Australia’s penchant for naming animals based on their color is a curious cultural quirk, but it’s the fate of the green sea turtle, pygmy blue whale, and dusky sea snake that has environmental advocates up in arms. These species are reportedly at risk if Woodside’s Browse carbon capture and storage (CCS) project goes ahead at Scott Reef in Western Australia. Critics, including Greenpeace and the Australian Greens, have taken to calling it “carbon dumping,” a term that starkly contrasts with the greenwashing they accuse Woodside of engaging in.
The Australian government recently launched a two-week public consultation period on the Browse project, beginning January 2. This timing has raised eyebrows, as many Australians were off enjoying their summer holidays. Acting Greens Leader Senator Sarah Hanson-Young didn’t mince words, stating, “Woodside’s blatant attempt at greenwashing their polluting projects will not stop extinctions and will not protect our oceans and climate.” The stakes are high, with potential risks from CO2 toxicity, earthquakes, leakage, and the ongoing seismic surveys that accompany such projects.
Geoff Bice, the WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, has labeled CCS an “expensive distraction” that fossil fuel corporations use to mask their emissions. He argues that the focus should instead be on renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which have proven effective in combating climate change. With 2024 marking the hottest year on record, the urgency for real solutions has never been more pressing. Alice Harrison from Global Witness poignantly highlighted this in a LinkedIn post, where she addressed the CEOs of major fossil fuel companies, challenging them to consider the future they’re leaving for their children. It’s a call to conscience that resonates deeply in an era where extreme weather events are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Back on the ground in Australia, Woodside maintains that the Browse gas project aligns with the key policy statements of both the Western Australian and Australian governments, which tout the importance of natural gas as a transitional energy source. However, this position is not unique to Australia. Norway recently awarded CO2 storage permits in the North Sea, while Denmark has launched a licensing round for exploration and CO2 storage. The U.S. is also ramping up its CCS initiatives, with expectations that regulatory environments will become more favorable under a potential second Trump administration.
Despite the global push for CCS, critics like Greenpeace argue that it has not been proven effective at a scale necessary to tackle the climate crisis. Yet, Geoscience Australia asserts that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 will be nearly impossible without a significant global scale-up of CCS. This technology is particularly crucial for heavy industries that are hard to decarbonize, such as aluminum, steel, and cement manufacturing, as well as for blue hydrogen production.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: whether labeled as greenwashing or blackwashing, the role of CCS in the climate change narrative is far from settled. The potential impact on marine life, especially in sensitive ecosystems like Scott Reef, adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious issue. The conversation around CCS is not just about technology; it’s about the future of our planet, the integrity of our ecosystems, and the legacy we leave for generations to come.
