Climate and rock art advocates take on Woodside’s ‘carbon bomb’ WA gas project in federal court

Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Adam Bandt speaks outside court in Melbourne on Tuesday, where the Woodside gas project extension is being challenged. Photograph: Ari Balle-Bowness/Australian Conservation Foundation View image in fullscreen Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Adam Bandt speaks outside court in Melbourne on Tuesday, where the Woodside gas project extension is being challenged. Photograph: Ari Balle-Bowness/Australian Conservation Foundation Climate and rock art advocates take on Woodside’s ‘carbon bomb’ WA gas project in federal court Albanese government’s approval of North West Shelf gas extension being challenged by the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of Australian Rock Art The Albanese government’s decision to approve one of the world’s largest gas projects in Western Australia is being challenged in the federal court, setting up a significant test of how Australia’s environment law deals with the threat of climate change. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (Fara) are this week running concurrent court challenges against the approval of the extension of Woodside’s major North West Shelf gas export project. Environment Minister Murray Watt’s approval of the project last year was met with fury from conservationists and the Greens. The approval, allowing Woodside’s Karratha gas processing plant to operate until 2070, has been described as a “carbon bomb” and according to ACF would see about 4bn tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere – equivalent to about 10 years of Australia’s annual emissions. The gas plant operates beside the Murujuga indigenous rock art complex – a landscape of more than a million petroglyphs dating back 50,000 years, including the oldest known image of a human face. In a significant step, a UN special rapporteur has been allowed to intervene in the case to advise the court of Australia’s international climate obligations. Representatives from Fara and ACF and their supporters gathered outside court in Melbourne on Tuesday before the case before Justice Catherine Button. Adam Bandt, chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), said: “It will be up to the court to decide the merits of the case … We’re here saying the minister made the wrong decision and that some very significant factors including around climate change need to be taken into account.” The ACF will argue the minster failed to properly consider how emissions from the gas plant could be a “substantial cause” of damage to Australia’s protected environment. The conservation group will argue the minister didn’t have enough detail about the gas the plan was going to process – partly because it would involve processing third-party gas from as yet unapproved projects – to make a decision. The ACF will also argue the minister incorrectly considered the claimed economic benefits of the gas plant, a point also being argued by Fara. Critics,