3 days ago
Australia just approved Woodside's gas project until 2070. How could it happen?
Some weeks more than others, climate change really bears down on Australians.
This week, the news carried images of eerie orange skies as dust storms whipped across landscapes dried from record-breaking droughts. Further north, homes were submerged in floods exacerbated by heavier rain from a warmer climate.
And also this week, the Australian government approved the extension of one of the world's largest gas facilities until 2070.
But this decision isn't about climate change.
At least not under Australia's current laws, where the climate harm from fossil fuel projects doesn't have to be considered.
How can Australia approve a fossil fuel mega-project that will run until 20 years after the world is meant to reach net zero emissions?
"I think the average punter out there is basically saying, 'Hang on, this is about climate change and 2070, what are we doing? What in the hell are we doing?'" lamented Greg Bourne from the Climate Council.
Environment Minister Murray Watt's first major decision in the new role was to give the green light for Woodside's North West Shelf gas plant to continue operating until 2070.
The North West Shelf is already Australia's third-highest emitting facility in the country, producing about 6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas each year.
That's just the direct emissions from extracting and processing the gas and doesn't count emissions after the gas is sold, shipped, and burnt at its final destination.
Some estimates put the total lifetime emissions from this project at the equivalent of a decade of Australia's current emissions.
A decade. Think of it as pushing out Australia's climate goals by another 10 years.
When asked about the decision this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claimed the gas was needed to boost Western Australia's renewables, with 15 per cent of the gas earmarked for the local market.
Without the extension, the North West Shelf was due to close in 2030.
"In order to get that investment in renewables, you do need firming capacity, whether it be batteries, hydro, or gas, and that is what will encourage that investment and the transition to occur," Mr Albanese said.
"In Western Australia, they are closing their last coal-fired power station at Collie in 2027. They are moving to renewables backed by gas, and that will be a really important part of the transition that will occur."
But Mr Bourne said the decision would "haunt" the government.
Before working at the Climate Council, he worked for decades in the gas industry in Western Australia and internationally, including at the North West Shelf.
"We've been talking about net zero by 2050, that number is in people's heads," he said.
It's not just climate experts warning that the world needs to stop expanding fossil fuels: the International Energy Agency says there is enough existing coal, oil, and gas projects to supply the world and stay the course to net zero.
"The world is awash in gas, primarily coming out from the Middle East, but lots coming out from America and so on like that. I think our Australian companies fool themselves into thinking that they're going to be the last company standing, pushing gas out there," Mr Bourne said.
The Albanese government is focused on driving renewable investments to bring down emissions, but at the same time, the country's climate plans don't include emissions from our fossil fuel exports.
Woodside Energy welcomed the news this week, emphasising the important role gas played in Western Australia and its heavy industry.
"This proposed approval will secure the ongoing operation of the North West Shelf and the thousands of direct and indirect jobs that it supports," Woodside's statement read.
Currently, the environment minister has veto power over major projects if they would impact "matters of national environmental significance", such as protected plants, animals, and ecosystems.
In the case of the North West Shelf, the minister considered the impact on cultural heritage relating to the ancient rock art of Murujuga.
But under these laws, in the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, climate change is not a deciding factor.
"The fact that our environment laws do not address the harms caused by climate change from coal and gas extraction is a really dangerous loophole," said Julia Dehm, an associate professor in the law school at La Trobe University and climate law expert.
"There's long been calls for reform of the EPBC act to include a climate trigger."
This concept was actually proposed back in 2005 by Mr Albanese, who, as shadow environment minister, wanted to fix this "glaring gap" in the laws.
"The climate change trigger will enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact," he told parliament in 2005.
"Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing the global community and one of the greatest threats to Australia's way of life.
"It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end … We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue."
Twenty years later, Australia has not closed that gap and the Albanese government just approved the type of project that he was targeting back in 2005.
The minister isn't completely hamstrung and under the current laws, could still opt to consider the climate consequences from the project.
According to Liz Hicks, a lecturer at the Melbourne Law School and former Greens candidate, the EPBC gives the minister significant leeway when making decisions.
"It was enacted during the Howard era," Dr Hicks explained, "the act was designed to make these considerations very political and confer enormous discretion on the minister".
Under the act, Mr Watt is required to consider economic and social matters of projects, which could include the well-documented evidence of how climate change is affecting Australian society.
An explicit climate trigger, however, would mean the minister was required to weigh up the climate impacts.
"The climate trigger would have a lot of advantages … they would have to think about those climate factors, which we know are probably going to be some of the biggest factors," Dr Hicks said.
The federal government proposed changes to these laws in its last term in office, but the proposals were shelved after pushback from the industry and the West Australian government. Those changes did not include a climate trigger.
Instead, environmental groups have been trying in the courts to force the environment minister to consider climate impacts associated with major-polluting projects.
Last year, the Environmental Council of Central Queensland argued in the Federal Court that all of the important environmental sites under the minister's protection are affected by climate change, and coal and gas projects will add to that damage.
The court ultimately rejected the appeal, but in its decision, the justices noted the "ill-suitedness" of the current scheme when assessing climate change.
Another flaw that comes with the system is that projects are assessed individually; even in the case of the North West Shelf, the proposal for the drilling of the gas to supply the plant into the future is considered separately.
"Because it's the product of cumulative impacts of all projects in multiple jurisdictions around the world, everyone's trying to hide behind that abrogation of responsibility.
"We can no longer hide behind the impact that each project is small because we know that each project has a significant impact and it's a cumulative impact of all these projects that have led to what is a really dangerous climate situation."
Australia does have a way to regulate emissions from projects once they're up and running.
Some emissions from the North West Shelf will continue to be monitored under Australia's national climate policy, the safeguard mechanism, which sets an annual limit for each facility's emissions that gradually decreases over time.
Currently, the gas plant is the third-largest emitter in the country and last year relied on buying offsets to reach its targets set under the scheme.
But the safeguard mechanism doesn't deal with the majority of emissions from fossil fuel projects, which come after the gas is sold and consumed at its endpoint, known as scope 3 emissions.
"Australia's biggest impact is our scope 3 emissions, and they're completely left out of that framework for reduction, and that's really the big gap in Australian environmental law," Dr Hicks said.
"Our export footprint is significantly larger than our domestic emissions. And this really needs to be recognised as part of our sphere of responsibility."
This decision has not gone unnoticed internationally, especially with Australia vying to host next year's UN climate conference.
Already, the news was lamented by Pacific leaders, who are on the existential frontlines of a hotter world.
The Climate Council's Mr Bourne believes it will hurt Australia's standing internationally.
"It immediately brought back the image to me of, I think it's the minister of [Tuvalu], who's standing in water up to his waist, pleading with the world's nations to tackle climate change. Our standing, I think it's going to go down in a very big way.
"We are going to have to stop the opening up of new oil and gas fields …They're going to have to take those powers if they want to have any credibility at all."
Monash University's Dr Dehm said this is exactly the opposite direction of where we should be going.
"Approving more coal and gas projects, such as the North West Shelf, really undercuts Australia's climate credentials and presents Australia internationally as not just a climate laggard, but really as a destructive player on climate change."
