Climate and rock art advocates take on Woodside’s ‘carbon bomb’ WA gas project in federal court
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Environmental and Indigenous rights groups are challenging the federal court approval of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project extension in Western Australia.
- The project, approved to operate until 2070, is criticized as a 'carbon bomb' expected to release 4 billion tonnes of CO2.
- A UN special rapporteur has been allowed to intervene in the case, highlighting Australia's international climate obligations.
A significant legal battle is unfolding in Australia's federal court as environmental advocates and Indigenous representatives challenge the government's approval of an extension for Woodside's major North West Shelf gas export project. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (Fara) are spearheading concurrent legal challenges against the project's green light, which allows the Karratha gas processing plant to operate until 2070. Critics have labeled the extension a 'carbon bomb,' estimating it could release approximately 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, roughly equivalent to Australia's annual emissions for a decade. The project's proximity to the Murujuga Indigenous rock art site, featuring over a million petroglyphs dating back 50,000 years, adds another layer of contention. Fara argues that industrial emissions from the plant are already damaging the ancient rock art through erosion, a problem they fear will be exacerbated by the project's extended operation. The case has gained international attention, with a UN special rapporteur permitted to intervene and advise the court on Australia's international climate commitments. The ACF contends that the Environment Minister failed to adequately consider the project's potential to be a 'substantial cause' of damage to Australia's protected environment, particularly concerning climate change impacts. They also argue the minister lacked sufficient detail about the gas to be processed, including from future, unapproved projects, and improperly weighed the claimed economic benefits. Fara is also seeking details about meetings between the minister and Woodside during the approval negotiations, asserting the minister did not properly identify the risks to the rock art.
It will be up to the court to decide the merits of the case… We’re here saying the minister made the wrong decision and that some very significant factors including around climate change need to be taken into account.
Originally published by The Guardian. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.