Even the most ambitious national climate plans aimed at cutting emissions to meet the 1.5C global warming goal in the Paris Agreement often lack a vital ingredient for success: private investment.
With governments facing fiscal and political pressures, attracting private capital will be crucial for accelerating climate action in the coming years.
Yet many Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) still do not have the sector-specific plans, economic incentives, policy certainty, infrastructure investment and ongoing dialogue needed to break silos between the public and private sectors and bring more businesses on board.
“If you just have the high-level (NDC) target from the government in a vacuum, it’s not going to spur much business action,” said Greg Briner, senior manager for policy at the We Mean Business Coalition, which works with companies pushing for stronger climate action.
“But that target combined with … more specific policies and measures that get put in place as a result of that target-implementing process, or as a result of the NDCs, is where the magic starts happening,” he explained.
NDCs: late and inadequate
NDCs are voluntary climate action plans created by countries under the Paris Agreement. They include commitments such as expanding renewable energy, reducing fossil fuels, halting deforestation and other measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming.
First submitted in 2015 for the Paris Agreement, NDCs should be updated with more ambitious targets every five years, although some governments have not stuck to this timetable.
Last year, most countries missed an initial February deadline to finalise the latest round of plans, known as “NDCs 3.0” – and at least 50 countries, mainly developing nations, have still not done so.
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Although these national plans have helped drive emissions reductions in some sectors – including falling deforestation rates and greater investments in renewables – climate experts say progress remains far too slow to meet the Paris goals and urgent action is now needed.
Last November, the UN climate body projected that global emissions would fall by around 12% from 2019 levels by 2035, based on a preliminary assessment of new NDCs announced by countries that produce nearly 70% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said countries should cut emissions far more rapidly, with a 60% drop by 2035 needed to limit global warming to 1.5C.
But for developing economies especially, the multi-billion-dollar costs associated with transitioning to greener energy systems and curbing their emissions are still a major barrier. Climate experts say governments and businesses need to move in step if NDC targets are to be achieved.
“There are positive actions going on but we need a significant ramping up. It’s not happening quickly enough,” said Briner. “It’s (about) building on these foundations that are being put in place.”
Nurturing the conditions for private investment
Last September, consumer goods giant Unilever published a report, entitled Bold Plans, Real Impact, examining how corporate climate transition plans and NDCs can support each other.
Among its recommendations, the report called for governments to provide clearer roadmaps for private-sector engagement. It also highlighted the need for stronger regulatory frameworks, market incentives, sector-specific transition pathways and integrated, economy-wide planning.
For businesses, the report recommended aligning their transition plans with national climate priorities, collaborating more closely with industry peers, strengthening monitoring and verification systems, and unlocking finance through public-private partnerships.
Comment: The missing piece in COP climate talks – market signals for adaptation
A year earlier, the We Mean Business Coalition published a similar report, Time to Deliver: Business Call to Action for Ambitious and Investible NDCs.
This report urged governments – particularly in the G20 economies – to unlock private investment through sectoral targets, clean energy expansion, energy efficiency measures, fossil fuel phase-outs and commitments to halt deforestation.
It also stressed the importance of translating climate targets into concrete policies, backed by national implementation strategies and coordination across ministries.
Another key recommendation was the need for more transparent and inclusive dialogue with businesses throughout the NDC process. Early consultation with companies, the report said, should be embedded into the development and implementation of NDCs to ensure that climate plans reflect commercial realities.
Briner of We Mean Business said the economics of decarbonisation have changed dramatically over the past two decades.
“Ten to 20 years ago, decarbonising and investing in clean energy and electrification was seen as nice-to-have and a more expensive option, but these days, it simply makes business sense,” he said, referring to recent geopolitical events in the Middle East that have roiled oil and gas markets, pushing up fossil fuel prices.
However, upfront costs for clean energy infrastructure remain a major hurdle. Governments therefore need to complement climate policies with investments, concessional loans, grants, subsidies and tax incentives to help reduce risks, Briner added.
“Globally, there are still significant subsidies going to fossil fuels in different forms,” he said. “If we could redirect some of those current incentives away from fossil fuels and into clean electrification and clean energy, then that would certainly help.”
-
The vote that stopped a data center: US communities query resource-hungry AI
Concerns are growing about the high energy, water and land demands of artificial intelligence tech hubs, while benefits for local people remain unclear
Brazil’s sector-specific climate planning
Brazil’s NDC targets include expanding renewable energy – which already accounts for nearly 45% of its energy mix – ending illegal deforestation and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
According to Briner, Brazil’s climate strategy – known as Plano Clima – offers an example of how governments can provide businesses with clearer implementation guidance.
Years in development, the initiative sets out how Brazil intends to meet its climate goals through a series of sectoral plans covering areas such as energy, transport and land use.
“They’ve put together some pretty detailed, impressive plans,” Briner said. “Those are the types of things that will influence business models and business decisions. It’s this more detailed second layer of setting out national plans which is of interest to business.”
Last year, a transport coalition of more than 50 associations, companies and academia put forward a plan to help reduce the sector’s emissions and attract more than $600 billion in green investments in Brazil.
The previous year, 55 companies operating in Brazil, including Natura, Nestle, Itau and Unilever, called for more ambitious NDCs and clearer implementation policies, as well as encouraging climate-friendly investment and private-sector involvement.
Unilever, for example, has a global goal to create a deforestation-free supply chain and is partnering with a leading supplier in Brazil to ensure that soybean oil used at its factory there is not linked to forest loss.
Cheaper capital, high-quality projects
Although Brazil has relatively sophisticated capital markets, high interest rates still make long-term, low-carbon investments difficult, said Natalie Unterstell, president of the Talanoa Institute, a Brazilian environmental think-tank.
To address this challenge, Brazil is scaling up Fundo Clima – its National Climate Change Fund – as a central part of its implementation strategy by offering cheaper financing at scale.
But Unterstell said the private sector also needs to demonstrate that it can develop and deliver high-quality, low-carbon projects.
“Making Brazil’s policies investable is about making sure cheaper capital meets a pipeline of real, high-quality projects,” she said by email.
Brazilian firm behind SAF plan found growing oil palm on deforested Amazon land
While many companies have announced climate commitments, investment decisions have not always followed, she added.
“What companies can do better is move from targets to investment: adopt robust transition plans, and integrate carbon risk into core financial decisions,” Unterstell said.
On the government side, the priority is to “fix the signals”, she added. That means ensuring Brazil’s regulated carbon market – which is due to start in 2027 for sectors including iron and steel, cement, and oil and gas – operates with clear rules, credible enforcement and no delays, while aligning public finance with climate goals and providing long-term policy certainty.
“At the moment, both sides are waiting for stronger signals from the other, hence breaking that co-ordination problem is key,” she said.
Indonesia’s challenge: bridging the finance gap
Like Brazil, Indonesia is home to large areas of rainforest, but its energy mix relies far more heavily on fossil fuels, with coal providing about a third of supply. In its NDCs, Indonesia has pledged to reduce emissions by 31.9% by 2030 compared with business-as-usual levels, or by 43.2% with international support, on the way to reaching net zero by 2060.
Yet despite being promised more than $20 billion in international financial support from donor governments and investors under its Just Energy Transition Partnership, Jakarta has decided to row back on a plan to close a key coal power station early, saying it will focus on shuttering older and dirtier plants first.
To attract private investment to help achieve its emissions goals, Indonesia must provide policy clarity and long-term certainty, said Fabby Tumiwa, executive director of the Institute for Essential Services Reform, an Indonesian think-tank.
Comment: Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
“Any investor wants to understand the long-term risks of the country so that they can assess the risks properly and come up with a risk mitigation strategy. Uncertain policies basically make investors unable to mitigate the risks,” Tumiwa told Climate Home News.
“To make Indonesia’s climate policies investable for the private sector, the core task is to convert climate ambition into bankable, enforceable, risk-adjusted projects,” he said. “Investors do not only need targets; they need predictable revenue, credible off-takers, permits, grid access, currency-risk management and policy durability.”
Indonesia has estimated the investment needed to meet its NDC goals at more than $400 billion but has yet to clearly outline how businesses can directly contribute, said Egi Suarga, senior manager for climate at World Resources Institute Indonesia, a research organisation.
He said climate action should be framed as an investment opportunity rather than an economic burden.
Evolving policies and regulations
Over 100 Indonesian companies have adopted net-zero and are ready to ramp up decarbonisation given clear national guidance, according to the We Mean Business Coalition.
Indonesia’s Indika Energy is making heavy investments in renewable energy such as solar, while cement company Solusi Bangun Indonesia is also investing in cleaner energy, fuel efficiency and pushing better biodiversity management.
Meanwhile, Unilever’s climate transition plan states that the company is working with local government and environmental NGOs in Indonesia to protect and restore forests in Aceh and North Sumatra. It is also switching from natural gas to biomethane at its Indonesian sites.
One positive development, Suarga noted, is the creation of carbon pricing regulations aimed at attracting private finance, with an initial focus on the forestry sector.
“It can create a good climate for investors,” he said. “It doesn’t directly mention that this is for achieving the NDCs but there is no trade-off between development financing with environmental protections – so that’s a good start.”
Indonesia also needs stronger incentives and regulations for renewable energy, he added.
“We also have to think about other sectors now – like the energy sector and renewables,” Suarga said. “How can the government provide more incentives or facilitating regulations that can be more profitable to create a level playing field for renewables and fossil fuels?”
Ambition loop to drive action
Like Tumiwa, Suarga stressed the need for greater dialogue between the government and businesses so companies can understand better how they can contribute to Indonesia’s emissions targets.
“They know about sustainability because of the market and demands of the market… [but] I’m not sure whether [they] really understand about Indonesia’s target to achieve a certain amount of emissions reductions in the NDCs,” he said.
Currently, the government and private sector are largely working separately, Suarga added. The challenge lies in bringing them together to set targets, plan implementation and monitor emissions reductions. “It will need two to tango. The government should engage more with the private sector,” he emphasised.
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
For the We Mean Business Coalition’s Briner, what is ultimately needed is an “ambition loop” in which businesses lead on emissions reductions while governments create policies that accelerate private-sector action.
“It really helps governments when they have a strong voice from business calling for policy action. It helps move things forward,” he said.
Without stronger policies and incentives, achieving NDC goals will become increasingly difficult to achieve and costly, experts say.
“It’s really a case of all hands-on deck right now,” Briner said. “We need all sides of this equation working together and trying to get this done because there isn’t an alternative.”
The post Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals appeared first on Climate Home News.
Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals
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