Connect with us

Published

on

Influencers Riley and Elayna with Sign at Scott Reef. © Greenpeace / Michaela Skovranova
Influencers Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu, from Sailing La Vagabonde, hold a sign reading “Woodside Leave Our Reefs Alone”, while freediving in the Scott Reef lagoon.
© Greenpeace / Michaela Skovranova

Have you heard the latest plans from Woodside? They’ve added carbon dumping to their plans for their proposed Browse offshore gas project in the North West of Western Australia. They call it carbon capture and storage, but in reality it’s risky carbon dumping.

Help us demand an immediate rejection based on unacceptable environmental impacts.

Protest at CCS Trade Fair in Hamburg. © Jonas Wresch / Greenpeace
Protest at CCS Trade Fair in Hamburg. © Jonas Wresch / Greenpeace

What is carbon capture and storage?

Carbon capture and storage involves capturing, transporting and storing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power stations, energy intensive industries, and gas fields by injecting the captured greenhouse gases back into the ground.

Carbon capture and storage, when done at sea, is regulated under the Federal Government’s Sea Dumping Act – hence the name “carbon dumping”. This technology sounds promising if it was able to work at scale, but in reality it’s a risky experiment attempting to bury carbon pollution beneath our oceans.

Woodside, however, only intends to capture some of the CO₂ that already exists in the gas field as an unusable by-product and re-inject it back underground. They are not proposing to sequester any of the emissions produced from refining or burning the gas they extract. Which of course is where the vast majority of the emissions would come from.

In Woodside’s carbon dumping proposal, they also plan to conduct ongoing seismic blasting every five years in biologically important whale habitat next door to Scott Reef. It’s a dodgy addition to an already deeply problematic gas drilling plan.

Protest of Woodside and Drill Rig Valaris at Scarborough Gas Field in Western Australia. © Greenpeace / Jimmy Emms
Protest of Woodside and Drill Rig Valaris at Scarborough Gas Field in Western Australia. © Greenpeace / Jimmy Emms

But why is carbon dumping a bad idea?

There may be some instances where geological storage of carbon may be a last resort solution but definitely not as a justification to drill for more fossil fuels, creating much more carbon pollution than can be stored. Other reasons why Woodside’s carbon dumping proposal is a bad idea include that it:

  • Is incredibly expensive
  • Requires ongoing seismic blasting putting whales at risk of serious harm.
  • Has never effectively worked at scale
  • Would take money and technology away from cheaper renewables which are the actual viable option for the future of energy
  • Risks the carbon dioxide leaking into the ocean.
  • Is used to justify and enable further fossil fuel extraction
Approaching Scott Reef- Nush Freedman Photography

Where did carbon dumping come from?

Fossil fuel companies like to claim that carbon dumping is a “mature technology” but in reality it is woefully unreliable and has not been proven to work at scale. Fossil fuel companies knew as early as 1977 about the “potentially catastrophic” impacts of global warming but most have not moved their business model to focus on renewable energy solutions. Instead, they have created dubious techniques like carbon capture and storage (Carbon dumping) to prolong their polluting operations.

Chevron began the world’s first CCS project in 1972 in Texas using waste carbon dioxide from a gas field 400 kilometers away to extend the life of their oil field. After using the CO₂, they vented the gas, so there was no real climate advantage. It did work to produce more oil though.

Then in 2003, Chevron convinced the Australian government to spend $60m of the Australian people’s money on its Gorgon carbon dumping project near Karratha in WA. After over 8 years of operation the project is still unable to effectively dispose of the 80% CO₂ it promised to store (this does not include any of the CO₂ released when burning the methane). Last financial year the Gorgon carbon dumping project only removed 30% of the CO₂ instead of the promised 80%. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide disposed of is actually decreasing as salt water and sand keep stopping the injection, making last financial years’ offering the worst yet.

This project is so embarrassing for the energy sector that our German Greenpeace Colleagues have used it as a prime example in its study of carbon dumping.

Whale Shark around Ningaloo Marine Park. © Lewis Burnett / Greenpeace
Whale Shark around Ningaloo Marine Park. © Lewis Burnett / Greenpeace

What is Woodside planning?

Woodside is now trying its hand at carbon dumping, adding it to its toxic Burrup Hub plans.

With the Burrup Hub project that was recently partially approved at a WA state level there is extra pressure on the Federal Government to make a decision on Woodside’s disastrous proposals. Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek still has the chance to save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas drilling project and to prevent the extension of their North West Shelf project to 2070.

But now the Federal Government will have to also decide on Woodside’s added carbon dumping proposal. Even if successful, the proposal will provide minimal mitigation of the staggering projected 6.1 billion tonnes of climate pollution from the Burrup Hub, as well as adding to the impacts on species like the endangered Pygmy Blue Whale.

Woodside already tried unsuccessfully to push through their Carbon dumping plans but were provisionally knocked back by the federal environment department, who highlighted the risks of the new technology to our oceans and protected animals, as well as the risk of the injection site failing. Earlier, in 2022, Woodside admitted that carbon dumping at the site was “technically challenging” and a “high risk, high cost mitigation option”. But now they are keen to try again.

Along with its lack of efficacy, Carbon dumping will also involve ongoing seismic blasting in biologically important pygmy blue whale habitat. We have already seen Woodside conduct this dangerous activity and now it plans to again use underwater airguns to blast powerful sound waves towards the seabed to monitor gas reservoirs beneath the ocean floor. This can deafen whales, as well as harm marine life and threatened species.

So let’s not let the fossil fuel companies pull the wool over our eyes and again sink millions into a broken technology that allows them to continue polluting.

Woodside’s carbon dumping plans are currently under review by the federal environment department and the proposal is currently open for public comments until 16/1. Help us demand an immediate rejection based on unacceptable environmental impacts.

Why dumping carbon pollution in our oceans is a dangerous experiment

Climate Change

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Published

on

The governor’s office said the city’s two main reservoirs could dry up by May, much sooner than previous timelines. But authorities still offer no plan for curtailment of water use.

City officials in Corpus Christi on Tuesday released modeling that showed emergency cuts to water demand could be required as soon as May as reservoir levels continue to decline.

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

Published

on

Lena Luig is the head of the International Agricultural Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a member of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Anna Lappé is the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

As toxic clouds loom over Tehran and Beirut from the US and Israel’s bombardment of oil depots and civilian infrastructure in the region’s ongoing war, the world is once again witnessing the not-so-subtle connections between conflict, hunger, food insecurity and the vulnerability of global food systems dependent on fossil fuels, dominated by a few powerful countries and corporations.

The conflict in Iran is having a huge impact on the world’s fertilizer supply. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical trade route in the region for nearly half of the global supply of urea, the main synthetic fertilizer derived from natural gas through the conversion of ammonia.

With the Strait impacted by Iran’s blockades, prices of urea have shot up by 35% since the war started, just as planting season starts in many parts of the world, putting millions of farmers and consumers at risk of increasing production costs and food price spikes, resulting in food insecurity, particularly for low-income households. The World Food Programme has projected that an extra 45 million people would be pushed ​into acute hunger because of rises in food, oil and shipping costs, if the war continues until June.

Pesticides and synthetic fertilizer leave system fragile

On the face of it, this looks like a supply chain issue, but at the core of this crisis lies a truth about many of our food systems around the world: the instability and injustice in the very design of systems so reliant on these fossil fuel inputs for our food.

At the Global Alliance, a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working to transform food systems, we have been documenting the fossil fuel-food nexus, raising alarm about the fragility of a system propped up by fossil fuels, with 15% of annual fossil fuel use going into food systems, in part because of high-cost, fossil fuel-based inputs like pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has also been flagging this threat consistently, most recently in the Pesticide Atlas and Soil Atlas compendia. 

We’ve seen this before: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 sparked global disruptions in fertilizer supply and food price volatility. As the conflict worsened, fertilizer prices spiked – as much from input companies capitalizing on the crisis for speculation as from real cost increases from production and transport – triggering a food price crisis around the world.

    Since then, fertilizer industry profit margins have continued to soar. In 2022, the largest nine fertilizer producers increased their profit margins by more than 35% compared to the year before—when fertilizer prices were already high. As Lena Bassermann and Dr. Gideon Tups underscore in the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Soil Atlas, the global dependencies of nitrogen fertilizer impacted economies around the world, especially state budgets in already indebted and import-dependent economies, as well as farmers across Africa.

    Learning lessons from the war in Ukraine, many countries invested heavily in renewable energy and/or increased domestic oil production as a way to decrease dependency on foreign fossil fuels. But few took the same approach to reimagining domestic food systems and their food sovereignty.

    Agroecology as an alternative

    There is another way. Governments can adopt policy frameworks to encourage reductions in synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, especially in regions that currently massively overuse nitrogen fertilizer. At the African Union fertilizer and Soil Health Summit in 2024, African leaders at least agreed that organic fertilizers should be subsidized as well, not only mineral fertilizers, but we can go farther in actively promoting agricultural pathways that reduce fossil fuel dependency. 

    In 2024, the Global Alliance organized dozens of philanthropies to call for a tenfold increase in investments to help farmers transition from fossil fuel dependency towards agroecological approaches that prioritize livelihoods, health, climate, and biodiversity.

    In our research, we detail the huge opportunity to repurpose harmful subsidies currently supporting inputs like synthetic fertilizer and pesticides towards locally-sourced bio-inputs and biofertilizer production. We know this works: There are powerful stories of hope and change from those who have made this transition, despite only receiving a fraction of the financing that industrial agriculture receives, with evidence of benefits from stable incomes and livelihoods to better health and climate outcomes.

    New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

    Inspiring examples abound: G-BIACK in Kenya is training farmers how to produce their own high-quality compost; start-ups like the Evola Company in Cambodia are producing both nutrient-rich organic fertilizer and protein-rich animal feed with black soldier fly farming; Sabon Sake in Ghana is enriching sugarcane bagasse – usually organic waste – with microbial agents and earthworms to turn it into a rich vermicompost.

    These efforts, grounded in ecosystems and tapping nature for soil fertility and to manage pest pressures, are just some of the countless examples around the world, tapping the skill and knowledge of millions of farmers. On a national and global policy level, the Agroecology Coalition, with 480+ members, including governments, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and philanthropic foundations, is supporting a transition toward agroecology, working with natural systems to produce abundant food, boost biodiversity, and foster community well-being.

    Fertilizer industry spins “clean” products

    We must also inoculate ourselves from the fertilizer industry’s public relations spin, which includes promoting the promise that their products can be produced without heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Despite experts debunking the viability of what the industry has dubbed “green hydrogen” or “green or clean ammonia”, the sector still promotes this narrative, arguing that these are produced with resource-intensive renewable energy or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a costly and unreliable technology for reducing emissions.

    As we mourn this conflict’s senseless destruction and death, including hundreds of children, we also recognize that peace cannot mean a return to business-as-usual. We need to upend the systems that allow the richest and most powerful to have dominion over so much.

    This includes fighting for a food system that is based on genuine sovereignty and justice, free from dependency on fossil fuels, one that honors natural systems and puts power into the hands of communities and food producers themselves.

    The post Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Published

    on

    Parts of the Southern and Northeastern U.S. faced tornado threats this week. Scientists are trying to parse out the climate links in changing tornado activity.

    It’s been a weird few weeks for weather across the United States.

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com