The ongoing legal battle between climate and rock art advocates and Woodside's proposed gas project in Western Australia highlights the complex interplay between economic development, environmental protection, and international climate commitments. This case, now in the federal court, challenges the Albanese government's decision to approve the extension of Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project, a move that has sparked intense debate and legal action.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (Fara) are at the forefront of this legal challenge, arguing that the environment minister, Murray Watt, failed to adequately consider the project's environmental impact, particularly its contribution to climate change. The project, which includes the extension of Woodside's Karratha gas processing plant until 2070, is estimated to release around 4 billion tonnes of CO2, equivalent to about 10 years of Australia's annual emissions. This has led to the project being labeled a 'carbon bomb' by critics.
The gas plant's proximity to the Murujuga indigenous rock art complex, a UNESCO World Heritage site containing over a million petroglyphs dating back 50,000 years, is a significant concern. Critics argue that industrial emissions from the plant are already causing erosion of the petroglyphs, and the extension of the project will exacerbate this issue. However, government-backed monitoring has largely dismissed these concerns, and some scientists remain unconvinced.
The legal challenge also involves the intervention of a UN special rapporteur, Astrid Puentes Riaño, who has been granted the status of 'friend of the court' to advise the court on Australia's international climate obligations. This intervention is significant given the International Court of Justice's ruling that countries must prevent harm to the climate system, and failure to do so could result in reparations. Puentes' submission emphasizes Australia's duty to prevent significant harm to the environment under customary international law.
The ACF and Fara argue that the minister did not properly identify the risks to the rock art from the project and failed to consider the economic benefits in a balanced manner. They also question the detail of the information available to the minister, given the involvement of third-party gas from unapproved projects. The case is expected to run all week, with a further day set aside for additional proceedings.
This legal battle underscores the challenges of balancing economic development and environmental protection, especially in the context of the climate crisis. It also highlights the importance of international legal frameworks in holding countries accountable for their environmental obligations. As the court deliberates, the outcome will have significant implications for Australia's approach to climate change and the protection of its unique cultural heritage.
