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

It comes as Tesla has quit the FCAI because of “demonstrably false” claims that the New Vehicle Efficiency Scheme (NVES) will drive up car prices – with Polestar also reportedly considering suspending its membership to the petrol car lobby today.

Comments attributable to Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Joe Rafalowicz:

“Today Greenpeace Australia Pacific calls on all car companies that support an effective New Vehicle Efficiency Standard to suspend their FCAI membership.

‘It has become clear that the FCAI is only interested in representing car brands who want to weaken emissions limits, and it will distort the facts, misuse member data and even fly out expensive consultants from the US to that end – all against the wishes of its broader membership.

“The FCAI is so far out of step with the demands of Australian consumers, who we know want to see cleaner, more affordable electric cars on our roads, sooner. 

“At this point, the FCAI should really be renamed the ‘Full-Throttle Carbon Addicts Institute.

“Car makers that are serious about climate action stand to gain nothing by associating with this increasingly irrelevant lobby group.”

Last month the FCAI released its NVES modelling, suggesting the cost of limits on car pollution could be as high as $38 billion over the first five years – a claim that Greenpeace immediately labelled as “bullshit”.

—ENDS—

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

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

“Western Australia is one of the windiest places in the world, and with our skilled workforce and export infrastructure, WA is perfectly placed to become a renewable energy superpower,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Head of Climate and Energy Jess Panegyres said today.

“Today’s announcement from Minister Bowen marks a clear investment in WA’s clean energy future – it will deliver thousands of sustainable jobs in the clean energy sector and lower energy costs.

“Western Australia is in the grips of the climate crisis, and so many of us are being crunched by rising costs of living.

“It makes sense, both environmentally and economically, to invest in renewables and ensure a cleaner, safer future for West Australian communities. The overall environmental benefit of wind farms is a win for nature and our climate.

“We don’t need more polluting fossil fuels like gas for local energy or export revenue when we have all we need, right here and now, to provide West Australians with a sustainable future,” Ms Panegyres added.

—ENDS—

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is a global independent campaigning organisation that uses peaceful protest and creative confrontation to expose environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Kimberley Bernard on 0407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace offices and activists worldwide have worked to protect whales and the oceans they call home for decades. We’re also massive fans of renewables, which we need to build a tonne of to phase out gas and coal and tackle the climate emergency. 

So when we started seeing posts online claiming offshore wind farms were killing whales, we decided to investigate. 

The short answer: no, offshore wind farms aren’t killing whales.  

The longer answer is a little bit more complicated – but building offshore wind is way, way better for ocean wildlife than fossil fuels, especially offshore gas and oil.

Why do people think offshore wind is harmful to whales?

This started earlier this year, after several humpback whales stranded on the east coast of the USA. Shock jocks and right-wing politicians – who have taken millions in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry – blamed a series of new offshore wind developments. 

Scientists, meanwhile, investigated and found that almost all of the humpback strandings had clear signs of vessel strike. In other words, the whales were most likely hit and killed by container ships and other large vessels. 

The Marine Mammal Commission, an independent US government agency that oversees the conservation of marine mammals and their environment, agrees. In February 2023, they put out a statement confirming that ‘there is no evidence to link these strandings to offshore wind energy development’.

The folks at Yale University have done a really comprehensive write up on the situation – it’s well worth a read.

Zooming out a bit, there have been plenty of studies into the effects of offshore wind farms on whales and marine mammals. Not a single peer-reviewed study has found that offshore wind farms kill whales. 

But what about seismic blasting – that’s bad, right?

Yes – but there’s a world of difference between the seismic blasting for oil and gas, and sonar mapping for offshore wind. 

When companies are getting ready to build offshore wind farms, they conduct underwater surveys to map out the seabed. These surveys use sound waves, just like the oil and gas industry does. But the two processes couldn’t be more different. 

According to Erica Staaterman, a bioacoustician for the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM):

“There’s a pretty big difference between some of the sound sources used in the oil and gas industry compared to what’s typically used in site characterisation for offshore wind. Those in oil and gas are called seismic air guns, and they’re specifically designed to penetrate kilometres into the sea floor. So they’re very high energy, very loud sources… The ones that are used here are called high resolution geophysical sources, and they’re typically smaller in the amount of acoustic energy they put into the water column, but also they have a couple of other characteristics. So, for example, many of them are used for very short periods of time with a long quiet time in between. So that means that they’re only on for several milliseconds and then for about 15 seconds it would be quiet.”

Offshore wind surveys are much, much quieter – because they’re just mapping the sea bed. Oil and gas surveys are much, much louder because they have to penetrate several kilometres into the earth to find oil and gas. 

It’s the difference between having Smooth FM on in the background, and being front row at a Slipknot gig. 

So are offshore wind farms harmless?

Everything we do at sea has some impact on marine life, and offshore wind is no different. So it’s important that offshore wind farms are developed in the right places, and that the industry is properly regulated. 

Even though offshore wind farms can affect whales and other marine life, the effects are generally short lived – and much less harmful than fossil fuels. Rob Deaville from the Zoological Society of London’s Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme breaks it down further, saying:

“There’s lots of evidence that when you’re putting the wind farms in place, it does generate a lot of percussive noise, and that can have an impact. Particularly things like porpoises or dolphins, they may move out of that area while you’re installing the wind farms, but then the longer-term picture: in some areas they never come back, in some they come back in larger numbers than before.”

So definitely not harmless – but much less harmful than offshore oil and gas, which involves drilling tens of wells (pretty noisy), seismic blasting (very noisy) and the ever present risk of an oil spill. And a drop in the ocean (ha!) compared with commercial shipping and getting entangled in fishing nets, which are two of the greatest dangers that whales face from humans. 

What about climate change?

Climate change – caused by the burning of fossil fuels like gas, coal and oil – is a huge threat to our oceans and marine life. 

Global heating affects the oceans in several different ways. Waters get warmer, which is bad news for coral reefs. The food chain gets disrupted as populations of prey fish move in search of cooler waters. Storms become more severe, doing lasting damage to marine habitats. 

Renewables help keep a lid on climate change. That’s great for whales.

The whales in Australian waters, like humpbacks and pygmy blue whales spend a bunch of time in the Antarctic. They wait out the summer in the chilly waters, before making their way north to breed. Warmer temperatures mean less ice cover and therefore less food – because the zooplankton they eat like to hide under the ice – but it also makes their tropical breeding grounds uncomfortably hot. 

Take everything together and it’s clear to us that offshore wind farms aren’t perfect, but they are much, much better for whales and other marine life than fossil fuels. 

And finally…

It’s been interesting seeing politicians like Peter Dutton coming out to say how concerned they are about protecting whales from offshore wind. 

After all, these are the guys who want to see the rules protecting marine life watered down to make it easier for gas companies to seismic blast and drill offshore. They’re also the ones backing in Woodside’s nightmare Burrup Hub – which unlike offshore wind, really is a nightmare for whales. 

They couldn’t be trying to muddy the waters and milk people’s genuine concern for political advantage, could they? Surely not…  

Given transport is one third of Australia’s carbon emissions, pollution from petrol cars is a health hazard and petrol prices keep going up during a cost of living crisis, that is great news for most people!

But car companies, like Toyota, who have failed to keep up with EV technology and are still making a profit from selling their petrol cars are arguing for a bunch of loopholes in the fuel efficiency standards. And that is bad news! A fuel efficiency standard riddled with holes will undermine emissions reductions, cost savings, and mean less electric vehicles for sale.

Here’s how the fuel efficiency standards should work. 

Standards set a target for how much pollution each brand of car can emit on average.

Each car company tries to reduce the average emissions of the cars they sell to get below the target. If they’re below the target, they get credits. If they’re above the target, they have to pay penalties or buy credits from another company.

This means car companies have a reason to bring their most efficient petrol cars, and their electric models, to Australia.  Fuel efficiency standards have been used to successfully get more EVs on the road in the US, EU and New Zealand.

So how does the ghost car loophole work?

Car companies say they should get extra credit for selling electric and hybrid cars – these are called ‘super credits’ or ‘multiplier credits’ – but we call them Ghost Cars.  So when the companies add up their average, they want to count their really polluting cars once…. and count their really clean cars two, three or four times.

So for every actual electric car they sell, they also get to count free Ghost electric cars. Imagine that!

It’s great for car companies because all these ghost electric cars make their average look much better. But it means that whatever the pollution cap the Government introduces, these petrol car companies will get so many credits that they will barely have to change the vehicles  they sell to us. That’s not good news for Australians who desperately want to get their hands on cleaner transport options.

So why is the Government considering using ghost cars?

Australia isn’t the first country to legislate a fuel efficiency standard. In fact 85% of the global car market already has these standards.

When other countries like the USA and EU were creating their fuel standards, electric and hybrid cars were really new technology. So car companies argued it would be easier for them to meet pollution targets by just making petrol engines more efficient than building entirely new types of vehicles, so they should get extra credits for the new types of vehicles.

But now electric vehicles aren’t new, and hybrids certainty aren’t. So the USA and EU are phasing out these credits.

Which means to meet their targets in the USA and Europe, car companies need to sell efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. Real, actual ones.

But in Australia, car companies are arguing that they should be able to keep meeting their targets with ghost cars for years and years to come.

If only our petrol bills and climate-related bushfires were imaginary too.

Ministers Catherine King and Chris Bowen, need to stand up to the petrol car companies and rule out including ‘ghost car’ multiplier credits in their proposed scheme.

This week Electrify performed a public service to help out our elected representatives:  we distributed hundreds of flyers warning of the danger posed by petrol car lobbyists who roam the halls of Parliament.

While our flyer was a joke, there is nothing funny about the misinformation peddled by petrol car lobbyists. We know that the last time Australia considered a cap on pollution from new cars, the automotive industry did its best to sow confusion and doubt to protect their petro-profits. We can’t let that happen again. 

Car companies like Toyota, and the industry group called the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) that represents them, have a history of calling for weak standards that are riddled with loopholes that benefit  the automotive industry.  The most intensive lobbying comes from those companies who have been overtaken in the shift to electric cars. Toyota in particular has been fighting against effective climate policy all over the world.

The petrol car lobby plays on the fears of politicians that any attempt to cut transport emissions will mean that everyday Australians will suffer financially. But that could not be further from the truth! A cap on pollution from new cars (known as a fuel efficiency standard) will mean:

• Australian motorists would save $11.2 billion in fuel costs over the next five years if we introduced a standard similar to the EU
• Car manufacturers will bring in a wider range of more affordable electric vehicles to the Australian market, and they will make petrol vehicles more efficient in the short term
• The average price of vehicles will stay the same, with EVs decreasing in price over time 
• Australia will have a chance to reach net zero by 2050 – which will be impossible without phasing out new petrol cars by 2030 or 2035 at the latest.

This time we won’t let the lobbyists get away with their fear mongering – we are getting on the front foot, warning our politicians about their tactics, and helping them see the compelling reasons a pollution cap on cars makes sense.

Support the campaign to Electrify cars? Sign up to support the campaign here.

The flyer we distributed in Parliament:

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of critical minerals including lithium, cobalt and manganese, with a significant role to play in the transition to a fossil-fuel-free and renewable-powered future. 

With this prominence comes important questions about the role critical minerals have in shaping the country’s sustainable path. As global demand for critical minerals continues to rise, it’s important that we approach mineral extraction, processing, use, reuse and recycling and disposal with care and responsibility.

The following blog explores the role of critical minerals mining in Australia’s clean energy transition and highlights some key principles to guide us to minimise potential social and environmental impacts.

Why are critical minerals important?

Critical minerals are essential for manufacturing various technologies that are integral to our modern world, including mobile phones, computers, banknotes, fibre-optic cables and medical equipment. These minerals are also instrumental in Australia’s transition towards clean energy, powering rechargeable batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels.

As nations unite under the landmark Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, the commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is paramount for protecting our climate, nature and humanity. By harnessing critical minerals, Australia can play its part in helping our country and the world break free from reliance on climate-destroying fossil fuels.

What role does Australia play?

Australia plays a pivotal role in the global landscape of critical minerals, as the world’s largest exporter of lithium and the third-largest producer of cobalt. Additionally, the country 

produces other vital rare earth elements such as manganese, nickel and copper, as highlighted in S&P Global’s 2021 Mining By The Numbers report.

This means Australia has the potential to contribute to the climate change fight by becoming a leading exporter of materials, cutting-edge technology and valuable expertise. By harnessing these resources, the country can create a thriving clean energy industry and generate new trade and job opportunities. However, this means Australia also has a critical responsibility to ensure that the mining, processing and manufacturing of critical minerals is carried out in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.

Does clean energy mean less mining? 

The short answer is yes, a clean energy future can reduce the scale and volume of mining overall.

Various studies, including the International Energy Agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2023 report have indicated that transitioning to a renewable energy-based economy will involve less mining and processing compared to one that is fossil fuel-based.

While fossil fuels are dug up, transported around the world, and burnt once to create energy, critical minerals can be re-used and then recycled multiple times.  

To put it in perspective, approximately 15 billion tonnes of fossil fuels are currently mined and extracted each year. In contrast, the global mining of critical minerals for low-carbon energy amounted to seven million tonnes in 2020. While this amount could increase to 28 million tonnes per year according to the International Energy Agency, that equates to about 535 times less mining than under the current fossil fuelled system.  

By transitioning from fossil fuel-powered energy to an all-renewable electric energy system, we have the potential to drastically reduce the need for extensive mining activities, contributing to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future.

Can we reduce the environmental and social impact?

The reality though is all mining activity can have significant negative environmental and social impacts. 

To minimise these impacts, it’s crucial to reduce the overall amount of materials extracted, prioritise their use for climate solutions, maximise the utilisation of recycled materials, and ensure protection of the environment and human rights in the process.

The following guidelines outline ways in which Australia and the world must approach the use of critical minerals more responsibly:

1. Protect the rights of First Nations people

The rights of indigenous people, local communities, and the social wellbeing of workers are vital.

Securing the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations peoples before undertaking any mining activities is essential and project proponents must ensure that the benefits are shared with traditional landowners.

2. Protect biodiversity and climate hotspots

We must not repeat the same extractive model that has contributed to climate change. 

Extraction should be limited to areas far away from biodiversity and climate hotspots such as High Conservation Value areas (HCVs), primary forest and Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL), High Carbon Stock forests (HCS), critical natural wetlands, including peatlands, grassland and shrubland ecosystems, and deep sea areas. 

3. Say no to deep sea mining

Deep sea mining has no place in our oceans. The urgent implementation of a global moratorium on deep sea mining is crucial to conserve and protect our marine ecosystems.

Greenpeace has called on vehicle manufacturers to cease sourcing minerals from deep sea mining, and companies such as BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, Renault and Rivian have already committed to this.  

4. Adopt circular economy principles

Embracing the reuse and recycling of materials can reduce the environmental impacts of mining and extend the life cycle of materials. 

While fossil fuels are burnt once, major battery inputs like lithium and copper can be recycled multiple times. By 2040, recycled materials have the potential to supply over half of the essential elements for new batteries, even with growing battery demand. Large companies with high use rates of minerals, such as electric car company Polestar, have declared their intention to transition to a closed-loop system. This approach must be scaled and accelerated.

5. Invest in innovative technologies

Governments and corporations must support research and development in, and adoption of,   more efficient battery technology that reduces dependence on mined minerals. 

Battery technology is already improving quickly – wind turbine and electric vehicle manufacturers have been successful in reducing the mineral content of their products year on year. According to WWF’s The Future Is Circular report, the rapid evolution of the sector is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the need for minerals per unit manufactured.

6. Reduce the demand for critical minerals

The world after a successful clean energy transition will not resemble the world we know today.

Significant reductions in the demand for critical minerals can be achieved through societal and policy changes. For example, instead of a one-for-one replacement of internal combustion engines with electric vehicles, we must focus on having fewer cars on the road by investing in affordable and accessible public transport, improving micro-mobility infrastructure, and changing societal expectations to include more shared journeys.

Greenpeace aims to foster an informed dialogue around the responsible use of critical minerals. Join us as we embark on this journey to build a cleaner, greener future for Australia and the world.