Latest news with #MurujugaAboriginalCorporation
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Science
- Sydney Morning Herald
Rock art expert breaks silence over Burrup emissions study controversy
A leading statistician on an emissions study into an ancient West Australian rock art site has spoken supporting an 800-page report, days after blasting WA bureaucrats for 'unacceptable interference' by altering a graph in a separate summary of that report. The report on monitoring of industrial emissions near the site on the Burrup Peninsula in the state's north-west was released last Friday, and lauded by industry and the Cook government as proof that modern industrial emissions were not currently impacting the ancient petroglyph images carved into the site's striking rock landforms. That conclusion was rubbished by world-renowned rock art expert Ben Smith, who said the 800-page report showed the opposite. The Murujuga rock art monitoring program is a $27 million joint effort between Curtin University scientists, Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. Its release came days before Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt approved a 40-year extension to the life of Woodside's North West Shelf assets – among which are a gas plant releasing some of the emissions being monitored. The report was published alongside an eight-page summary featuring graphs showing benchmark levels for acceptable pollution on the Burrup. The ABC reported Curtin University Emeritus Professor Adrian Baddeley, who was the report's chief statistician, complained in an email to DWER on Tuesday that one of those graphs had been altered on the summary. The alteration removed a line showed in the main report, showing an early warning threshold of pollution on the Burrup. Baddeley, who told a pro-Palestine rally at Curtin last May universities had become 'more corporate, much more authoritarian, much more coercive' wrote to the government department:
The Age
4 days ago
- Science
- The Age
Rock art expert breaks silence over Burrup emissions study controversy
A leading statistician on an emissions study into an ancient West Australian rock art site has spoken supporting an 800-page report, days after blasting WA bureaucrats for 'unacceptable interference' by altering a graph in a separate summary of that report. The report on monitoring of industrial emissions near the site on the Burrup Peninsula in the state's north-west was released last Friday, and lauded by industry and the Cook government as proof that modern industrial emissions were not currently impacting the ancient petroglyph images carved into the site's striking rock landforms. That conclusion was rubbished by world-renowned rock art expert Ben Smith, who said the 800-page report showed the opposite. The Murujuga rock art monitoring program is a $27 million joint effort between Curtin University scientists, Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. Its release came days before Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt approved a 40-year extension to the life of Woodside's North West Shelf assets – among which are a gas plant releasing some of the emissions being monitored. The report was published alongside an eight-page summary featuring graphs showing benchmark levels for acceptable pollution on the Burrup. The ABC reported Curtin University Emeritus Professor Adrian Baddeley, who was the report's chief statistician, complained in an email to DWER on Tuesday that one of those graphs had been altered on the summary. The alteration removed a line showed in the main report, showing an early warning threshold of pollution on the Burrup. Baddeley, who told a pro-Palestine rally at Curtin last May universities had become 'more corporate, much more authoritarian, much more coercive' wrote to the government department:
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Approval of Woodside LNG project gambles with ancient heritage for short-term gain
We don't know all the evidence that the new environment minister, Murray Watt, had before him when he decided to approve a 40-year life extension to one of Australia's biggest fossil fuel developments so that it could run until 2070. But we do know this. The decision largely turned on whether the North West Shelf liquefied natural gas (LNG) development on the Pilbara's Burrup Hub can coexist for decades into the future with an incredible collection of ancient Murujuga rock art, some of it nearly 50,000 years old and unlike anything else on the planet. And there is enough evidence in the public domain for people to have, at best, serious doubts. A summary of a rock art monitoring report compiled last year – but only released by the unwaveringly pro-gas Western Australian Labor government last Friday afternoon – acknowledged that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide had damaged the rock types on which the art is etched. Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as an email But it said this was OK. It concluded that this problem peaked in the 1970s – a time when there was far less industrial activity in the region than today. There was no LNG export industry, and therefore not one of the world's largest LNG processing facilities. But there was a relatively small gas power plant. The WA government summary – backed by the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation – suggested this was likely the major cause of the problem, and that pollutant levels have declined over the past decade. The scientific report behind the summary was 800 pages long and it took some time for people to digest it. Once they had, concerns were raised. Benjamin Smith, an archaeology professor at the University of Western Australia, said data in the report suggested local acidic pollution was actually four times higher now than when Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser were running the country. He claimed scientists who worked on the report were being gagged so they couldn't raise their concerns about how their data was being interpreted. Not long after, the ABC released details of an email complaint from Adrian Baddeley, the chief statistician who worked on the rock art monitoring, accusing WA government officials of removing some information from a graph in the summary, and adding a claim that current pollution levels are 'lower than the interim guideline levels'. Baddeley said the five monitoring sites closest to industrial development were experiencing pollution levels above a guideline level, and claimed there was 'unacceptable interference in the scientific integrity of the project'. The WA premier, Roger Cook, told the ABC's Radio National that some scientists were engaging in a 'political frolic'. 'We have to strip away the background noise and rely upon the reports to make good decisions on behalf of the people of Western Australia,' he said. This came to light on Wednesday, shortly before Watt announced his decision. Sign up to Clear Air Australia Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis after newsletter promotion Watt could have taken time to absorb this. There was nothing forcing him to rush into an announcement. Even Cook – an assertive backer of Woodside's plans – had said just hours earlier that the minister should move quickly but not make a 'hurried decision'. Watt chose to move just as a significant cloud enshrouded a key piece of evidence. People will draw their own conclusions about whether it is a coincidence that the announcement came at a busy news time, when focus was on the reunited Coalition and shortly before the rugby league State of Origin series consumed the attention of millions of people in Queensland and New South Wales. But let's put it this way: if you wanted to avoid accusations of politically motivated cynicism, you wouldn't have dropped it on Wednesday afternoon. Two things seem clear. The first is that the precautionary principle – long meant to be a guiding light in environmental decisions – is hard to see here. Whatever the weight of evidence about what amount of pollution is sustainable, and for what period, we know emissions have degraded the rock. We are gambling with a place of extraordinary cultural heritage for the sake of short-term interests. A draft decision by Unesco, revealed on Wednesday, that industrial activity makes a world-heritage listing for the Murujuga cultural landscape unlikely only underlines that point. The second is that it will almost certainly face legal challenges. Raelene Cooper, a Mardathoonera woman and former chair of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, flagged this in a blunt media statement that told the government she would see them in court. These issues would be enough to raise concerns about the decision – but there is also the not insignificant issue of the huge greenhouse gas emissions that will result. For several years, the North West Shelf was the biggest polluting site within Australia, and it still sits in the leading pack of emitters. Much, much more pollution is released once the LNG is shipped and burned overseas. It is often tagged as a 'carbon bomb'. Some see this as an easy pejorative term used by activists. Maybe. But it is hard to dispute based on the numbers. There are complicated and contested arguments about whether stopping production at the North West Shelf would reduce global emissions – and whether that should be the point. But no one committed to meeting the goals of the Paris climate agreement, and limiting surging global heating, can seriously argue it should be operating until 2070, as Watt has approved. It makes no sense that the environment minister does not have to consider this atmospheric carbon footprint before approving a major fossil fuel development such as the North West Shelf under national environment law. Emissions hurt the environment. People know this. The law should reflect that reality.
ABC News
6 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Scientist expresses concern WA government department interfered with rock art report linked to North West Shelf approval process
A leading scientist has expressed "grave concern" about "unacceptable interference" in a major study of the impacts of industrial emissions on ancient Aboriginal rock carvings in a complaint obtained by the ABC. On Friday, the West Australian government released the long-awaited results from its ongoing Rock Art Monitoring Program, which is studying petroglyphs on the Burrup Peninsula, or Murujuga, near Karratha in WA's north. The five-year study is trying to determine whether industrial pollution has degraded Indigenous rock carvings thought to be 40,000 years old. The $27 million rock art monitoring project is being led by the WA government in collaboration with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, using experts from Curtin University. The latest results have been considered by federal Environment Minister Murray Watt, as part of his soon-to-be-released ruling on whether to approve a 45-year licence extension of Woodside's North West Shelf LNG facilities on the Burrup Peninsula. The 800-page second-year monitoring report was completed last year but was not made public until Friday afternoon, alongside a summary document that highlighted some key findings. In an email obtained by the ABC, the report's chief statistician, Emeritus Professor Adrian Baddeley, wrote to staff from WA's Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) on Tuesday afternoon to outline his concerns about the way one of the graphs in the scientific paper had been handled. The goal of the five-year study is to establish acceptable and unacceptable emissions standards to help protect the rock art, so the WA government can set air quality monitoring standards to regulate industry. Professor Baddeley, one of the report's lead authors, is a member of the Australian Academy of Science, which represents the nation's most distinguished scientists. His complaint email focused specifically on a graph that he claimed DWER had asked to be altered for its summary report, against his wishes. The graph in question included benchmarks for acceptable levels of pollution, with two lower guideline levels serving as "early warning" indicators, and a higher standard level that is the "threshold at which there is a risk of unacceptable change in rock art condition". In his complaint letter, Professor Baddeley said the graph prepared by Curtin University scientists had included two early warning indicator lines, but one of them — a green line, which presented a lower threshold — had been deleted from the summary document. "In early April, in preparation for these publications, DWER requested that Curtin provide a version of the figure with the green dashed line removed," Professor Baddeley wrote in his email. "I formally declined this request as chief statistician, with reasons given, in a message relayed to DWER by the statistical team. "It appears that, sometime after this correspondence, in my absence, Curtin staff were prevailed upon to delete the green line, in direct contravention of my decision. In his email, Professor Baddeley said the summary document had incorrectly stated that: "The research indicates that the current levels of the pollutants of most concern for the rock art are lower than the interim guideline levels". "If the green-aqua dashed line were reinstated, it would show that five of the monitoring sites were experiencing pollutant levels above the interim guideline, and again these are the five sites closest to industry," he wrote. On Tuesday afternoon, WA Greens MLC Jess Beckerling used Question Time in parliament to ask the WA government to explain the discrepancy between the two graphs. "Who made the decision to remove the [green] line from the […] summary document," Ms Beckerling asked. Environment Minister Matthew Swinbourn responded by saying the research summary document was drafted by DWER with input from Curtin University and Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation. "The graph in the summary document was simplified to focus on the interim guideline Environmental Quality Criteria (EQC) that was recommended by Curtin in its Interim EQC Report," he said. One of the report's key findings was that the upper layer of the most common rock in the area had elevated porosity — or degradation — in samples taken from areas closer to Dampier, which has been home to industrial operations since the 1960s. The paper stated that it appeared that historic emissions from the former Dampier Power Station, which retired in the 1980s, were likely to be the major contributor to elevated porosity. Speaking to 7.30 on the condition of anonymity, a senior scientist involved in the ongoing monitoring program said that there was disappointment among the research team about how the report's findings had been spun. "It's annoying that there are a lot of euphemisms being rolled out to kind of relativise or minimise the conclusions," they said. On Monday, WA Premier Roger Cook said the second year Rock Art Monitoring Report should provide the community with confidence that current industrial processes on the Burrup have "not had an impact in relation to the rock art". "What it did point to was some industrial processing, I think it was a power generator that was placed there in the 1970s, which may have had an impact in relation to the porosity of some of the rock arts," Mr Cook said. "But it's very pleasing that no ongoing impact as a result of that industrial activity." The scientist said they were "dismayed" at the WA premier's comments. "I completely disagreed with every sentence," they said. On Monday, 7.30 wrote an email to Curtin University's Professor Ben Mullins, the program research lead, asking him to clarify if the premier's comments stating that the report had found "no ongoing impact as a result of industrial activity" were accurate. He did not respond in time for this story's publication. At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Cook doubled down on his previous remarks. "The science has said that modern industrial developments do not have a long-term impact in terms of the quality of the rock art," he said. The scientist who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report's most important findings were that rocks closest to industry had elevated porosity. "That's not a demonstration that pollution is observed to be harming rocks in the field but we cannot find any other explanation," they said. They said some of the scientists were "pretty upset" that the message coming from the government was "almost the opposite of that". "We're talking about what is probably the cumulative effect of decades of pollution," they said. "There is this, terminological or verbal gymnastics about whether it all happened in the past and is no longer happening. "It may not be happening at the same rate. The general amount of pollution could now be less than it was, and the rate of degradation could be lower. "But there's no reason to conclude that it has stopped." They said the scientists were not allowed to speak to media as a condition of their contracts but told 7.30 they felt compelled to speak out. "We have instincts about academic freedom, about the need to protect the truth," they said. "If you're a scientist, you make a lifelong commitment to the truth, to finding the truth [and] respecting the truth. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr Swinbourn told parliament the Rock Art Monitoring Program was "the most comprehensive and robust scientific study of its kind in the world". "The monitoring program has not observed damage to rock art," Mr Swinbourn said. "However, higher levels of porosity — which are microscopic gaps in the rock surface — have been observed in granophyre rocks near Dampier. "Increased porosity would make the rock art more prone to change over time. "The report finds this is likely due to emissions in the 1970s and 80s, which were two to three times higher than today. "Further work will be undertaken to investigate this finding." Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
West Australian
7 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
‘Lies:' A UWA professor accuses the WA Government of lying about the impact of industrial emissions on Aboriginal rock art
The Western Australian government has been accused of lying in the summary of a report about the impact of industrial pollution on Aboriginal rock art in the Pilbara to support an extension to Woodside's North West Shelf gas plant. UWA professor of archaeology Benjamin Smith said he had blown the whistle on the summary of an 800 page report released by the WA government late last week examining the impact of industrial emissions on Murujuga rock art. The Cook government has denied the allegation. The report was produced by the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and scientists from Curtin University, which the professor claims were gagged from commenting on its findings. Professor Smith has studied the impact of pollutants on rock art for the past six years and claims the WA government covered up evidence that industrial pollutants have degraded rock art and misrepresented findings in the report. 'This report contains very serious evidence that industrial emissions are currently damaging the rock art of Murujuga,' he said. Professor Smith said experiments showed rocks at Murujuga were damaged by industrial pollutants at accelerating elevated porosity, which meant they looked liked Swiss cheese under a microscope, rather than hard, even surfaces. He said the government tried to blame elevated porosity on a Dampier power plant that operated in the 1970s and 1980s that produced 4000 tonnes of pollution, but current emissions from industry were now five times higher. 'That means current emissions are five times more serious, we have five times the level of destruction of Murujuga rock art than we had in the 1970s and 80s, according to the Murujuga rock art report,' he said. A state government spokesman denied the allegations saying the claims were offensive and factually incorrect. The premier told media at a press conference the science has said that modern industrial developments do not have a long-term impact in terms of the quality of the rock art. 'There was one incident back in the 1970s associated with an old generation power plant, that is what people have pointed to as being the most damaging period during the age of the rock art.' Professor Smith tore up a copy of the summary at a press conference telling media the document was a disgrace and not worth the paper it was written on. 'The minister cannot make a decision on the expansion of the North West Shelf on the basis of this propaganda document,' he said. Woodside has operated the facility for 40 years and have environmental approval to operate the gas plant until 2030, but need government approval to extend operations beyond next decade. The WA government approved Woodside's expansion in December, but the project needs environmental approval from the federal government before it can continue past 2030. Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt is due to make a decision by the end of the month on whether to grant Woodside an extension to continue operating the North West Shelf gas plant until 2070. The North West Shelf is one of the world's biggest producers of liquefied natural gas, environmentalists argue it is one of the biggest polluters of greenhouse gas emissions in the Southern Hemisphere. WA Greens spokesman Sophie McNeil called on Minister Watt to delay making a decision on the North West Shelf extension in the wake of these 'shocking revelations.' 'There is a clear discrepancy between the findings of the 800 page report and of the summary, which we know was written by department officials,' she said. 'We have serious concerns about the ability of the minister to make this decision in this short period of time, because that report is incredibly technical reading.' Mr Watt declined to comment.
