Greenpeace Australia Pacific alleges that the fossil fuel giant has been misrepresenting its climate performance and plans. Greenpeace Australia Pacific, represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), will claim that:

• Woodside represented that it had cut the climate pollution from extracting and processing its gas and oil by 11% in 2022, but it had relied heavily on so-called “carbon offsets” – and its actual emissions went up by more than 3%.
• Woodside represented that it had a plan to be ‘net zero’ by 2050, but it had neglected to mention that this didn’t apply to the emissions produced when its oil and gas gets burnt that represents over 90% of its climate pollution.

If successful, the Federal Court case could improve transparency of disclosure, forcing fossil fuel companies to be up front about the scope and impact of their business plans, not trying to bury the truth in the fineprint.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is claiming that Woodside – Australia’s biggest climate threat – has engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or was likely to mislead or deceive, when making statements about its greenhouse gas emissions and reduction plans.

The case comes at the conclusion of global climate talks at COP28 and follows Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s recent scaling of a 140-metre crane next door to Woodside’s headquarters in Perth. Greenpeace activists condemned Woodside’s climate-wrecking proposed Burrup Hub project and called on decision-makers to “Stop Woodside”, ahead of an expected Federal Government decision in relation to the project in early 2024.

Comments attributable to Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO, David Ritter:

“Woodside is treating the Australian public and its shareholders like mugs.

“We’re now asking the Federal Court to rule that Woodside’s claims are misleading. These should be corrected and the fossil fuel giant should be prevented from making these claims.

“Greenpeace won’t stand idly by as Australia’s biggest climate threat – a company that is profiteering from climate devastation – buries the truth about its impact in the fine print.”

Comments attributable to Greenpeace Australia Pacific General Counsel, Katrina Bullock:

“Greenwashing is dangerous because it delays action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, undermines competition and potentially misleads investors.

“We believe Woodside’s statements are designed to make investors, governments and the general public think it is reducing its emissions, when in truth the company’s emissions are increasing.  

“It is clearly in the public interest to ensure big polluters such as Woodside are held to account for their allegedly misleading or deceptive conduct.”

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

“This Federal Court case is a powerful opportunity to hold fossil fuel giant Woodside to account for misleading or deceiving shareholders, decision makers and the Australian public about its climate harm and how it plans to reduce that harm. 

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

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

“Going forward, shareholders, the public and the Federal Environment Minister should closely scrutinise Woodside’s plans and their so-called ‘climate credentials’.”

—ENDS—

Notes:

Photos and videos of Greenpeace’s campaign against Woodside, including images of Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter, are available here.

Photos and video of today’s press conference will be made available here by 1pm AEDT.

Greenpeace campaigner Joe Rafalowicz said the appeal showed how far Toyota would go to avoid responsibility for its dodgy diesels.

“This case is one more in a long line of dodgy behaviour from Toyota when it comes to pollution from its cars: disguise, defeat and deny is their modus operandi,” he said.

“While once a leader in clean car technology, Toyota has fallen way behind the pack. This latest example shows Toyota is willing to release cars with ‘core defects’ leading to excess pollution and higher costs for their owners – and it took a court case for them to take responsibility.

“We cannot trust Toyota when it comes to pollution from vehicles while it continues to greenwash its environmental credentials.” 

Toyota is now liable for $1.3billion to the owners of more than 250,000 diesel-powered vehicles.

The company is facing a similar class action concerning ‘defeat devices’ in Victoria’s Supreme Court, over the devices’ different level of emissions in test environments compared to normal use.

Earlier this month, Greenpeace Australia Pacific lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and asked it to investigate if Toyota’s environmental claims are deceptive or misleading.

– ENDS –

Notes: 

Toyota is facing another class action over ‘defeat devices’.

Greenpeace filed a greenwashing complaint against Toyota with the ACCC earlier this month.

The request, made by the Environmental Defenders Office on behalf of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, focuses on claims made by Toyota Motor Corporation regarding the environmental performance of its vehicles and its net-zero ambitions. 

“We believe Toyota Motor Corporation’s advertising is misleading Australian consumers by understating its cars’ emissions and overstating its commitment to clean transport,” said Lindsay Soutar, Director of Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Electrify campaign.

“Toyota Motor Corporation makes claims in its advertising that give the false impression the company is leading the transition to clean cars, but the truth is Toyota is not leading the transition but is acting globally to block the take-up of electric vehicles.

“All companies have a duty to tell the truth about their products. That standard must apply especially to a company like Toyota, which is Australia’s largest and until now most-trusted car maker.  There needs to be a level playing field so that consumers can make informed choices about how to use their purchases to protect the environment.

“Greenpeace Australia Pacific is making this complaint because we believe the car-buying public has a right to know the truth and must be empowered to make effective green choices.”

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s complaint alleges that Toyota misleadingly markets itself, making claims in its advertising that give the false impression the company is leading the transition to clean cars.

Examples include:

• Toyota’s net zero by 2050 plans appear inconsistent with its current plans for car production 
• Toyota is not seeking a rapid transition to eco-friendly cars and has a global track record of lobbying to delay, block or weaken vehicle emissions standards
• Toyota’s vehicles may not meet emission standards in real-world use as opposed to test conditions

Environmental Defenders Office Managing Lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said: “The people — and, increasingly, the corporate regulators — are calling out these misleading practices and holding these corporations to account.

“If companies like Toyota continue to behave in this manner, they run the very real risk of eroding their social licence and seriously damaging their brand and their customer base.”

—ENDS—

Notes for editors:

Toyota has a history of being pulled up by regulators for misleading advertising, with the Norwegian Consumer Authority ruling that a Toyota ‘self-charging’ advertising campaign be discontinued. See more here.

Please find a full media briefing, including more information about the complaint as well as Toyota’s track record of global anti-climate lobbying here

Please find the full complaint submitted to the ACCC here

Car sales by Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai/Kia are on track to exceed the 1.5°C compatible trajectory by 63 million, 43 million, and 39 million combustion engine vehicles, respectively, jeopardizing global climate action, the report finds.

Traditional car manufacturers that are slow to transition to electric vehicles face potential stranded assets and risk a significant loss of market share as climate regulations take hold around the world. The report finds that over US$2 trillion is at risk in market capitalization and debt across the world’s 12 largest car manufacturers alone.

“A whopping 2.6 million Aussie drivers are considering switching to electric vehicles because of surging petrol prices and to do their bit to reduce transport emissions. We have demand that massively exceeds supply, but still car manufacturers like Toyota are making the transition to zero-emission vehicles far too slowly” said Lindsay Soutar, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“As the climate crisis intensifies, governments around the world are rapidly moving to mandate the sale of electric only vehicles. If traditional automakers fail to electrify, they will lose out to newer, all-electric competitors and risk stranded assets. Toyota is on a collision course with the climate.”

“While the climate crisis is heavily debated at COP27 this week, Toyota and other car manufacturers continue to ignore the severity of the climate crisis. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Many manufacturers are moving – just this week Volvo announced an end to the sale of petrol vehicles in Australia by 2026. It’s time for Toyota to rapidly up its game.

Toyota is the largest carmaker in the world by sales, yet a recent study from Greenpeace East Asia found that electric vehicles comprised only one out of 500 cars that the company sold in 2021. Toyota received the lowest score in Greenpeace East Asia’s 2022 auto ranking due to its slow transition to zero-emission vehicles.

A Greenpeace Australia Pacific investigation recently exposed Toyota’s global track record of lobbying against measures to reduce climate pollution from vehicles, greenwashing and advocacy for fossil-fuelled hybrid vehicle technology.

Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to urgently introduce strong fuel efficiency standards that put Australia on a trajectory to keep global warming to less than 1.5 degrees. Greenpeace will be closely monitoring engagement from Toyota and its representative bodies in any upcoming policy process.

Notes:
The full report, The Internal Combustion Engine Bubble, is available here.

Expected combustion engine vehicle sales overshoot relative to a 1.5°C carbon budget
(as calculated in the Greenpeace Germany report )

*Three transition scenarios were used in the report. The bolded figure refers to the base case, while the lower and upper limit results are listed in brackets.

[1] Three transition scenarios were used in the report: 397 million is the base case, while 330 million is the lower limit of the projection and 463 million the upper limit.

[2] The report was written by researchers at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, the Center of Automotive Management, University of Applied Sciences (FHDW) Bergisch Gladbach, and Greenpeace Germany. Researchers determined the maximum number of internal combustion engine cars and vans that can be sold within a 1.5°C-aligned carbon budget, based on the Institute for Sustainable Futures’ One Earth Climate Model. They then projected future auto industry sales based on an assessment of  battery electric vehicle sales quotas and combustion engine phase out dates announced by four major auto manufacturers: Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai/Kia and General Motors.

Our AGL or “Australia’s Greatest Liability” campaign has been a big priority here at Greenpeace this year. Let’s take a look at all the victories and effort from this campaign that have been made possible by the goodwill of our supporters.

Thanks to the combined efforts of communities, shareholders, and activists, we have seen AGL’s demerger plans foiled and pressured the company to bring forward the closure of their heavily-polluting coal-burning power stations.

Last year we published our “Coal-Faced” report that exposed AGL’s poor climate practices. Since 2015, AGL has breached their environmental licence 111 times and their production of renewable energy actually went down over the past decade! In this report we stated that AGL was Australia’s biggest climate polluter, and AGL then tried to sue Greenpeace for defamation. This was a desperate attempt to silence climate activists, with AGL losing the court battle and Greenpeace claiming victory.

This year we campaigned to challenge AGL’s use of greenwashing tactics, and alerted AGL’s sponsorship partners to these dirty marketing tricks.

We put on bold protests outside AGL HQ to bring media attention to the issue, pressured Australia’s big banks to stop funding AGL’s projects, and engaged with some of AGL’s investors to vote against the demerger. In 2021, we also supported youth activist, Ash Sharif, in running for the AGL Board with a complimentary social media campaign.

In late September this year, AGL announced that they would be bringing forward the closure of the Loy Yang A power station in Victoria from 2048 to 2035! And there are prospects that their Bayswater power station in NSW will transition to renewable energy by 2029.

Wow. That’s a lot to take in, isn’t it?

While AGL has made good progress in response to our actions and demands, there is still work to be done! Greenpeace demands them to bring forward the closure of the Loy Yang A and Bayswater power stations by 2030, in line with the recommendations from climate scientists. AGL now has the opportunity to become a climate leader in Australia, and thanks to the efforts of Greenpeace and our supporters this is now a possibility.

Victorian School Striker protests against AGL Energy’s burning of coal at their coal-fired power station, Loy Yang A, in the La Trobe Valley.

To memorialise this victory, Greenpeace produced a documentary that chronicled the story of how a diverse group of people and organisations banded together against AGL and its leadership team to change the company for the better. The half-hour documentary is available to watch on YouTube, and you can also find it on our website here.

AGL making the switch to renewables and leaving coal in the past is crucial for Australia to avoid further, life-threatening consequences of climate change. Greenpeace will continue to make a stand against AGL and other climate polluters. And we wouldn’t be able to do this, if it were not for you, our Green Guardians.

Your continued support is truly the backbone of our campaigns. Your gifts will go on to make a cleaner world for the next generation, and help keep companies like AGL accountable to the environment.

In response to Toyota executive Sean Hanley’s comments at the launch of the new Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid SUV, Greenpeace Australia Pacific senior campaigner Lindsay Soutar said:

“Toyota clearly just doesn’t get it. 

The world has moved on from polluting hybrid vehicles, and the fact that Toyota is still expecting a gold star for a small number of hybrid sales over 25 years points to exactly how far behind the company really is.

For Toyota to fall back on hybrids to claim it’s doing its bit to tackle climate change is just not good enough, and only illustrates the problem with this company. The world needs zero-emissions vehicles now, and it’s time for Toyota to step up.

Toyota’s been selling and promoting hybrid cars for 20 years, but transport emissions are still rising. Petrol-burning hybrids are no longer the best technology either for cutting emissions or for reducing the cost of transport for consumers.

We’re happy to make Toyota a certificate for its good work 20 years ago when the only option was hybrids, but if it wants kudos in 2022 it will have to actually get on with making zero-emissions vehicles.”

Notes:

A recent Greenpeace East Asia report ranked Toyota at the back of the pack globally when it comes to environmental credentials, and a Greenpeace Australia Pacific report exposed Toyota’s track record of lobbying against measures to reduce climate pollution from vehicles, greenwashing and advocacy for fossil-fuelled hybrid vehicle technology.

Read Under The Hood: The Truth About Toyota

Read the Automotive Environment Guide 2022 

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s submission to the Federal Safeguard Mechanism review calls for a climate-science aligned emissions reduction target by 2030 to ensure companies are doing their fair share of emissions reduction, and to rule out offsets that allow fossil fuel companies to greenwash their emissions. 

Glenn Walker, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said that a strengthened Safeguard Mechanism would be a first step in holding Australia’s biggest polluters to account.

“Australia is home to some of the world’s most climate-polluting fossil fuel companies, and under the current weak Safeguard Mechanism these mega-polluters effectively enjoy a free pass to destroy our climate. The Federal review of the Safeguard Mechanism must draw a line in the sand under the damage these companies are wreaking, and ensure that, as a start, corporate domestic emissions are strongly regulated in line with what climate science demands.

“The Federal Government’s policy reform suggests just a 13% reduction of climate pollution by the industrial sector to 2030 on 2005 levels – nowhere near the economy-wide 43% target. This means Australia’s biggest climate polluters are being asked to do very little and that the burden of emission reduction will be shifted much more heavily to other sectors like agriculture and energy.

“The vast climate pollution from fossil fuel companies undermines Australia’s efforts to ensure a safer climate, and it’s time that these companies started doing their fair share of emissions reduction. A strengthened Safeguard Mechanism must also utterly rule out fossil fuel companies greenwashing their emissions through carbon offsets.

“While beefing up the Safeguard Mechanism is a starting point in tackling climate pollution from Australia’s coal and gas industry, it ultimately counts for little if Australia keeps approving new coal and gas projects.

“Gas company Woodside is currently attempting to push through the Browse basin, which through its planned gas exports would spew out 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution over its lifetime, while even a strengthened Safeguard Mechanism would only regulate its much smaller domestic emissions. If the Federal Government is serious about reducing Australia’s emissions, it must also rule out new coal and gas projects and regulate the outsized climate pollution from Australia’s fossil fuel exports.”

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Recommendations:

1. Set an ambitious emission reduction target to 2030, falling year-on-year: In order to meet the 1.5 degree target the Safeguard Mechanism emission reduction target must be set to a baseline of 57Mt in 2029-2030 (assuming a 50% reduction by that time on 2005 levels) falling 8.3% each year. In order to meet the Federal Government’s less ambitious target as expressed in Reputex’s modelling, the baseline would need to be set at 89Mt in 2029-2030, with a 5% fall each year. This latter target should be regarded as an absolute floor. 
2. Set the overall starting emissions baseline to real emissions today: To ensure an equitable and effective policy, the starting emissions baseline under the reformed scheme must be set at the current actual combined emissions of all facilities covered of 137Mt. This should replace the current baseline of 157Mt, which includes a buffer, or “headroom” of 20Mt that would render the policy ineffective.
3. Set year-on-year emission reduction targets as uniform for all facilities: There should be no favourable treatment or complex special emissions calculations for specific companies like Woodside Energy. Instead the reduction target should simply be set equal across all facilities for all companies on an annual, linear basis towards the initial 2030 target. Multi-year monitoring period baselines should be removed completely as a form of special treatment.
4. Set facility emission baselines as proven industry best practice: Instead of setting facility emission baselines on an industry average or site-specific variables, baselines should instead be set as global industry best practice to ensure rapid adoption of low emissions technology.
5. Disallow offsets for coal, gas and oil companies: Fossil carbon kept underground is far more stable than carbon actively cycling between the land, ocean and atmosphere. The priority should therefore be to keep the fossil carbon in the ground and not equate this with land-based carbon offsets. For this reason coal, gas and oil companies – the primary global drivers of climate change – should not be permitted to use Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) as part of the scheme.
6. Disallow international offsets: Australia already has serious issues with the integrity of ACCUs – this is just as pronounced with international offsets where the Federal Government has no real control over integrity. International offsets should not be permitted at all as part of the scheme.
7. Put a strong regulator in place: The Safeguard Mechanism requires a strong, independent regulator to oversee the scheme and to crack down forcefully on any attempts to game the system. The Clean Energy Regulator has been shown to be an ineffective regulator. A new and independent regulatory body should be established to oversee this policy.
8. Embed reforms in legislation: As much as possible, reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism should be embedded into the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and other relevant legislation rather than just made via regulatory changes. This will help reduce the risk of ongoing political interference and give greater certainty to industry.

Read the full Greenpeace Australia Pacific submission here.

The Browse Environmental Impact Statement confirms that the gas field will produce approximately 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution over its lifetime, and will directly threaten the habitat of critically endangered turtle species.

Jess Panegyres, Head of Clean Energy Transition for Greenpeace Australia Pacific, says that, despite widespread Australian and international condemnation, Woodside has barely altered its dangerous plans for Browse. 

“The final Environmental Impact Statement for Browse makes clear Woodside’s reckless determination to push through this toxic gas field, despite the enormous risk it poses to the global climate and to Western Australia’s unique marine wildlife.”

“The United Nations and the International Energy Agency have been clear that the world cannot have new fossil fuel projects if we want to stay within the 1.5 degree Paris target. Woodside’s Browse is a dirty project and inconsistent with the Paris Agreement.

“Woodside plans to drill 50 gas wells directly under a coral reef, one of the most ecologically important marine environments in the world. A slight variation to the Browse proposal that Woodside made earlier this year makes little difference to the project’s devastating marine impacts, with the plans revealed today showing Woodside still plans to drill in endangered turtle nesting areas, and in crucial foraging and migration areas for pygmy blue whales.

“Woodside has also made no effort to reduce or mitigate the approximately 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution that Browse will spew out over its lifetime. Rather than making any genuine effort to reduce its emissions Woodside is once again greenwashing its impact by relying on ineffective offsets. As Australia and communities around the world suffer increasingly catastrophic climate impacts, Woodside’s reckless disregard for the climate is unacceptable.”

—ENDS—

The ranking has been released alongside a new Greenpeace Australia Pacific report, which exposes Toyota’s track record of lobbying against measures to reduce climate pollution from vehicles, greenwashing and advocacy for fossil-fuelled hybrid vehicle technology.

• Toyota has been ranked dead last for the second year in a row by Greenpeace East Asia’s Auto Environment Guide for its lobbying against climate action, refusal to embrace electric vehicles, and continued advocacy for highly polluting hybrids, with 499 out of every 500 Toyota vehicles sold powered by fossil fuels
• Toyota has also been found to be the 3rd most influential negative climate lobbyist globally, after Exxon Mobil and Chevron, with an international track record of lobbying against the introduction of vehicle pollution standards, and actively working to slow the uptake of electric vehicles.
• The Australian Federal Government is currently considering the introduction of fuel efficiency standards regulating climate pollution from cars, which would ensure wider choice of more efficient and zero emissions vehicles for Australian consumers. Greenpeace Australia Pacific holds there is a strong risk Toyota will use its established tactics to distract, weaken, and delay effective legislation in Australia.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific Campaigner Violette Snow said many Australians would be shocked to learn that one of the country’s most trusted car makers has worked to extend the use of polluting fossil fuel vehicle technology. 

“Toyota is Australia’s largest and most trusted car maker, but its international track record of aggressive global lobbying against measures to lower climate pollution from transport has seen it ranked in the world’s top three most influential fossil fuel lobbyists, alongside Exxon Mobil and Chevron,” she said.

“Toyota is a global roadblock to electric vehicles, lobbying to weaken fuel efficiency standards, greenwashing its image and promoting electric vehicle disinformation while making big profits from polluting internal combustion engine and fossil-fuelled hybrid cars. 

“Australia is at a crossroads in its electric vehicle transition, as the Albanese Government considers the introduction of fuel efficiency standards. Greenpeace Australia Pacific believes, based on our research into Toyota’s international track record of lobbying against regulation of vehicle climate pollution, that there is a strong risk Toyota will work to weaken and slow Australia’s transition to cleaner, safer electric vehicles.

“The International Energy Agency says to get to net zero by 2050, all new cars must be electric by 2035. If Toyota and the petrol car industry don’t support this timeline, how do they think Australia can meet our climate goals?”

The global automotive report found that global sales of electric vehicles doubled in 2021.  However, for industry laggard Toyota, sales of zero-emission vehicles made up a meagre 0.2% of total sales.

Fiona Collins, retired, Sydney said:

“It’s incredibly disappointing that an innovative car company like Toyota which Australians like us have always turned to and trusted is holding back climate action by actively blocking the move to electric vehicles.

“We’ve owned several Toyota cars over the years, including a Corolla, Yaris, and Camry, so we were shocked to find the company placed last in Greenpeace’s green car rankings.

“We are deeply concerned about the future of our environment – for us, our kids, and hopefully one day our future grandkids so we want car companies like Toyota, backed by the Australian government, to embrace electric and get on with it.”

Greenpeace is calling on Toyota and other car makers to get behind strong fuel efficiency standards in line with other major markets and to speed up their transition to electric vehicles.

—ENDS—

Notes

Read Under The Hood: The Truth About Toyota

Read the Automotive Environment Guide 2022 

AGL’s scheme booklet shows:

• Neither AGL Australia nor Accel Energywill be aligned with Paris climate targets
• The demerger will incur a $260 million one-off transaction cost
• Shareholders will wear approximately $35 million in additional corporate and operating costs per annum
• Accel Energy could be unable to access capital or insurance due to ESG considerations, a major risk which AGL has buried on page 131 of the documents

Glenn Walker, Greenpeace Australia Pacific senior campaigner, said AGL’s demerger would damage returns for retail shareholders, make a mockery of institutional investors’ ESG commitments, and have catastrophic consequences for the climate crisis. 

“AGL’s claim that the demerged AGL Australia will have ‘leading ESG credentials’ is the very definition of greenwashing given neither AGL Australia nor Accel Energy will align with Paris climate targets.  

“This demerger is a turd rolled in glitter, but the marketing sparkle is fooling no one. Shareholders and customers can smell the stench of climate and financial failure from here.

“The environmental and financial consequences of the demerger are now clear, no matter how much text AGL attempts to bury them in. We believe these documents clearly show that the ESG commitments of institutional investors will be made a mockery of, the impact on the climate will be nothing short of catastrophic, major corporate customers will increasingly abandon the company, power prices will increase and retail shareholders will wear millions in costs. 

“In attempting to split in two, AGL is merely tearing itself apart. The sad truth is, it risks taking everyone with it.

“This scheme document only reinforces that AGL must scrap its dodgy demerger and deliver real, lasting shareholder value by embracing the energy transition and replacing its dirty coal-burning power stations with renewables by 2030,” he said. 

—ENDS—