Woodside, Australia’s polluter-in-chief, had a terrible day at its annual general meeting.

Shareholders and concerned Australians voted down Woodside’s ‘climate’ plan simply because it wasn’t going far enough to tackle the climate crisis.

This is a massive blow to Woodside’s credibility – banks, super funds, institutional investors and thousands of shareholders have said its ‘climate’ plan isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.

Communities here in Australia and the Pacific deserve a safe climate future.

Woodside’s Burrup Hub is the most polluting fossil fuel project currently proposed in Australia today. Approving new fossil fuel projects will endanger countless lives and recklessly lock Australia into more fossil fuels as the rest of the world shifts to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy.

We’ve spent the past 2 years fighting to stop Woodside from going ahead with its disastrous plans in WA. And now the finish line is in sight. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has Woodside’s plans on her desk right now and we know she cares deeply for the environment and our oceans. Let’s make sure Plibersek receives an avalanche of emails opposing Woodside’s Burrup Hub.

You can use our simple tool to email Plibersek in just a few clicks.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is currently taking Woodside to the Federal Court for making previous statements that we believe were misleading or deceptive about its plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. 

This comes as experts this week warned that the Great Barrier Reef may be suffering its ‘most severe’ bleaching on record with damage extending up to 18 metres below the surface, and coral mortality beginning to unfold.

2023 saw the hottest ocean temperatures ever recorded — “astounding” levels of heat which supercharged freak weather events around the world. Bleaching-level heat stress, fuelled by the climate crisis, continues to be extensive across the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. 

David Ritter, CEO at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said that following on from what was the hottest year on record, news of a worldwide coral bleaching is another red alert for Earth, and all the life it sustains.

“Mere days after researchers confirmed the most severe coral bleaching on record for the Great Barrier Reef, international agencies have announced that the world is experiencing its fourth global coral bleaching event. 

“The blame for the existential danger facing our reefs lays squarely with the main culprits fuelling global warming: fossil fuel companies, and the governments who prop up this industry.

“The science is crystal clear that climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, is warming our oceans and leading to increasingly severe and frequent coral bleaching events worldwide. Corals die when bleaching events are too prolonged or severe.

“Every government decision to allow more coal, oil, and gas to be extracted and burned is a deadly blow to the future of the Great Barrier Reef, and reefs worldwide. The loss of reefs would have devastating ecological and economic consequences for billions of people worldwide — including our Pacific neighbours whose very culture and identities are intrinsically entwined with the ocean.

“We are running out of runway to avoid irreversible climate disaster, and must act quickly to ensure an immediate end to new fossil fuels. Governments and decision makers simply cannot allow new fossil fuel projects to go ahead if we want to address climate change and give the Great Barrier Reef and all reefs a fighting chance at survival.”

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace v Woodside Concise Statement

Members of the media only can contact Lisa Wills on 0456 206 021 or Kimberley Bernard on 0407 581 404 for further information or to arrange an interview.

Comments attributable to a Greenpeace Australia Pacific spokesperson:

“We are deeply concerned that Resources Minister Madeleine King is using sneaky means to fast-track approvals for new gas projects while undermining environmental protections under the EPBC Act, laying the groundwork for more new gas during a climate crisis.

“The Bill effectively provides the offshore petroleum industry a future carve out from the protections afforded by the EPBC Act. On the day Australia is revealed as having the highest rates of mammal extinction in the world, the last thing we should be doing is weakening nature protections for the gas industry. The amendments tabled today provide Federal Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, some veto power over future changes introduced by Minister King – specifically in ensuring that changes are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development – but still leave Australia’s natural environment at significant risk. 

“While in need of major reform, even the current EPBC Act provides much greater protections and those protections are at risk of being lost during this blatant power-grab by Minister King.

“We are concerned that these amendments, buried in a Bill largely about worker safety, will be rushed through the Parliament this week without the relevant scrutiny. 

“The Government gave assurances that there would be extensive consultations – yet consultation has been minimal in Minister King’s rush to push the Bill through. Minister King has also labelled claims she was taking over environmental approvals a “conspiracy theory”. None of this builds confidence that Minister King is prioritising Australia’s precious natural environment above the want of the gas industry.

Woodside’s Burrup Hub is set to define Labor’s legacy on environmental protection

“The gas industry has been pushing the Labor government to weaken Australia’s environmental protections because it has a suite of new projects in the pipeline that pose a major threat to our oceans and climate. The biggest and most dangerous of these is Woodside’s Burrup Hub, which would require drilling up to 50 wells around Scott Reef, Australia’s largest oceanic reef system and a vital habitat for pygmy blue whales and green turtles.

“Minister Plibersek is expected to decide whether to give Woodside the green light to drill at Scott Reef this year. It’s a key test of Labor’s environmental legacy.” 

Images of the stunning, pristine Scott Reef are available for hi-res download here. Additional photos and materials can be made available on request.

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Lisa Wills on 0456 206 021 or lwills@greenpeace.org

The New Vehicle Emissions Standards will mean Australia goes from having a wild-west, rule-free car market, to reaching similar pollution limits as the US within 4 years, and it will mean a 50% reduction in new car emissions by 2029. The scheme is loophole-free, with bonus credits ruled out. And it is designed to be future proof, with targets that can only be made stronger.

This important climate decision will make all the difference when it comes to urgently bringing more affordable electric vehicles into Australia and is crucial if Australia is to meet its climate targets.

Strong vehicle efficiency standards will bring about real cuts to pollution and cleaner, quieter cities for us all to enjoy. This will mean less toxic, harmful pollution from the petrol and diesel burnt in our cars: a great outcome for Australian communities and our planet.

There is some bad news: in the final days of negotiation, the Government sadly caved to pressure from multinational car makers on a few details. Luxury petrol-guzzling SUVs like the Lexus LX were reclassified as “light commercial vehicles,” allowing them an easier ride on emissions standards. And the targets for light commercial vehicles were also weakened in the first years of the scheme.

Make no mistake – these concessions mean the standards will be 20% less effective at curbing pollution in the short-term. But we can take heart that the gap will shrink over time, and Australia will still be in a position to move to 100% zero emission vehicle sales by 2035.

The NVES is an important step towards achieving Australia’s climate targets, laying the groundwork for more action on transport emissions. By working closely with the states to make major and necessary investments in active transport, the Government can continue to accelerate its climate ambitions.

The good, the bad, the ugly

The Good:

• Australia will catch up to other major markets by 2030
• Legislation rules out ‘supercredits’ and loopholes 

The Bad

• By weakening the targets for Light Commercial Vehicles, the Bill will only achieve 80% of the pollution reduction that was in the model proposed in February 2024
• Using the ‘ladder frame chassis’ and ‘braked towing capacity’ as the criteria for classification as a ‘light commercial vehicle’ is a sensible approach, however it will unfortunately still result in an easier ride for luxury SUVs that are more consumer choice than business necessity.

The Ugly:

• The Government has held its IT systems responsible for not being able to commence the scheme in January 2025. Surely, the Government can find a way to track vehicle sales and apply the penalties and credits after the system is fully set up.
• Low-income earners stand to benefit the most from electric vehicles. The Government should be looking at measures to reduce upfront costs and increase charging accessibility for all Australians.
• The petrol and diesel car lobby group, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, are still fighting to keep Australian cars as toxic and polluting as possible, while asking motorists to keep paying high prices for imported petrol. 

Meanwhile, demand for electric vehicles in Australia has skyrocketed. While every Australian state and territory government has now introduced some form of incentive for the purchase of electric vehicles, the lack of fuel efficiency standards in Australia is putting the brakes on the electric vehicle market, holding Australians back from cleaner, more affordable electric transport.

This important climate decision will make all the difference when it comes to urgently bringing more affordable electric vehicles into Australia is crucial if Australia is to meet its climate targets. 

Due to the absence of strong, legislated fuel efficiency standards, Australia’s domestic vehicle fleet is one of the most polluting and least efficient in the world. Meanwhile, at least 80% of the global car market already have vehicle emissions standards and are seeing more electric vehicles on their roads, leaving Australia behind.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific has today welcomed the Federal Government’s commitment to legislating a New Fuel Efficiency Standard.

A fuel efficiency standard is the first step to opening up the Australian market to more EVs and ensuring that demand for them can be met.

Had the Government introduced standards in 2015 when the idea was initially put forward, Australians would have saved almost 6 billion dollars in fuel costs since.

Today’s announcement: the NVES reaches the Lower House

Onwards from today’s announcement, when it comes to accelerating Australia’s electric transport options, the gap between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ fuel efficiency standards makes all the difference. 

While weaker and delayed targets for the Light Commercial Vehicle segment will mean that around 35% of cars sold in Australia will face laxer rules over the next 4 years under the Government’s Bill, car makers are making rapid progress on designing new electric and plug-in hybrid utes. We expect those targets can be revisited and strengthened in 2026 as they come to market.

“The Government has committed to a 43% reduction in carbon emissions (from 2005 levels) across the economy by 2030. Their pre-election modeling assumed 89 per cent of new car sales would need to be fully electric to meet that goal. 

Clearly the NVES as drafted will not achieve that level of EV market share, so it will be up to the Government to identify other policy measures which will achieve commensurate reductions in the transport sector to make up for the shortfall, for example investing in public transport, cycling and the electrification of freight.

Media Briefing – Australian Automobile Association

Greenpeace Australia Pacific has today called on Australia’s largest motoring clubs to condemn the Australian Automobile Association (AAA) for its repeated efforts, including with the fossil fuel car and petroleum lobbies, to water down limits on car pollution and slow the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia.

Documents released under Freedom of Information (FOI) reveal that the AAA has a long history of working alongside the fossil fuel car and petroleum lobby to push Federal Ministers to weaken vehicle emissions standards, and run scare campaigns against electric vehicles. 

Comments attributable to Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Joe Rafalowicz:

“Greenpeace Australia Pacific believes that the AAA’s well-established lobbying for weakened new vehicle efficiency standards over a number of years, positions the organisation as a threat to the introduction of strong vehicle pollution caps. 

“The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) claims to represent the interests of Australian motorists, as the peak body for state-based motoring organisations including the NRMA, RACV, RACQ, RAA, RAC, RACT and the AANT. 

“Yet the AAA’s lobbying appears to be in direct conflict with the interests of Australian motorists who would have saved nearly six billion dollars had fuel efficiency standards been introduced in 2016.

“It also conflicts with the positions of its motoring club members who have made submissions in support of the Government’s proposal for an NVES, commitments on climate change,  and their support of the uptake of electric vehicles.

“It’s time for Australia’s largest motoring organisation to make clear if they stand for climate action or for the destructive fossil fuel industry. 

“Pitching for more petrol-fuelled cars in 2024 is akin to the tobacco industry lobbying for weakened smoking laws or the asbestos industry lobbying for relaxed building standards. Greenpeace Australia Pacific urges policymakers to be informed and wary of the AAA and friends in their continued lobbying efforts. 

“If Australia’s motoring organisations want to be on the right side of history, they should actively condemn their peak body, the AAA for their negative lobbying and scare campaigns against electric vehicles.

“If the AAA don’t clean up their act, their motoring organisation members should be prepared to quit their membership,” Mr Rafalowicz added.

It comes as Greenpeace called on pro-climate car makers to resign membership of the petrol-pushing Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) – an “irrelevant lobby group” that we believe should be renamed the ‘Full-Throttle Carbon Addicts Institute.

—ENDS—

An extensive media briefing in relation to these FOI documents is below. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Lisa Wills on 0456 206 021

In response to comments reported in the media today attributed to Toyota Australia’s sales chief, Sean Hanley, Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Joe Rafalowicz said:

“The world is moving rapidly to more efficient vehicles, with targets in place in New Zealand, the EU and the US. The claim that the Australian Government’s proposed limits on car pollution are ‘moving too fast’ is the self-interested whining of a car company which has only just unveiled a fully electric vehicle for sale in this country. Toyota are losing the race to electric vehicles and instead of accelerating, they want to slash everyone else’s tyres along the way. 

“The threat from Toyota executives that they will ‘pass on any price increases to consumers’ instead of trading credits shows absolute contempt for Australians doing it tough in a cost of living crisis. 

“Refusing to trade credits would mean effectively doubling the cost of going over the pollution limit, a decision seemingly made out of spite rather than good business sense.

“In the US, Toyota has not only met all of the pollution limits in place but have surplus credits – so why does the U.S. get efficient vehicles, but Australians are not good enough for them?

“Toyota’s strategy around the world has been exactly the same when it comes to rules limiting car pollution: delay, delay, delay. 

“Australians are right to be skeptical of a company which just last month was raided by Japanese police following allegations that they were cheating emissions tests.”

Additional information

Toyota’s comments follow a damning report released yesterday from the U.S.-based Public Citizen, alleging the company greenwashes and misconstrues data in its latest report on climate policies globally.

Greenpeace’s ‘Toyota Files: The dirty secret behind Australia’s most trusted carmaker’ report steps out the car importer’s history of anti-climate lobbying in Australia and across the globe.

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Lisa Wills on 0456 206 021 and/or lwills@greenpeace.org

Today the fossil fuel giant released its latest annual report along with its annual ‘Climate Transition Action Plan’.

Comments attributable to Greenpeace Australia Pacific Head of Climate and Energy Jess Panegyres:

“In the hottest year on record, punctuated by extreme weather events and the ever-spiralling cost of living, Woodside made billions of dollars – these profits are made from our collective loss.

“Gas is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel that’s driving the climate disasters we’re seeing take place all over Australia. Costs from natural disasters are already around $38bn a year, or 2% of GDP, a bill expected to roughly double in four decades.

“Woodside is Australia’s biggest climate threat and we believe they cannot be trusted.

“Where the world is investing in clean, green renewables, Woodside’s profits are instead overwhelmingly invested in new fossil fuel projects and in maximising their shareholder profits.

“To address the worsening climate crisis, Woodside needs to stop drilling new fossil fuel fields and start paying for the damage done by climate change in Australia and the wider Pacific region.

“Today Woodside also released its latest Climate Transition Action Report. Greenpeace is currently taking Woodside to court, alleging that in earlier communications the fossil fuel giant has been misrepresenting its climate performance and plans to the Australian public.

“We’re arguing that Woodside’s statements mislead investors, governments and the general public into thinking it is reducing its emissions when in truth the company’s emissions are increasing.

“The question that Woodside must now answer before our courts is whether its climate claims actually stack up.

“Woodside’s so-called ‘climate transition action report’ should be closely scrutinised.”

Greenpeace’s court proceedings against Woodside Energy will next be heard on 27 March 2024 at 9.30 am in the Federal Court of Australia.

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Lisa Wills on 0456 206 021 and/or lwills@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace has been fighting for these pollution limits on cars for years, and we are almost there. But the proposal is not law yet – the Government needs to finalise the design of the standards and take them to Parliament. They are asking for your feedback until 4 March – we need everyone to make a submission calling for strong standards.

Making a submission is quick and easy. Here is a response guide for the form, with some points you might want to raise with the Government to make their proposal better. The answers below are a serving suggestion only – feel free to cook up a response as you see fit!

Step 1: Follow this link for an individual or an organisation

Step 2: Fill out the questions with your name and email

Question Response Guide

Question 3: Please rank the proposed options in order of preference

Answer:

Question 4: Briefly, what are your reasons for your choice? (optional, 3000 character limit)

Copy and paste into the open text box:

The climate crisis should determine target strength

The NVES should set emission targets over a timeframe that reflects the urgency of the climate crisis. This requires a transition to all new car sales being zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035 at the latest. Option C and B are both acceptable as they would make that goal achievable, but option C is preferable as it ramps up faster, and has stronger targets. 

Moving faster will result in lower emissions and fuel savings for Australia over a longer period, compounding the benefits of the policy. The impact analysis estimates that by 2050, option C will reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 74 million tonnes, which will help the Government meet its climate targets in a context where other sectors face even greater challenges to reduce emissions.

Targets are sufficiently distant for supply to catch up

Option C and B have the same starting target in 2025, which gives car companies two years to prepare for the stricter targets under option C (which only kick in from 2026 onwards). Two years is sufficient time for car makers to adjust their supply, given the number of ZEVs already on the global market and more under development.  Car companies have known of the Government’s intention to introduce some form of NVES since 2022, and 85% of the world is already covered by emissions standards, making this change foreseeable.

If there is a short period where a number of the most polluting vehicles in Australia increase in price due to penalties under Option C, that can be managed through car companies buying credits from 100% ZEV car makers, further subsidising their price, and encouraging the overall shift.

SUVs should be considered passenger vehicles

Option C and B rightly include SUVs in the passenger vehicle category. There is no justification for a higher CO2 limit for a vehicle that is larger due to consumer preference, rather than for a genuine utility or commercial reason (which is covered by the LCV category).

The NVES should encourage lighter vehicles

The Government should consider lowering the break point for vehicles to 1800 kg or less, or better yet, eliminating the weight based adjustment altogether, to encourage the purchase of smaller, lighter vehicles.

Penalties should be substantial

The EU has a penalty of $197 per g/km (AUD equivalent) for exceeding their CO2/km target – to get close to that, the penalty proposed under option C should be adopted in Australia.

Loopholes should be ruled out

Ruling out supercredits and loopholes are an excellent feature of both B and C. Banking and trading of credits is acceptable if limited in scope – these should not be expanded beyond the 2 years suggested by Option C.

Emissions should be tested in real time

The Government should also implement real-world testing of vehicle emissions ( onboard fuel consumption monitoring)  to prevent manufacturers from producing laboratory testing which is inaccurate, as they have done in the past.

Question 5: Do you support the Government’s preferred option (Option B)? (optional)

Select ‘yes’

Now hit submit! You are done – now send this page to a friend and ask them to make a submission too.