Latest news with #climatecommitments
ABC News
7 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
PM defends North West Shelf gas extension to 2070, as critics warn about net zero commitment
The prime minister has defended a decision to allow Australia's largest gas project to run until 2070 as necessary to ensuring stable power supply with coal plants due to close in a matter of years. Environment Minister Murray Watt gave provisional approval for Woodside's North West Shelf to operate for another 40 years, extending its environmental approval beyond the previous end date of 2030. It has prompted a furious reaction from environmental groups who say it will lead to higher emissions and threaten Australia's climate commitments. Consideration of projects under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act does not allow the minister to consider the climate impacts of a project. Speaking on ABC Brisbane, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on the whole the government was still progressing its aim to cut emissions by 43 per cent by the end of this decade. "When we look at the overall issue, if you take a step back, we are already more than halfway to delivering on our commitment of 82 per cent renewables by 2030, we're up to 46 per cent as we're speaking here now," he said. "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. 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." The approval given to Woodside allows it to operate until 2070, but the company could decide to close the plant sooner — and it will remain subject to increasingly stringent requirements to cut emissions over time, or face penalties. However while the approval is not an expansion of the North West Shelf's footprint, it does open the door to future expansion. Celebrating yesterday's approval, Woodside chief executive Meg O'Neill said the company was eyeing a new gas field in the region, Browse, for which a project proposal is already under consideration by the government. "Browse of course is important, particularly in the 2030s and '40s for domestic gas and energy security in Western Australia," she said. "We will continue to work with the state's [Environment Protection Agency ... and Commonwealth environment department on those Browse approvals." Woodside has proposed developing 50 production wells in the Browse basin, which would be connected to the North West Shelf processing plant in Karratha through a 900 kilometre pipeline. Like the NWS proposal given approval yesterday, it has sat under assessment for six years. Greens leader Larissa Waters said the NWS proposal, which was twice-delayed before the election, had been pushed back for political reasons. "This is a dangerous decision. And how cynical that they postpone this decision until after the election, knowing full well that people would be horrified that they have approved fossil fuels out to 2070," Senator Waters said. While the Greens say the new Environment Minister Murray Watt has "failed at the first hurdle" in his first major decision in that portfolio, there remains an optimism that this term of government will see progress on environmental reform, particularly to the ageing EPBC Act. Independent MP Allegra Spender told Sky News the NWS approval proved the laws were not working. "We know that we have to get to net zero by 2050, this is four decades of go-ahead on gas, and there's no accounting for the impact of climate change on the environment when this decision was made," Ms Spender said. "Our environmental laws don't take account of climate change ... it sends very mixed messages to say we're committed to net zero, we're committed to real climate action but let's approve this for the next 40 years, well beyond the timeline of net zero." Meanwhile, the Coalition is reviewing its own commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, a promise it signed up to in late 2021 under former prime minister Scott Morrison. Nationals deputy leader Kevin Hogan said he and his party would approach that review with an open mind. "We haven't had a serious discussion about this for four or five years. We will look at it, we're going to do a study into it, the economic ramifications, new technologies, what we maybe can look at that we haven't looked at as solutions before," Mr Hogan said. A handful of major countries have not adopted net zero emissions targets by 2050 including Iran and Indonesia. China and Russia have committed to net zero emissions by 2060, though a number of others with 2050 targets are not on track to meet them. The only countries that have not ratified the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius are Iran, Libya and Yemen, though United States President Donald Trump has also announced his intention to again withdraw from the agreement.
Irish Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Ireland's energy and climate plan far from sufficient, EU Commission finds
Ireland's current National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) remains far from sufficient to meet its climate commitments, an assessment by the European Commission has found. Although investment needs of €119 billion - €125 billion are outlined in the plan, 'there is no explanation of how this will be funded or whether a financing gap exists', it concludes. Ireland remains off course for its 2030 climate targets , with its NECP projecting a 25.4 per cent emissions reduction, well below the legally binding 42 per cent target under the EU's key 'effort-sharing regulation'. This sets national climate targets for emissions in road transport, buildings, agriculture, waste and small industries. The NECP outlines each EU member state's strategy to meet its climate and energy targets for 2030, including emissions reductions, renewable energy deployment and energy efficiency. READ MORE The commission's assessment evaluates whether these plans are sufficient and credible, offering guidance on gaps, shortcomings and areas for improvement. It plays a critical role in holding governments accountable and ensuring collective progress toward EU climate goals. Its assessment was released on Wednesday, the same day the Environmental Protection Agency published updated emissions projections for achieving Ireland's 2030 climate targets – 'which together offer a stark and urgent warning about the widening gap between Ireland's climate commitments and actual delivery', according to Environmental Justice Network Ireland (EJNI). [ Ireland's emissions trend 'alarming and shocking, with actions reset required' Opens in new window ] Ireland is projected to achieve a reduction of just 23 per cent in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared with a national target of 51 per cent. EJNI director Dr Ciara Brennan said: 'This is another clear signal that Ireland's climate plans are not on track. The commission's assessment confirms what Irish civil society has been saying for some time. Ireland is still far from meeting its 2030 climate and energy targets, and its NECP has missed a critical opportunity to make necessary course corrections.' The commission noted Ireland's renewable energy target was raised, but short-term delivery lags. 'While the 2030 target was increased to 43 per cent, interim milestones for 2025 and 2027 fall short.' The plan lacks specific targets for buildings and district heating, 'with many measures relying on speculative technologies and unclear timelines', it finds. Agriculture measures, it says, fall short on ambition and feasibility. 'The plan leans heavily on technologies still in development and lacks incentives for uptake. Crucially, it avoids deeper reforms such as reducing dairy herd size or diversifying agricultural systems.' Land-use emissions are rising, with Ireland projected to miss its target by 1.36 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. 'The plan lacks robust monitoring and credible data, undermining the reliability of projected [carbon] removals,' the commission concludes. The Government is criticised for having no clear plan to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Its assessment may not compel an immediate revision of the NECP, but reinforces legal concerns already raised by EJNI and others, Dr Brennan said. The persistent delivery gaps, especially in agriculture, energy efficiency and land use, leave the Government exposed to potential infringement procedures, she warned. The findings have consequences for Ireland's social climate plan, due by June 30th, which must be consistent with the NECP to unlock EU funding. In November 2024, EJNI joined a coalition of NGOs from other EU states to call on the commission to take legal action against what they identified as noncompliance EU laws in the updating of NECPs. The action highlighted widespread deficiencies in NECPs from France, Ireland, Germany, Italy and Sweden. Why is Ireland so far off its climate targets? Listen | 21:07
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Shell suffers investor revolt over gas production impact on climate plans
Shell was dealt a bloody nose by shareholders calling for more transparency over how increasing gas production aligns with its climate commitments. The oil major saw 20.56% of votes supporting a resolution put forward by shareholders at its annual general meeting (AGM) held near Heathrow Airport on Tuesday. The proposal called for the board to disclose whether and how its liquified natural gas (LNG) demand forecast, production and sales targets are consistent with its climate targets. While not legally binding, support for shareholder resolutions can put pressure on business leaders to respond to the matters raised, and more than 20% of dissent against the board can be considered a rebellion. Responding to the results, Shell said the board will meet its obligation to explain what actions it will take to consult with shareholders to understand the reasons why just over a fifth supported the resolution. In his opening address, chair Sir Andrew Mackenzie defended Shell's recent shift of focus back towards fossil fuels. 'Shell believes the world needs more liquified natural gas to replace coal in Asia for energy security, and to complement and enable renewables,' he said. 'So we expect LNG will play a critical role in the transition.' Sir Andrew also argued that Shell expects all demand to stay strong for the 'foreseeable future', meaning continued investment in fossil fuels will be needed. 'Let's be clear, no business can operate outside the rules of supply and demand. 'So for the energy transition to succeed, there must also be demand for low carbon options from customers who are willing and able to pay for it.' During the nearly three-hour meeting, the board was repeatedly challenged about its impact on the planet and commitment to cutting emissions to zero overall by 2050 – known as net zero. Asked whether Shell would meet the demands of the shareholder resolution, chief executive Wael Sawan said: 'There is not a company that discloses more or better information on LNG than Shell.' Mr Sawan then made a plea to shareholders not to support 'these sorts of resolutions'. 'What they are undermining is the ability of the board that you have elected to be able to drive the strategy of the company to do their job,' he said. 'Challenging and providing input is very welcome but let's have those engagements and not do it through the resolutions.' The resolution was co-filed by Brunel Pension Partnership, Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Merseyside Pension Fund and the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) with the support of activist group ShareAction and more than 100 individual investors. Responding to the voting results, Jackie Garton, senior corporate climate campaign manager at ShareAction, said: 'Today's vote sends a strong message that shareholders will not sit back as Shell doubles down on growing its liquified natural gas production despite its own stated climate commitments. 'It's worrying that instead of addressing their concerns, Shell repeatedly shifted the blame for their oil and gas production growth plans onto consumers during its annual general meeting.' Mark van Baal, from activist group Follow This, which did not file its usual climate resolution this year, said: 'Today's AGM demonstrates that more and more shareholders do not accept that the board puts the future of the company at risk by stubbornly sticking to a century old business model that risks being disrupted within five years.' In a statement, Mr Sawan said: 'Shell's shareholders have strongly backed our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions as outlined at Shell's Capital Markets Day 2025. 'Our focus on performance, discipline and simplification enables us to invest in providing the energy the world needs today, and in helping to build the low-carbon energy system of the future.' As the meeting was taking place at a hotel near Heathrow, protesters believed they were unable to stage an action outside because of a High Court injunction prohibiting environmental demonstrations at the airport. Activists from campaign groups Amnesty International UK, Fossil Free London, and the Justice 4 Nigeria coalition instead held a protest outside Shell's global headquarters in central London. Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, called the effect of such injunctions in protecting firms such as Shell from protests as 'chilling'. Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, which supported the protest, accused the firm of 'hiding' behind the injunction to 'shut down legitimate questions about its operations'. A spokesperson for Shell denied that the location had been chosen due to the injunction and that it chose the location 'purely based on availability'. In a statement on its website, Heathrow Airport also said: 'For the avoidance of doubt, Heathrow Airport Limited does not consider that the terms of the injunction have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the lawful attendance of any shareholder at the Shell AGM.'
E&E News
16-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
House Democrats slam banks over climate commitments
Dozens of House Democrats hammered a group of financial institutions Thursday for shifting their climate commitments since President Donald Trump took office. Forty-one lawmakers cited their concerns in a letter to 12 financial behemoths, including Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. The Democrats slammed the groups for withdrawing from coalitions committed to emissions reductions, such as the Net Zero Banking Alliance and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. Advertisement The letter was led by Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Sean Casten (D-Ill.), the ranking and vice ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. They accused the banks of caving to pressure from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.
The Guardian
10-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Fixing England's water isn't just the right thing to do – it can be the start of Labour's fightback
In the wake of a brutal set of local election results, MPs from across the Labour party are trying to establish what went wrong. To me, it's very clear that this was no fluke: it was the entirely foreseeable outcome of my party's approach to Reform UK. And as the party moves forward and prepares to face Reform at future elections, it's key that we learn the right lessons. From flip-flopping on climate commitments to framing disabled people as part of the undeserving poor, Labour thus far hasn't challenged Reform's worldview – it has legitimatised it. However, there are some perhaps surprising areas where Labour isn't copying Reform: public ownership of water for one. While keen to outbid them on immigration, we seem remarkably reluctant to do the same for the ownership of water, despite high levels of support for such a policy. The Reform party – never one to let principle get in the way of populism – has now reinvented itself as a champion of public infrastructure, with a plan that would see the government and British pension funds owning the companies that supply water and energy. That's the playbook of rightwing populists: ideological coherence is optional. If it polls well, claim it. Public anger is hardly a surprise. Private water companies have drained the system dry. Since privatisation, they've paid billions in dividends to shareholders while piling up debt, polluting rivers and neglecting infrastructure. Sewage spills into our waterways have become routine. Reservoirs have been sold off. Executive pay has soared. And still, prices rise for the rest of us. Regulators – supposed sentinels of public interest – have acted more like apologists. As issues go, this could have been written for Reform. The state of English water taps into something deep – something visceral. It has become a symbol of a rigged economy, a failed regulatory state and a political class that either can't or won't fix what it broke. In the eyes of many, the system is rotten, the profiteers are protected, and no one in power is willing to take them on. And yet Reform is part of the same neoliberal project that caused and benefits from this 40-year malaise. Behind both the party and the private ownership of water companies are the same types of forces that have turned life's essentials – housing, energy, water – into speculative gambling chips, where the house always wins and the public always loses. Labour should be contesting this ground by relentlessly pummelling their hypocrisy, and blaming the Tories for being the architects of it all, while offering a real alternative. It's an open goal, with the public crying out for the bold change promised in our manifesto. What they got instead was the Water (Special Measures) Act – a measure as underwhelming as its name. Touted as a landmark intervention, in truth it landed with all the heft of a damp sponge. Feargal Sharkey, the rock star turned river-activist and de facto conscience of the nation's waterways, dismissed it as a missed opportunity for leadership. 'Nothing but playground politics masquerading as policy,' he wrote. 'Since when has rearranging the deckchairs, regurgitating an existing, failed 30-year-old bit of legislation been seen as progress?' As Thames Water teeters on the edge of collapse – under the weight of its own reckless finance model – the government had another chance to act. To rewrite the rules of the game. But again, it flinched. Instead of a public conversation about reclaiming essential infrastructure, we got another review. This one is led by Sir John Cunliffe, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England whose career suggests he is at home with the idea that the economy should be run in the interests of 'wealth creators': banks, private equity, financial speculators – the very orthodoxy that created this mess. Crucially, public ownership was ruled out before the review had even begun. This was no accident. It was a calculated abdication – a decision to preserve the financial status quo rather than challenge it and surrender to market dogma, corporate extractionism and price-gouging. By ruling it out, the government signals that it's more comfortable tweaking the edges than challenging the system that caused the crisis in the first place. And when that system appears to include collusion with private water companies and cosy ties with foreign investment companies like BlackRock, it's no wonder people feel shut out. No wonder Reform voters feel justified in denouncing Labour as just another establishment party protecting the powerful from the people. What other conclusion is there when Labour is overseeing a continuation of the same technocratic politics that got us here? Where government appears to manage only in the interests of the wealthy, financial giants and corporations. For how else does a Labour government conclude that pensioners and disabled people should be sacrificed to preserve a fiscal rule created to ensure the maintenance of wealth for those who already have it? Labour must reconnect with the understanding that the public are not cogs for the benefit of an abstract economy. They are the economy. Until we remember this, our current approach is not just bad strategy – it's bad for democracy. Because when voters see politicians working closely with the same kinds of firms that crashed the economy or cashed in during the pandemic, trust collapses. And without bold, people-first, democracy deepening ideas, Labour risks becoming part of the problem it promised to fix. Four years out from the next general election, there still remains a clear path forward. Labour must rediscover its courage and reorient itself around economic democracy – public ownership that listens, responds, and empowers communities. The evidence is overwhelming that voters seek meaningful change, not more of the same dressed in the language of pragmatism. The alternative, as the local election results underline starkly, is continuing electoral punishment from an electorate weary of unmet promises and compromised principles. If Labour truly wishes to deliver on its promise of national renewal, it must abandon the hollow rhetoric of 'tough choices' and embrace genuinely transformative ones – starting with water. This means more than just traditional renationalisation: we need public ownership where workers, customers and the new devolved strategic authorities own and run the service, and a citizens' assembly, giving the public a real say on the shape and structure of English water in the future. Because Nigel Farage offers people an agenda of fake reform. If Labour wants to beat him, it must offer the real thing. Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South
