proposal for ‘Hyperscale’ data centre in remote Northern Territory demonstrates need for urgent moratorium
SYDNEY, Wednesday 1 July 2026 — The proposal for the ‘Project Ares’ data centre in remote Northern Territory, which would be powered by off-grid gas and renewables, has prompted renewed calls from Greenpeace for an urgent moratorium, citing serious concerns about emissions and environmental harm.
The application for the project under the EPBC Act reveals the gas-fired generation for the project would be approximately 1,038MW at full build-out, which would more than double the NT’s current gas-fired generating capacity.
A recent report by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and independent expert Ketan Joshi, Energy Vampires: the AI data centres draining Australia, revealed how the frenzied rollout of AI data centres in Australia is set to derail the renewable energy transition, entrench gas and turbocharge climate pollution.
Solaye Snider, Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Proposals like Project Ares, which would have significant off-grid gas powered generation and emissions, should not be moving along while there are still zero binding regulations to limit the impacts of AI data centres on our communities and environment.
“This hyperscale project proposes massive new off-grid gas infrastructure, making a mockery of the Federal Government’s unenforceable ‘expectations’ that data centres will cover their own power use with renewables. Communities will pay the price for the data centre industry’s endless hunger for energy at any cost.
“This proposal also raises serious questions about where this new gas would come from. Could it come from fracking the Beetaloo? Communities deserve to have the full picture before this project is approved.
“The Australian Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the rapid roll-out of AI data centres. We need an urgent moratorium on the construction and approval of new data centres, so our government can take appropriate time to legislate the regulations and safeguards we so desperately need.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty
Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Building The Circular Economy With Glacier CEO Rebecca Hu-Thrams
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测