
© 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.

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.

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

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.

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
Songs of no denying

The invigorating thing about public speaking is that you never quite know who is in the audience. There’s always a chance, of course, that someone wants to have a bit of a go at you, or maybe there’s an attendee with a particular take on things, who wants to ask one of those ‘questions that is more of a statement’; and then there’s those precious moments when the stars align and a memorable connection is made.
A couple of weeks ago, I’d participated in a panel discussion at an event, and the crowd was beginning to dissipate when a couple of strangers approached me to introduce themselves and say ‘hello’.
It turned out that Helen, Miranda, and I had all been in the same room in April, when each of us was part of the Greenpeace contingent inside Woodside’s 2026 Annual General Meeting in Perth, though we did not meet that day.
AGMs are significant set-piece occasions for companies, at which their corporate leadership wants to project competence and boost investor confidence. But for those of us with other concerns on our minds, an AGM is an opportunity to hold corporate leaders to account.
This year, a significant number of community advocacy groups, including Greenpeace, were present at Woodside’s AGM to challenge the company on its plans to drill for gas around Scott Reef—Australia’s largest freestanding oceanic reef atoll, and host to an incredible array of rare and endangered creatures, including green sea turtles and pygmy blue whales.
My role was to accept a shareholder proxy, suit up, and ask the company’s chair, Richard Goyder, some direct questions about the environmental damage that Woodside’s plans threaten to Scott Reef and the global climate.
Helen and Miranda, though, were present to play a completely different role. ‘We were a bit nervous that day’, Miranda told me. And no wonder, given what they were planning to do.
As new CEO Liz Westcott took the lectern, she was abruptly interrupted by a literally unearthly sound: whale song, playing from a speaker that Greenpeace activists had snuck into the room.
It was an aural haunting of Woodside’s AGM by the ghosts of its business strategy. Westcott opted to try to continue speaking, while security moved among the rows, attempting without success to work out where the sound was coming from.
When the whale track had played through, the relief on the podium felt palpable; but the return to corporate calm was short-lived.
Miranda, Helen, and other small groups of choristers—all evidently talented singers in their own right—began to stand up in small groups to perform a bespoke ‘Save Scott Reef’ variation on an iconic Australian song:
Hands off Scott Reef
Don’t be so Reckless
She don’t like that kind of behaviour…
It is a cliche, but true, to say that bravery comes in many different forms. It demands guts and resolve to stand up in a closed and heavily securitised room, with an unsympathetic audience; and to sing a song of no denying to one of the most powerful corporations in Australia, unaccompanied, from a cold start, with only your voices to fill the cavernous corporate space.
It was a wonderful thing to witness: the moral clarity of the message and the bold cheekiness of the activity; and a profoundly galvanising thing to feel, the indefatigable lifting of the spirit that we experience when we hear human voices rising in harmony and purpose. Miranda, Helen and their mates were brilliant.
Don’t be so Reckless…
As each small group rose in choreographed turn to pick up the song, they were apprehended by security and escorted out, singing to the last, as they were exited from the room.
Already, more than 500,000 people have joined the campaign to stop Woodside from drilling gas at Scott Reef. So when Helen, Miranda and friends stood up to sing, they did so on behalf of more than half a million people.
‘I’d never done anything like that before’, Helen told me, ‘I’d definitely do it again’.
Protest songs are both catalytic and emblematic of dynamic moments of social change. There is beauty, creativity, defiance, camaraderie and love to be found in singing together.
Helen and Miranda, it was great to meet you both. To you and all the other amazing folks who stood up and sang, thank you for your courage, commitment and the power of your voices. Your singing mattered for the half million, for the whales and the other creatures of Scott Reef, and for life in the ocean and on earth itself.
*As anyone of a certain age will probably recognise, the phrase is derived from the Midnight Oil anthem, US Forces.

Q and A

A few people have asked me recently about where the implementation of the national nature law reforms stand? Specifically, It seemed like good news when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) reforms were passed last year, but now it appears that they could be going wrong in the implementation. What’s happening?
We welcomed the Australian parliament’s passing of long-awaited nature law reforms just before Christmas last year as a fulfilment of an election promise, but remained clear-eyed that the proof of these reforms would be in how well they were implemented.
At this stage, the first two draft National Environmental Standards (NES) released by Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt’s department fall well short of what is required to actually protect nature. So things are once again in the balance.
The NES are the rules intended to guide decisions on projects that require assessment under the EPBC Act. They should draw a hard line to protect nature, but instead, the proposed standards are full of loopholes that legal experts warn are inimical to achieving the whole point of the Act–the protection of nature.
Glenn Walker who is Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Head of Nature Program has mapped out the shortcomings of the NES in great detail on our blog. Greenpeace has made is views clear to both the Federal Environment Department and Minister Murray Watt, urging that the NES must be fixed, as have many others.
We are continuing to work closely with other environmental organisations, both to engage closely and to campaign publicly–there is still the opportunity to get this right to achieve the potential of the amended EPBC Act to actually do what it says on the cover–protect the environment.
Climate Change
A Georgia Wildlife Haven Forged by Fire and Peat Nears UNESCO Recognition
The Okefenokee, a vast blackwater swamp, is under consideration for UNESCO World Heritage status, as scientists and advocates point to its rare peatlands, biodiversity and long history of ecological resilience.
FOLKSTON, Ga.—The world’s smallest heron hops from blade to blade in a patch of tall grass, testing its footing above the dark water as it searches for an evening meal.
A Georgia Wildlife Haven Forged by Fire and Peat Nears UNESCO Recognition
Climate Change
Greenpeace Plans to Sue JBS for Its Climate Impacts, Seeks Details About Major Plans in Nigeria
The advocacy group says the lawsuit could open a new legal frontier for pursuing industrial agriculture companies.
The world’s largest meat company is preparing to build a sprawling industrial beef operation in Nigeria—its first on the African continent—but has not revealed details about its plans, prompting a challenge by environmental advocates.
Greenpeace Plans to Sue JBS for Its Climate Impacts, Seeks Details About Major Plans in Nigeria
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
