The Academy of Macroeconomic Research (AMR) is a research institution under the direct supervision of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the ministry in charge of economic development and planning.
As a “national high-end thinktank”, the AMR’s Energy Research Institute is a well-respected body conducting energy transition research and providing vital suggestions on the energy transition to Beijing.
At this year’s COP29 in Baku, it launched the executive summary of 2024 China Energy Transformation Outlook (CETO), a key report describing China’s pathways to net-zero.
The launch was attended by a number of high-level officials, including climate envoy Liu Zhenmin and the head of the International Energy Agency, Dr Fatih Birol.
Carbon Brief’s Wanyuan Song was granted a rare – and lengthy – joint interview with its director general, Prof Lyu Wenbin, and director, Prof Bai Quan, who is also the lead author of the report, to hear their views about China’s energy transition.
- On China’s commitment to climate action: “Climate change doesn’t just affect China, it affects every country in the world…Climate change is not fake. It is happening and we are all on the same boat.”
- On international collaboration: “The joint work [on energy transition pathways] was meant to allow for a deeper grasp of the problems, making the research findings more scientific and [suggestions] more reasonable.”
- On an early emissions peak: “[W]e would love to try our best…but we can’t rule out all possibilities to peak even earlier than planned.”
- On updates in this year’s outlook: [This year w]e have also placed more emphasis on international cooperation.”
- On the need for global cooperation: “To achieve the best scenario, China shouldn’t be the only country that puts efforts into energy transition.”
- On stimulus and carbon reduction: “China’s ‘two new’ (“两新”) policy – large-scale equipment renewals and trade-ins of consumer goods – is one of [the policies]. The first three aspects [of ‘two new’] directly promote carbon reduction.”
- On managing electricity grids and markets: “China has never faced this kind of challenge before. The demand for electricity is huge, and soaring.”
- On China’s coal use: “With renewable energy becoming more powerful and energy storage becoming cheaper and more flexible, coal plants can play the role of ‘firefighters’ in the system – used in an electricity crisis whenever it is needed.”
- On the role of “green hydrogen”: “[I]t is very expensive at the moment…Commercial and technology innovation are needed to reduce costs.”
- On calls for greater ambition from China: “It can’t be the case that developing countries need to cut more emissions than developed countries – that would break the UN’s principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.”
CB: Why is China so determined to achieve its energy transition and combat climate change?
Bai Quan: Climate change doesn’t just affect China, it affects every country in the world. No one is excluded from it. China is one of the victims of extreme weather. The horrifying typhoon in Shanghai in recent months has blown windows off of skyscrapers – Shanghai didn’t have that many typhoons in the past. Autumn in Qinghai province [in west China] used to be cool and dry, but now it has become rainy. The weather forecast [once] said there was light rain in Beijing, but the heavy rain in the neighbouring province Hebei drowned people. Summer is getting hotter and winter is getting colder – this is climate change, and no one can survive alone. If Shanghai was drowned, would London be spared, would New York be OK? Climate change is not fake. It is happening and we are all on the same boat.
Combating climate change is a must, it is one of our core needs, and the primary thing we need to do to secure life and production. Low-carbon issues have been part of China’s policy for a long time but it wasn’t as big of a focus until President Xi vouched for climate action with the “dual-carbon” goal. The [“dual-carbon” goal] promise to the world is serious and, after President Xi announced it in 2020, it has become a hot topic [in media and among ordinary people]. The energy transition, as a sustainable solution, helps the “dual-carbon” goal to be realised.
CB: Your institute is working with national and international partners to produce an annual “China energy transformation outlook”. Can you tell me how that collaboration came about and what the aims of the project are?
Lyu Wenbin: The Chinese government has proposed the “dual-carbon” goal, and the energy transition is an important part of this process. Now that a goal has been clearly set, what we should do to deliver it is to choose the best pathway. Our research was conducted along with the Danish Energy Agency and Columbia University. The joint work was meant to allow for a deeper grasp of the problems, making the research findings more scientific and [suggestions] more reasonable.
CB: We covered your CETO 2023 report, in which you listed three stages of transformation. The first of these phases is the peaking phase, which lasts until 2030. With China rapidly expanding renewable energy this year and hitting its wind and solar capacity targets six years early, do you think China could peak even earlier than planned – “before 2030”?
BQ: There are many uncertainties and changes in the world economy, geopolitics and even military actions at the moment. Uncertainty also exists in climate change. China’s electricity consumption grew faster than expected and we would love to try our best to overcome all the difficulties to meet China’s carbon peaking goal before 2030, but we can’t rule out all possibilities to peak even earlier than planned.
CB: What differences are there in your outlook for China’s energy transition this year, compared to 2023?
BQ: The scenarios are different, although they are basically aligned. We have also placed more emphasis on international cooperation. The report itself has absorbed experiences from different places, such as Denmark’s experience in heating, for modelling, pathway design and other suggestions in the report. We would be very interested in discussing more new ideas and sharing our experience with everyone else.
CB: What would be needed for China to realise the most ambitious energy transition scenario featured in your report?
BQ: To achieve the best scenario, China shouldn’t be the only country that puts efforts into energy transition. China, as a developing country, at the government level and at the individual level, has already done a lot. The energy transition needs global cooperation. More people will realise the urgent need to combat climate change if we all join hands together. Solving some problems, such as commercialising hydrogen, also needs more joint research.
CB: You have previously said China’s energy transition relies on comprehensive policy support for green industry, “effective” investment in the green and low-carbon sector as well as promoting green consumption. Do you see signs of this in government plans for economic stimulus?
BQ: Yes, many! China’s “two new” (“两新”) policy – large-scale equipment renewals and trade-ins of consumer goods – is one of them. In the document issued by the State Council [China’s central government], there are four aspects: “implementing equipment updates, trade-in of consumer goods, recycling, and improving standards”.
The first three aspects directly promote carbon reduction. The first one is to service industrial sectors, the second one is to serve the general public, and the third one is for China’s “circular economy”. The last aspect indirectly serves energy saving and carbon reduction goals, by setting standards [for energy usage, emissions and recycling] to prevent people from re-purchasing outdated equipment with low energy efficiency.
In the past, it was difficult to recycle old production equipment, such as large motors. One obstacle is the challenge of acquiring a “first receipt” to be eligible for tax deductions. [Scrapped product sellers often cannot provide the purchase receipt – the “first receipt” – to the resource recycling companies for value-added tax deductions.] The new policy allows an ordinary invoice to be used for pre-tax deduction, solving the problem. This is a very important incentive to meet the 2027 goals [of the “two new” policy].
For the ordinary people, the “two new” policy also benefits their daily life. For example, they can receive subsidies for about 10-20% of a new purchase, with up to 2,000 yuan ($276) to trade-in a new fridge. [Trade-in subsidies for home appliances cover fridges, washing machines, televisions, air conditioners and computers.] They can get new energy saving electronics appliances at a very low price.
The “two new” policy documents clearly state the delineation of responsibilities of both the central and local governments, including funding they should provide. [The central government accounts for about 90% of funding and has issued a 300bn yuan ($41bn) bond to support this effort.] China holds regular press conferences stating progress on the “two new” policy, including on the renewal of outdated solar and wind equipment.
Another vital policy is the “guidelines to ramp up green transition of economic, social development” issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council. [See Carbon Brief’s China Briefing for more.] That is to say, it’s not just the [state-affiliated] State Council that promotes the “green transformation”, the Central Committee [the leading body of the Communist party] also really values it. There was a green transition policy before, but this new policy is a top-level design of “full green transition” [across every aspect of society]. It is a blueprint of China’s transition in industry, building [construction], transportation, energy and many other areas. Together with the “two new”, which is an implementation document for this top-level design, we now have both a direction and a manual for the energy transition.
CB: China is attempting to upgrade its electricity grids and markets to manage the variability of wind and solar power. What are the biggest challenges it faces in this area?
BQ: China has never faced this kind of challenge before. The demand for electricity is huge, and soaring. Reforms in the electricity pricing system and grid management are underway, and so are many other reforms. These reforms need to be economical, fair and feasible. Reforms, in general, have less impact on the rich than the poor. In the end, we can’t just ignore energy safety and cut electricity supply, nor ignore the poor being unable to afford it. This is a big challenge for the government to achieve in such a short time, especially if we are to peak carbon before 2030. Current price reform, in terms of whole reform effort, is happening very quickly, with the medium-to-long term contract reforms, as well as the spot market and the ancillary market reforms. However, it is a complicated matter, with each province facing different situations. Industrial usage and civilian usage are also different – we need to protect ordinary people’s needs.
CB: There has been significant international criticism of China’s decision to use coal-fired power plants as “flexibility providers” in its energy transition. Will coal continue to be necessary for China’s energy mix as it approaches carbon neutrality in 2060 and beyond, and how effective are China’s current efforts to develop low-carbon coal-fired power?
BQ: China’s principle is “construction new before destruct old” (先立后破), which is also translated as “build before breaking”. [See Carbon Brief’s articles from 2021 and 2022 for background.] The challenge China faces is different [from other countries], our electricity consumption is growing too fast. Energy security for us is most important, and cutting coal out completely does not match the basic principle of energy supply. What we can do is to increase the share of green electricity when improving the overall quantity and quality of electricity supply. Power grids also need to improve capacity for electricity generated from renewable sources, to counter their variable nature. Energy storage is an ideal solution for us, but it is too expensive at the moment.
The only pragmatic solution at the moment is asking coal plants to “tiao feng” (调峰, part-load operation, which means run below full-capacity). The old design of a coal-fired power plant was to operate for 5,500 hours annually, but they are at about 4,000 hours now. With renewable energy becoming more powerful and energy storage becoming cheaper and more flexible, coal plants can play the role of “firefighters” in the system – used in an electricity crisis whenever it is needed.
Overall, electricity is the core of future development. Reforms in electricity generation, power grids, electricity usage and electricity demand are all needed. Developing countries in particular face harder challenges. It is not only China – Vietnam and India also are exploring solutions to their power problems. Therefore, we emphasise global cooperation, which is vital for finding a solution for us all.
CB: Will “green hydrogen” play a significant role in China’s future energy mix and, if so, when do you think it will be deployed at scale?
BQ: Yes. Green hydrogen is a great alternative for fossil fuels in the chemical industry and the transportation sector. We were excited about it when it was first discovered, but it is very expensive at the moment. To deploy green hydrogen, commercial and technology innovation are needed, to reduce costs.
China’s carbon pricing has not reached the chemical industry yet, but it might change with changes in the market. The commercialisation of hydrogen is very important, a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle needs to be affordable. We face the same problem that the EU faces and we would love to learn from them.
CB: Recent research has suggested that China should reduce emissions to at least 30% below 2023 levels by 2035, to align with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5C. Some Chinese scientists have called this 30% figure “too ambitious”. Do you think a 30% reduction would be achievable?
BQ: I haven’t read the paper so can’t comment on it. I am not sure if there are suggestions for other countries in this research paper. [International expectations for China’s climate goals] need to be fair for China, as a developing country. [They] need to consider the shared responsibilities of the developed countries, including the US and EU. It can’t be the case that developing countries need to cut more emissions than developed countries – that would break the UN’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. China has not yet reached carbon peak, it still has some ways to go.
The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Lyu Wenbin and Prof Bai Quan appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Lyu Wenbin and Prof Bai Quan
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