Fighting Australia’s carbon bomb – choosing courage over cowardice

Podcast: Download (Duration: 53:49 — 49.6MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | RSS | More

The Sustainable Hour no. 571 | Transcript | Podcast notes

Our guest in The Sustainable Hour no. 571 is environmental lawyer Adam Beeson from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).

This week in The Sustainable Hour we examine what real leadership looks like in a time of climate breakdown – and who is showing it. While Senator Matt Canavan and the National Party walk away from net zero, we hear how ordinary Australians and legal advocates are stepping up for justice, truth, and life on our planet.

Mik Aidt opens with a reflection on courage versus cowardice in politics, reminding us that leadership is about correcting what’s wrong – just as Australians once did when they led the world by giving women the right to vote. From there, the Hour unfolds into a national reckoning.

• Global outlook: Colin Mockett OAM reports on the devastation from Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean and flooding in Kenya, both made worse by global heating. He highlights shocking new figures from The Lancet Countdown showing nearly a thousand Australians dying each year from climate-related heat, and an ACF report revealing that two-thirds of Australia’s mature forests have been cleared since European colonisation.

• Adam Beeson – Australian Conservation Foundation‘s General Council – unpack the organisation’s landmark Federal Court challenge against Minister Murray Watt’s approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf Extension – a project set to emit four billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. Adam explains why ACF argues that the Minister made legal mistakes by excluding climate change impacts from the assessment process. More information about their legal action can be found here.

Adam also outlines the wider implications of the International Court of Justice’s recent opinion that nations like Australia can no longer hide behind domestic emissions targets while exporting vast quantities of fossil fuels abroad.

The conversation explores how climate damage costs every Australian household thousands of dollars a year, yet the fossil fuel sector continues to profit. Adam insists that ignoring the human and financial toll of climate disasters while approving new gas and coal projects is unjust – and that the government’s refusal to include climate in national environmental law is “a massive missed opportunity.”

Despite the grim picture, Adam offers an antidote to despair: “Be active. Getting active is the cure for cynicism.” Tony and Colin echo that call, urging listeners to join their local ACF group or other community initiatives – because meaningful action not only helps the planet, it also restores mental balance.

• The episode closes with an inspiring address by Lars Westra, speaking at a UN Youth Forum. His message to the older generation: dream as you dreamed when you were my age – and be the hero you wanted to be.

• Music: The original song “Hush Now Little One” ends the hour on a gentle, defiant note – a lullaby for resilience and love in hard times. Find the song – and more songs from The Sustainable Hour – here.

“This is a massive project. It is accurately described as a carbon bomb because the lifetime emissions from this will be four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution.”
~ Adam Beeson, ACF’s general counsel

The Australian Conservation Foundation has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court to challenge Environment Minister Murray Watt’s approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas hub extension.

[image or embed]
— Australian Conservation Foundation (@ausconservation.bsky.social) October 13, 2025 at 11:24 AM

Australia’s ‘environment protection’ law does no such thing. #auspol www.theguardian.com/environment/…

[image or embed]
— Australian Conservation Foundation (@ausconservation.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 9:04 AM

→ Subscribe to The Sustainable Hour podcast via Apple Podcasts or Spotify

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We at The Sustainable Hour would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we are broadcasting, the Wadawurrung People. We pay our respects to their elders – past, present, and emerging, and extend that respect to all First Nations people.

The traditional custodians lived in harmony with the land for millennia, nurturing it and thriving in often harsh conditions. Their connection to the land was deeply spiritual and sustainable. This land was invaded and stolen from them. It was never ceded. Today, it is increasingly clear that if we are to survive the climate emergency we face, we must learn from their land management practices and cultural wisdom.

True climate justice cannot be achieved until Australia’s First Nations people receive the justice they deserve. When we speak about the future, we must include respect for those yet to be born, the generations to come. As the old saying reminds us: “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” It is deeply unfair that decisions to ignore the climate emergency are being made by those who won’t live to face the worst impacts, leaving future generations to bear the burden of their inaction.

“The Indigenous worldview has been marginalised for generations because it was seen as antiquated and unscientific and its ethics of respect for Mother Earth were in conflict with the industrial worldview. But now, in this time of climate change and massive loss of biodiversity, we understand that the Indigenous worldview is neither unscientific nor antiquated, but is, in fact, a source of wisdom that we urgently need.”
~ Robin Wall Kimmerer, weallcanada.org

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SEC delivers renewable, affordable, reliable energy for all Victorians.

SEC is a government-owned renewable energy company, focusing on:
Investing in renewable energy and storage projects that accelerate the transition and deliver commercial returns.
Supporting households to go all-electric to reduce their energy bills and emissions.
Building the renewable energy workforce our energy transition requires.
Find out more on www.secvictoria.com.au/about

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Australian petition | Add your name:
Strong environment laws now! | The Australia Institute
To the Hon. Murray Watt MP, Minister for the Environment: “The Australian public voted for a climate majority at the last election, and we want strong environment laws that can stop new coal and gas. Every new coal and gas mine damages nature. We urge you to strengthen – not weaken – Australia’s environment laws.”
9,237 signatures on 5 November 2025.

Australian petition | Sign open letter:
Tell Murray Watt: Don’t ignore climate damage | GetUp!
“Dear Minister Watt: Your proposed environment laws fail the climate test. They would let new coal and gas projects go ahead without considering the pollution they create — our biggest environmental threat. We call on you to include a climate trigger in the EPBC reforms, establish a strong and independent Environmental Protection Agency, close loopholes that allow deforestation and fossil fuel expansion – and reject any weak deal with the Coalition.”

→ More petitions you could sign

Climate 200: Wipe the smile off Matt Canavan’s face

Newsletter from Byron Fay at Climate 200 on 4 November 2025

The Nationals have formally made climate denial their top priority. This week Matt Canavan declared we “need to build coal fired power stations again” and want to “kill net zero”.

So today, I’m pleased to announce the Matt Canavan Climate Trust: a project to ensure every voter in Liberal electorates knows just who calls the shots on the Coalition’s climate policy ahead of the next election.

You can chip in to support the Canavan Climate Trust here.

Canavan may be a fossil fuel champion to his social media followers and on Sky after Dark, but his comments are toxic in the urban seats his Coalition relies on to form government. Some in the Liberal Party have rushed to distance themselves from the decision — Tim Wilson telling Sky News yesterday that he isn’t just “National Party-lite”. He knows his seat is at risk.

But we’ve been here before. The Nats set the Liberal Party policy on the Voice referendum. The Nats set the Liberal Party policy on nuclear power. And now the Nats want to set the Liberal Party’s climate policy.

So the team is clipping and recording the worst of Canavan’s anti-climate comments as we speak.

Cutting climate pollution to zero by 2050 is critical if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Abandoning that target would be akin to accepting defeat in the climate fight, and the economy-wrecking costs that would entail. It would also mean passing up the incredible economic opportunities we face from leaning into climate action, particularly in regional Australia.

If the Coalition can’t offer a credible climate policy, they should suffer for it. Chip in to the Canavan Climate Trust to spread the word.

Best,
Byron,
Climate 200

Wow, Australia is #1 in the world

That’s right, we are number 1. But for all the wrong reasons. We’ve lost more mammals to extinction than any other country in the world because of deforestation. Our weak nature laws are letting big agricultural corporations legally clear forests. And it’s pushing countless native species closer to extinction, unless we do something now.

After 25 years, our nature laws are finally being rewritten — a huge step, but the draft is dangerously weak and could be approved within the next few weeks. Will you urgently donate now to help power bold action for strong laws that protect wildlife, not corporations?

DONATE NOW

We’re fighting for more than trees. We’re fighting for animal survival. And they are in real danger. Every two minutes an area of forest the size of a football field is wiped out in Australia, destroying vital habitats for native species. When trees are bulldozed, koalas are killed or forced to the ground, often left injured. We need to give our wildlife a fighting chance. Laws aren’t just words on paper. New, strong laws could mean harmful industries will be stopped from bulldozing forests – they’ll be breaking the law.

By creating strong laws NOW, Australia could change the course and be a global leader in stopping deforestation. With the UN Climate Conference (COP) being held in the heart of the Amazon next week, the stakes couldn’t be higher. These next few weeks are crucial. Right now, we’re on the ground in Canberra pushing the government to urgently rewrite strong nature laws. Your support today can power this direct action. Today, you can help Greenpeace fight for wildlife, help stop deforestation in Australia and push our government to lead the world in protecting forests and wildlife.

Will you urgently donate today and be the voice for the animals who can’t speak for themselves? We cannot miss this historic opportunity, and with your help we won’t. With hope and determination,

Elle Lawless
Senior Campaigner
Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Australia needs strong environment laws

Vis dette opslag på Instagram

Et opslag delt af Bob Brown Foundation (@bobbrownfoundation)

Newsletter from Environmental Justice Australia on 1 November 2025:

Most Australians would expect our national nature laws to actually protect nature. But the long-awaited Albanese government reform package – tabled in Parliament this week – needs a lot of work to pass that test.

At more than 1,500 pages across seven bills, this EPBC Act reform package is meant to be the biggest environmental law overhaul in a generation. But unless it’s significantly improved, it could lock in decades more destruction.

Our legal team has gone through every page of the reform package so you don’t have to.

Today, we’re releasing EJA’s Environment Law Reform Scorecard – an independent assessment of the good, the bad, the ugly, and what needs to change before Parliament passes it.

Explore the scorecard and read our legal analysis:
www.envirojustice.org.au/environment-law-reform-scorecard

These laws touch everything – the air we breathe, the rivers and forests we love, our climate future, the ecosystems and wildlife we love.

Over the coming weeks, a Senate inquiry will give people across Australia a rare chance to have their say.

It’s essential that communities understand the detail and speak up.

That’s why we’re inviting you to join EJA’s legal experts for an online webinar on Monday 10 November, 6.30–7.30pm AEDT.

Together we’ll unpack the reforms, answer your questions, and share how you can write an impactful submission to the Senate inquiry.

RSVP FOR THE WEBINAR

The current reform package does have glimpses of good things, like:

a new national EPA (though it’s missing most of its teeth)
stronger penalties for those who break the law
a definition of “unacceptable impact”
the promising possibility of environmental standards.

But these small steps forward are undermined by sweeping ministerial discretion over when and how to apply the rules.

Plus it’s hard to see past the gaping holes:

No requirement to assess or prevent climate harm to nature
Logging and land clearing loopholes left wide open
Discretionary ministerial powers at every turn
A “pay-to-destroy” offsets model that experts say is among the worst they’ve seen
Plans to hand decision-making to states ill-equipped for the job
First Nations rights sidelined, with no Free, Prior and Informed Consent

For years now, people across Australia have called for nature laws that do what they say on the tin: actually protect nature.

Now, as the Senate begins its review, this is a critically important time to make your voice count.

Stay tuned for EJA’s upcoming toolkit to help you write your submission – and RSVP now for Monday’s webinar to get ready.

READ THE SCORECARD | RSVP FOR THE WEBINAR

Thank you for standing up for nature,

Nicola Rivers
Co-CEO, Environmental Justice Australia

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transcript of The Sustainable Hour no. 571

Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General: (00:00)
Climate change is here, it is terrifying and it is just the beginning.

Jingle: (00:15)
The Sustainable Hour. For a green, clean, sustainable Geelong. The Sustainable Hour.

Tony Gleeson:
Welcome to The Sustainable Hour. We’d like to acknowledge that we’re broadcasting from the land of the Wadawurrung people. We pay tribute to their elders – past, present, and those that earn that great honour in the future. We’re broadcasting from stolen land, land that was never ceded, always was and always will be First Nations land.

We came closer to that last week with the announcement – or it being passed – in Parliament in Victoria that a formal treaty is going to happen. That is really important for a number of reasons – to undo the wrongs of the past but it’s also hopefully bring us closer to the ancient wisdom that they accumulated by nurturing both their lands and their communities for millennia before their land was stolen. We’re going to need that ancient wisdom to navigate the waters of the climate crisis.

Matt Canavan, Australian Senator: (01:32)
Common sense is making a comeback here. It is absolutely nonsense to try and target net zero emissions, let alone by 2050. It’s clearly not happening anywhere in the world.”

Mik Aidt:
Says National’s Senator Matt Canavan, on Sky News, to explain why the National Party has decided, which they did on Sunday, to ‘dump net zero’, as they call it.

And let’s just translate what he’s saying there.

‘It’s absolutely nonsense to try and target net zero emissions,’ he says. On the contrary, last week we had Ian Dunlop for a full hour, a full Sustainable Hour explain why it is absolutely essential that we reach net zero emissions as soon as possible. Even talking about 2050 is a decade too late. We need to go further than zero. We need to go down below by drawing out carbon. That’s the reality.

And then this thing that the nationalists are now saying that ‘It’s clearly not happening anywhere in the world.’ Well, I’m sorry, Mr Canavan, it’s actually happening all over the world. But what we’re seeing here is the Trump effect, once again, playing out, which is that lying straight out, lying while you’re on TV, is not a problem anymore in politics. That’s the Trump effect. Just say whatever and you’ll get away with it. Lying has become legitimate, hasn’t it?

Which, in my opinion, boils down to a discussion – or a chat – about values:

Australians? Are we leaders? Or are we cowards?

Do we want to show the world what is right and what is wrong? Like the Australians did in 1902 when they decided to give women the right to vote. That was leadership. In 1902, Australia became the first country in the world to grant both women the right to vote and to stand for parliament at the national level.

And those men back in that time helped that happen not because they said, ‘Clearly it’s not happening anywhere in the world.’ No, they said, ‘This is wrong!’ And then they corrected it. And that is what leadership looks like.

Matt Canavan and the Nationals obviously think we should be cowards. And Canavan’s got a problem with Australia being a leader in transitioning away from fossil fuels, actually, maybe not because he’s such a coward, but because he’s got family interests in coal mines.

Matt Canavan has strong personal connections to the coal industry through his family. He’s accepted gifts and hospitality linked to coal companies. And for years, he’s been one of the most outspoken champions of new coal projects – at this time! New coal projects! – while opposing climate policies.

And then he goes on explaining about that Australians are paying a higher price for reducing our emissions. While honestly, it’s clear for most people – certainly those who’ve got solar on the roof – that renewable energy is now cheaper and better in so many ways than coal and fossil fuels.

And should we just for a minute talk about high prices? Climate disasters in Australia are now costing us 38 billion dollars per year according to Oxfam. That’s equivalent to 3,800 dollars per household on average. But of course the highest costs are for those communities that are directly hit by these disasters, where some families actually never recover financially or importantly emotionally.

And that includes farmers. Luckily far from all farmers vote for the climate denying National Party. The nationals got 3.8 per cent of the votes at the last election. So that’s altogether around a half a million Australians who gave the national party their first preference vote.

And just for comparison, the community independents got more than twice of that. There’s over one million Australians who voted first preference for a community independent at the last election. 7.2 per cent of Australian voters.

And I think that’s something important to think about. There’s twice as many people in this country who believe in community independence and integrity and some values, some leadership in this field of net zero policies.

Anyway, enough ranting here from me. Over to our global news reporter, Colin Mockett OAM, who has been keeping an eye on what’s been happening around the world. And Colin, what do you have for us?

COLIN MOCKETT’S GLOBAL ROUNDUP:
Yes, well I cover both of the issues that both you and Tony have already brought up. But that’s all part of the world politics, isn’t it?

My roundup this week begins in Jamaica where they’re assessing the damage that was wrought last week by Hurricane Melissa. The hurricane, the most powerful ever to hit the Caribbean, left a path of destruction with 37 people known to be dead and many more missing.

It’s now quiet, but Haiti, Cuba and the Bahamas and parts of Jamaica are now in ruins, with the clean-up bill counted in billions of dollars. Footage of the area shows felled trees, smashed cars, downed power lines and ruined homes. It’s a portrait of records that’s only starting to come clear as assessment is hampered by a lack of power, and communications across the region. All of the science points to this sort of devastation becoming the new norm, with climate change making the hurricane season both stronger and longer.

In response, the US has sent rescue and response teams to assist, while the UK announced $5 million in emergency funding. That was US dollars.

Now to Western Kenya, where flooding and mudslides at the weekend killed 25 people with many more missing. Those two disasters, though different, share similarities, quite apart from the similar numbers of dead and missing. Both of the weather events that hit them were attributed by scientists as the result of man-made global warming. Yet neither of their regions contribute much to the carbon in the world’s atmosphere.

It’s noticeable that the contributions from wealthy nations are token. And it’s also unlikely that either region will have much of a voice at next week’s COP29 in Brazil, where delegates are already beginning to fly in. Most noticeably, and the biggest numbers are coming from the fossil fuel industry.

Now if ever we needed an illustration of how the fight against global warming is really going, this week becomes a very neat snapshot.

While here in Australia, quite apart from the political stupidity of the National Party walking away from net zero commitments, a new report from the Australian Conservation Foundation has been released. It detailed the enormous scale of deforestation in our land since Europeans arrived some 250 years ago.

Now, in global terms, 250 years is not very much. But the new analysis by the ACF found that Australia has lost almost two-thirds of its mature forest cover since Europeans arrived in the late 18th century. The new report, which used existing State of the Forest report data, was described as ‘utterly shameful’ by ACF acting chief executive Paul Sinclair. ‘Mature forests are irreplaceable’, he said. ‘They provide critical habitat, stable soil systems, and long-term carbon storage that takes centuries to develop.’ He said that if you drill down into the data, it shows that since white settlement an MCG arena worth of forest had been cleared every two minutes. And there have been an awful lot of two-minute segments in 247 years. Three have happened since we started this programme.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the respected medical magazine Lancet further detailed the number of world climate tipping points that have been exceeded. If you remember, we touched on this last week, but the new article goes further. It details heat waves, extreme drought and deadly wildfire smoke as just some of the climate-related health hazards that have reached record levels of harm. This Lancet report was brought together by a global collaboration of leading scientists and public health professionals.

It’s titled The Lancet Countdown. It’s an annual breakdown of how climate change impacts on public health around the world. It’s authored by 128 global experts, headquartered at University College London and produced in collaboration with the World Health Organization. Now this, the ninth edition of the report, found that 13 out of 20 metrics used to track the health impacts of climate change have reached unprecedented levels, including heatwave deaths in vulnerable populations, risks of denny fever, transmission, and deaths caused from air pollution caused by wildfire smoke. We’re really only talking about Australia here. The authors summed up the situation as a world in turmoil.

‘The delays in delivering climate action that we’re seeing so far increasingly costing livelihoods,’ said Marina Romanello, Biomedical Scientist and Executive Director of The Lancet Countdown. Now this was at a press briefing announcing the report.

‘We are seeing millions of deaths that are occurring needlessly every year because of our persistent fossil fuel dependence because of our delay in mitigating climate change and our delays in adapting to climate change,’ she said.

Among the figures quoted showed that more Australians are dying from climate change-induced heat than ever before. The data shows an average of 980 annual deaths per year in Australia alone. The report reveals that in 2024, people in Australia were exposed to on average 8.1 heatwave days of these 5.4 – 67 per cent – would not have been expected to occur without climate change. Heat exposure also caused a loss of more than 175 million potential labour hours. That’s 12 hours per person at a record high. And it equates to 161 per cent higher than the 1990-1999 average.

Meanwhile, the heat waves and drought conditions continue in New South Wales and freak storms are in Queensland.

On the better news front in Europe, where the BBC reported that rail companies are looking for new ways to electrify trains. They’re unveiling plans that could in time see the system that we mostly use here in Australia, that of diesel powered locomotives, completely abandoned. European trains are low carbon compared to fossil fuel powered road travel, but they still run mostly on diesel.

Installing overhead tables or electrified rails is difficult and costly, and local grids frequently struggle with the power demands simply of a rail going through their land. One British firm is considering railway-side solar panels to avoid the latter problem. But more innovatively, a Polish company is trialling electromagnetic propulsion for individual freight wagons allowing each to be powered by batteries and reducing the need for mile long, hard to stop freight trains. And that’s another thing for us to watch because there are similar trials in America and we use those freight trains very much for exporting our ore around the world.

Now for our weekly look at Forest Green Rovers, the world’s greenest sports club. Well, the Rovers lost 4-3 away to Luton Town at the weekend, resulting with them dropping to sixth place on the ladder of their division, while the Rovers’ women’s team had their match postponed because of a waterlogged pitch. And that soggy note ends my roundup for the week.

Jingle:
Listen to our Sustainable Hour – for the future.

. . .

Tony:
Our guest today is Adam Beeson. Adam is part of the ACF’s legal team that have decided to challenge Minister Watt’s approval of fossil fuel projects in Australia. So Adam, thanks very much for coming on.

Adam Beeson:
That’s a pleasure, Tony. Nice to meet you. Nice to see Colin and Mik. It’s great to be here.

Tony:
What stage is it at, is this action, legal action at, as we speak?

Adam: (16:08)
Yeah, as you said, Tony, the Australian Conservation Foundation has brought a federal court challenge against the Environment Minister Murray Watts’ approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf Extension. And we’ve brought a second challenge also related to the North West Shelf Extension, which concerned the scope of the impact that the Minister thinks is necessary when looking at this project.

So if I could just step back a bit… What we’re talking about here is a gas processing facility. It’s been in operation for decades with a particular offshore resource that was feeding it. And what Woodside have applied to do is to extend that out and what the Minister has now approved to extend that out to 2070. So 45 years from now is the end date on the gas processing and also to expand the scope of the enterprise to allow Woodside to receive unspecified third-party gas.

So gas from other sources other than that which are currently being processed at the facility. Now this is a massive project. This is accurately described as a carbon bomb because the lifetime emissions from this will be four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution.

Now just to put that in context for your listeners: that’s almost 10 times what Australia as a nation, so every Australian, every industry, every source within Australia emits in a single year. So this one project over its lifetime is equivalent to almost 10 times what Australia emits in an entire year. This facility represents around 5 per cent of global liquid natural gas exports, and the vast majority of the gas that’s processed in this facility will be exported overseas. So it’s not providing gas to Australian industry primarily, it’s primarily being used to sell to overseas customers.

So together with the other elements of this gas hub, it’s the single largest polluting activity, polluting gas activity in the Southern Hemisphere. So just to put that into context, it’s a really massive project and particularly massive when you consider its climate change consequences.

So coming back to the legal case, what ACF has done on the 13th of October is lodge a case in the federal court where we’re saying that the minister made a legal mistake in making his decision to approve it. And we say he made a legal mistake for a number of reasons. Firstly, he lent on the scales when it came to assessing the economic benefit. And he did that by including the development of a gas field in the economic analysis.

Now that gas field hasn’t been approved yet, and the environmental impact of that gas field has not been considered. So we think that was a legal mistake. We’ll also argue to the court that because the nature of the gas that will be put into this facility under this approval is unspecified, the Minister didn’t have enough information to make the decision that he did. And the Minister acknowledges this in his reasons that he provided for the decision.

What you put into the facility has an enormous, if not determinative effect on what you get out in terms of pollution. So we’ll say he needed to understand that better.

And finally, and importantly for The Sustainable Hour, we think he made a mistake when it came to how he dealt with the climate change consequences of this project. Essentially what he did in approving it was to say that the climate change consequences were irrelevant because of an interpretation he applied to the law that he was making the decision under the National Environmental Law. And we’ll be saying that that was a mistake, that the way he interpreted the law was incorrect.

That issue, the climate change consequence issue, also comes into the second case that I mentioned that we began on the 27th of October. In that case, what we’re saying is that the Minister unduly narrowed the scope of the assessment for this North West Shelf gas facility, which as I’ve already explained is a massive carbon bomb. And he did that by saying that in a similar way, the climate change consequences were irrelevant.

ACF’s position, and we put this in the consultation process that led up to the final decision that we’re challenging, is that the Minister should have considered how this project will impact other important places in Australia because of its climate change effect. So for example, the Great Barrier Reef or Ningaloo or the Alpine National Park. The Minister rejected that and said, ‘No, I’m not going to consider the climate change consequences of this’ – based on his interpretation of the law.

So the only issue that was considered in the assessment and in the approval decision was the impact around the gas facility, which is a really important issue, just to be clear. The impact is upon the world’s largest collection of rock art, incredibly valuable to the world and in particular the Murujuga traditional owners. But what our ACF will argue is whilst that was an important task, it was also required by the law to consider the climate change consequences of this project and in both of the decisions the Ministry didn’t do that and we’ll be making the case to the Federal Court that that was a legal error.

Mik:
So can you explain how is it going to roll out? What are the dates? When will we know the decision on this?

Adam:
Yeah, litigation is never an easy option and one of the reasons for that is it’s very unpredictable and hard to know exactly how things will unfold. But based on previous experience, we think this case will unfold over the next three to six months. Those two cases may be heard together, the two cases that ACF has brought, and you may be aware that another organisation has also challenged the Northwest Shelf approval decision, and it may be that all of those cases are brought together. That’ll give the court the most efficient approach in terms of the speed with which it can deal with it in all likelihood. But we have to bear in mind these are decisions that the court will make rather than ACF or Woodside for that matter. And yeah, as I say, it’s an unpredictable process. But we’re assuming that in around six months we’ll have a decision, we’ll have a hearing in this and then shortly thereafter a decision from the court.

Colin:
And the Federal Court will be sitting in Canberra?

Adam:
ACF has filed its case in the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Court. Again, that’ll be a decision that the court will ultimately make where the hearing will take place. As a rule, where proceedings are filed is the registry that the hearing will take place in, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Colin:
Now Adam, can you just clarify a couple of things for me because I’m not sure if I’ve got things 100 per cent correct in my mind. But I believe that the Woodside Project was on the desk of Tanya Libeshek more than a year ago. She was the previous environment minister and she didn’t even approach it. She wouldn’t touch it. But then that was in the past Albanese government and then Murray Watt was appointed to be the environment minister because basically he’s a fixer and he can sort out log jams in political systems. I don’t think anybody ever said hey Murray Watt’s a real environmentalist, let’s get him in there, whereas Tanya did have jobs in that regard. Have I got those little bits and pieces right? And then before you answer that, I also understand that when we sell gas abroad, we do it incredibly cheaply. And frequently, the gas that goes to Japan is sold on by the Japanese to other countries at a profit. So, number one, we the Australian people don’t make a lot of money from the gas that is exported. And number two, it’s likely that the Japanese are making more money out of the gas that Woodside is producing than anybody in Australia, including the federal government, is getting. Now, am I wrong on that one too?

Adam:
Thanks Colin. Just going on the process through the federal approval system, this actually began with the former environment minister Susan Lee, the current leader of the opposition, and that was where the problems really began in terms of the scope of the assessment because that minister Lee at that time narrowed the scope in the way I described earlier. That is, she didn’t include the climate change consequences of the project in what needed to be assessed.

However, that could have been fixed by Minister Plibersek and then Minister Watt because they had the opportunity through a process of what’s called reconsideration under the law. Applications were made to reconsider that scope of the assessment decision to include climate change and Minister Plibersek didn’t make that decision when Minister Watt did make it.

He again kept the scope extremely narrow so climate change won’t be considered. In terms of the timing and it’s very difficult to know these things from the outside. It’s very common in my experience for delays in these processes to be at the developer end. know the developer is either required to get more information or hasn’t provided sufficient information and so the government is waiting on a step in the process for that information or perhaps there’s a negotiation process.

So you may be aware that Minister Watt gave an early indication that he would approve the North West Shelf Extension, but then there was a many month gap during which we gather. There was negotiations between the government and Woodside on the conditions that would apply to the project. In terms of the gas price, I am not a gas industry expert. I’ll just be frank about that.

I believe we sell into the international market and that is one of reasons gas prices, if not the main reason, the gas prices are so high in Australia because we have such a heavy reliance on our export trade that that feeds into what prices Australians pay for their gas. And I think you’re right Colin that Japan is on selling a significant amount of Australian gas.

And so when you hear the gas industry say that Japan needs our gas to keep its lights on, that sort of claim needs to be treated with a fair bit of skepticism.

Tony:
Adam, whilst this court case is taking its course, what does that do for, like there’s a queue of fossil fuel projects that are awaiting the Minister’s approval. Is he able to act on any of those or does that, fact that it’s going to court stop that process until the decision comes down?

Adam: (28:09)
Yeah, we would encourage the Minister to give serious thought to the challenge we’ve lodged in terms of the legal basis for it and particularly the scope of the assessment that’s required under this legislation. As I’ve said, we will argue that the climate change consequences of a massive carbon bomb such as this and in fact any heavy emitting project, whether it be a gas processing facility, a gas field or a coal mine, should undergo an assessment that includes the climate consequences for Australia.

It won’t, the fact of this court case doesn’t impact directly on any other fossil fuel project approval because those processes are so independent of one another. So in terms of any projects that the minister has got on his desk at the moment that are ready for approval, it won’t have an impact on that. But as I say, we would encourage the minister to look at what we’ve said in our court documents and reassess his approach to climate change when it comes to these big committing projects.

Colin:
Hey Adam, what would be the ACF’s best outcome from this court case? Would you see it actually slowing down or stopping the Woodside Gas Project?

Adam:
Our primary motivation for bringing this case is to ensure that the laws correctly applied to these projects. So we, as I’ve said, we say that the minister made mistakes when applying the law and those mistakes are really consequential when it comes to particularly the climate change impacts of this project. The best outcome from ACS point of view is that the court agrees with our arguments and quashes or throws out the approval decision and also quashes and throws out the minister’s decision on that reconsideration.

The reconsideration being about the scope of the assessment and the fact that the minister excluded climate change from it. If those decisions are thrown out on the basis that we’ve put in our case, then the minister will need to remake those decisions but in accordance with the law that the court has set down in its judgment.

So a best case scenario here would be the approval is thrown out and then the Minister does need to understand the climate change consequences of the project before remaking the decision and you won’t surprise you to learn that from ACS point of view that once you properly consider the climate change consequences of this project the correct decision should have been to refuse it.

Mik:
In July, Adam, there was a court decision from the International Court of Justice, which made us very excited in the sustainable hour here. We really couldn’t get our arms down because finally there was a global court that stated that governments can be held liable, that it’s a criminal activity that we’re seeing, that they continue to approve fossil fuel projects while we see all this damage that it’s causing in front of our eyes. And while, for instance, the Pacific Islanders are seeing the waters rise and are feeling the anxiety of losing their homes. Now, what’s happened with that decision and has it had any impact on your work?

Adam:
Absolutely, that was a really important decision of the International Court of Justice. It was a process that Australia as a government inputted into and made the argument that as long as Australia complies with the Paris Agreement, that is, as long as it keeps its domestic emissions at a particular level, that is the beginning and the end of its international legal obligations. That’s what Australia argued. And that argument was comprehensively dismissed by the court.

The court has rejected that argument and said that when it comes to the obligations of states in relation to climate change, it’s not limited to your domestic emissions. So this is really important for Australia because our export emissions dwarf our domestic emissions. It’s in the vicinity of four times our domestic emissions, what we give rise to globally when we export coal and gas. And it doesn’t matter where that coal and gas is burned, the impacts of that are felt by Australians in heat waves, floods, fires, you know, I don’t need to tell you all about the consequences for climate change, but this head in the sand approach that the government takes of saying, well, as long as we comply with the domestic requirements of the Paris Agreement, that’s the end of the story, has been rejected by the court.

This case, the International Court of Justice opinion has already been raised in another court case that ACF is involved in in Queensland in relation to the biggest greenfield coal mine development in Australia. It’s called the Winchester South Project. That International Court of Justice decision came down during that case and we have made detailed submissions to that court about the impact of the International Court’s ruling. And in terms of the North West Shelf, we’re in the very early stages of that case yet.

But I would anticipate that in the way that the court has said that Australia has to consider its production of fossil fuels and the assessment processes that go into that in terms of fulfilling its international obligations on climate change. In this case, the correct approach, the correct interpretation of the law is to consider how much four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions or what the impact of four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will be on Australia in the environmental impact process that Australian law requires. So it’s a really important development.

And as you say as well, it really raises for Australia as a country that exports so much fossil fuel, really raises for Australia the risk of legal action being brought against us. I think in the lead up to or just after the approval decision on Northwest Shelf, a minister for Vanuatu raise this very issue that there is a real risk that Australia will be subject to legal proceedings in international courts based on the damage it’s causing through its export of fossil fuels.

Mik:
As an Australian, I’m now told that we collectively, each of us, pay $3,800 for all the damage that’s happening because of climate change. $3,800 a year. And that’s going to rise in the coming years. When we talk about justice, it seems to me very unjust that in one end of this planet, there’s some people making a lot of money. And the reason that they keep approving new coal mines gas projects, et cetera, is because they are making money. It’s money that’s driving it. And at the other end, we have some other people who get hit by climate disasters and they are devastated. Some people are killed, others have to pay out thousands and thousands of dollars because they’ve lost their home, they lost their car, they lost something. That seems to be really unjust that you have people on one hand making money and on the other hand, innocent people being hit by that. What’s your response to that? – as a person of justice, working in this space of justice.

Adam:
Yeah, I think it’s a spot on observation and we don’t, and this North West Shelf Case is an illustration of that, we don’t pay enough attention in terms of approving these projects to what the real world consequences for Australians will be. Because it’s hardly controversial these days that insurance premiums are going up due to climate change. It’s hardly controversial that people are having their homes flooded or burned or suffering through heatwaves due to the effects of climate change. So how can we possibly ignore those things when we’re deciding whether these projects should go ahead.

And I think from the justice point of view, it’s often the case that people who can least afford it, who are already struggling, are most impacted by the consequences. I think it’s interesting in this case that I mentioned that ACF is bringing in Queensland about Whitehaven Coles Winchester South Coal Mine or Greenfield Coal Mine. So at the moment there’s paddocks and forest, and they want to turn it into an open cut coal mine, that product will all be exported overseas. All of that coal will be exported overseas and there will be, you can’t deny, will be some economic benefit to the state of Queensland and some employment, but the climate change consequences in our, what we’ve told the court there, were not adequately assessed by the Queensland government and we really need to get much more sophisticated and real about how we factor those things in rather than just pointing to the economic benefit of selling the coal or the gas and saying, that is a good in itself without putting on the other side of the ledger the enormous harm it will do to Australia or Queensland or Western Australia.

Colin:
Look, Mik touched on the amount of money that’s being made by the fossil fuel industry. And that would surely affect your court case because they will be hiring the very best legal teams and the most cynical lawyers who were simply there to get a result. Have you, A, got a similar sympathetic legal team together? And B, are you aware of the federal courts previous stance on environmental issues? Are they stacked? I mean, if this was America, we would say, that court’s all Trump stacked because he’s stacked them with likeable. How’s the makeup of the federal court? I mean, you must have thought of this before you put the action?

Adam:
In terms of our legal team, Environmental Justice Australia is acting for ACF in this case and we have a terrific team of barristers. Our focus is on professional experience rather than sympathy. We want to bring the best legal arguments we can to bear and we think that’s the team we’ve got in place. We’ve really got a lot of confidence in them. The Federal Court, you’re right, it’s a very different system to the US and I think we should very jealously guard that that federal court judges are not political appointees. ACF has every confidence that we will get a fair hearing and that the court will hear our arguments out and then a decision will be made.

Now we may not like that decision but we will 100 per cent respect it and I’m sure the same would be said of our opponents.

And that’s a really important thing in Australia that we have a independent judiciary, a judiciary that’s made up of experienced legal practitioners who make decisions based on the merit of the arguments put in front of them rather than on political considerations as we, well, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the American legal system but that is certain the perception one gets from time to time on particular rulings over there.

Colin:
And how have their rulings gone so far? Have they been even in pro and against environmental issues or do they lean towards conservatism?

Adam: (40:11)
Look, I don’t think I can answer that directly. I think what I would say is that the way that the Australian environmental law is structured, and this is a responsibility of Parliament and those who elect people to Parliament rather than judges, makes it extremely difficult to challenge these kind of approval decisions. Particularly when it comes to decisions by Commonwealth ministers. Unfortunately, there is not a system in the Commonwealth environmental law where the merits of the decision can be challenged.

People listening to this are probably familiar with town planning decisions where if the council rules against your proposal or approves something next door to you that you don’t like, in many jurisdictions in Australia, if not most, you can go before a tribunal or a court and actually argue about the merits, so what the facts of the situation are and who’s right and who’s wrong about that. You can’t do that at the Commonwealth, under Commonwealth environmental law.

The challenges that can be brought under Commonwealth environmental law are limited to mistakes of law, where the minister has made errors of law and so it’s a very limited jurisdiction and notoriously difficult to establish errors of law or mistakes of law that have been made by the minister. But I think in each case, certainly the cases that I’ve been involved in, the federal court judge gives both parties are fair hearing and makes a decision based upon what they’ve heard.

I don’t think we can read a lot into wins and losses kind of in a numerical sense. I think as I say, I’ll just reiterate that we should jealously guard our independent judiciary and respect its decisions whether we like the way it pans out or not.

Colin:
And it goes before a single judge, not a panel?

Adam: (42:05)
That’s right, it’s a single judge in the first instance. If any of the parties appeals that decision, it would go to the full court of the Federal Court, which is a panel of three judges, and then the decision of the full court can be appealed to the High Court of Australia.

Tony:
Adam, you’ve mentioned a number of times now a particular law that isn’t, you’re arguing that wasn’t followed. Can we give our listeners an insight into what that law is?

Adam:
Yeah, it’s the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, also sometimes shorthanded to the EPBC Act.

Tony:
Yeah. Is it a subsection of that?

Adam: (42:46)
Well there’s a number of sections that will be relevant to the case. The EPBC Act is getting a lot of attention at the moment because it’s in the midst of a reform process. Last week Commonwealth the Environment Minister tabled in Parliament a reform bill to change parts of that legislation.

This follows a review that was undertaken five years ago by Graham Samuel which found that the Act was not fit for purpose, both from the environmental point of view and in terms of from the business point of view. And so we are in the midst of that reform process. It’ll go before the lower house, House of Reps this week. And I think it’s likely to end up in a Senate inquiry, but I think that’s yet to be determined.

I guess one of the really disappointing things about the reform bill that we have seen that’s been tabled is that it doesn’t address this really gaping hole about climate change. So ACF will argue in our legal case that we began this discussion with that climate change does need to be considered by the Act.

But climate change is not specifically mentioned in it. It doesn’t set out a particular way, a specific way, which the unique challenge of climate change needs in terms of how projects should be assessed. And we’ve been telling Commonwealth governments. I’ve every persuasion for years that that needs to change and it’s a real gap in what the minister has put before parliament.

Mik:
Having an environmental law in this country that doesn’t talk about the impact of climate and that we should consider climate seems to me – Adam, I have to tell you – it seems to me absurd! And it brings me back to where I started an hour ago, almost, talking about what is right and what is wrong – and correcting what is wrong. That’s what leadership looks like. And it seems to me that we have in the Labour government and with a minister like that, another coward who is not talking about what we need to do, stepping up and saying, ‘I’m changing the law because that’s right’. ‘It’s the right thing to do the way the world looks now. We need to do this.’

That’s leadership. Maybe if you can take off your lawyer- and law-hat and just be Adam and give me sort of a more personal perspective on this, you know, the overall feeling of whether it’s worth it even to ‘fight for what’s right’ in a world where everybody seems to be flocking around lies and misinformation and “it’s all fine” to be, in my opinion, doing what’s wrong.

Adam:
Well, thanks, Mik, I’ve been wearing a lawyer’s hat for many years so it’ll be hard to take off but I’ll do my best. I just want to say in response to that, it will be a massive missed opportunity for this government if they fail to address climate change in this current reform process for the National Environmental Law. It will be a massive missed opportunity, they will look back on it with regret I think, and it will show a timidity that a government with the sort of numbers that this government has got in parliament really should not be exhibiting, they need to be, and this is what I’d say about, in terms of your second part of what you were saying is, the government and people generally need to be bold. We need to be bold at this moment because really we’re on the precipice. It’s this time in history when it comes to the impacts of climate change that is so critical. It is so critical that Australia takes really strong action and not just in terms of its power grid and good steps are being made in that direction and the government should be applauded for that but particularly when it comes to export emissions. We need to be bold and shift away from those export emissions.

And the other thing I would say is be active. Getting active, getting out there and doing things is the best cure for any sort of depression or any sort of feeling of cynicism or that things are hopeless.

Being active is the cure for all of those things and it’s also a great opportunity to meet people and do things in your community. We’re alive to the problem. People know there is an issue when it comes to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. The solution is activism, to get active, to do things, to cooperate with your community, to get involved in organisations like the ACF and that is the way we’re going to achieve change.

Colin:
Excellent. Thank you, Adam. That’s wonderful. First up, I’d like to invite you back on the show. Number one, when you get the verdict. But before that, if something interesting happens in the court case, just give Tony a ring and come on back because it’s been fascinating today. Thank you very much for your input and be active! Keep on with the action!

Adam:
Thanks Colin, it’s been a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

. . .

Lars Westra – speaking at a UN Youth Forum:
I am now 18 years old, I think maybe one of the youngest here in the room. Many would call me naive, many would call me too young, many would call me too unexperienced. And to be honest, I agree with all of them, because I am young, I am inexperienced and I am quite naive. Although I would rather call it idealistic.

And although I do not know how to be a good diplomat, I have to use a dictionary when reading a UN resolution and I’m getting lost in this building all the times, I do have the ability to dream, to believe. I believe that we can stop the devastating consequences of climate change. I believe that we can be the first generations of a new peaceful world order. I believe that we can take care of the ones that need it the most. And I dream about being the hero that accomplished it all. And I think that’s the power of young people.

The fact that we can be naive, can be idealistic. The fact that we can dream and the fact that we can believe. So I want to invite you: Dream as you dreamed when you were my age. Believe as you believed when you were my age. And be the hero you wanted to be when you were my age.

. . .

Jingle

Mik: (49:06)
That’s all we could fit in one Net Zero-focused and carbon emission focused Sustainable Hour. Thank you very much to you, Adam Beeson from ACF – and a nice plug there for joining ACF. We have a very active ACF Geelong that I can really recommend signing up to and participating in the many events they make – every fortnight there’s something going on in the ACF Geelong. So: be bold!

Tony:
I just reiterate the importance of action, of acting, yeah, and the impact it has on your mental state, it puts the hell out of worrying about the issue.

Colin:
Add Be involved. Yes, it helps your own stability and if in particular you choose to take the conservation route, you’re also helping the world and you can’t get much better than that, can you?

. . .

SONG (50:14)
‘Hush Now Little One’

Verse 1:
Hush now, little one, the night feels long
The world outside can seem so wrong
But here by my side, you’re safe and warm
Love still matters – yes, even more

Chorus:
You grow your roots around the stone
You’re not meant to face this all alone
The stars shine, can you hear they sing?
Even through despair, you’ll find your wings

Verse 2:
I feel the weight, I see the storm
I do my best to still keep us warm
The clouds are dark, the water’s cold
I carry you both – the young and the old

Chorus:
I grow my roots around the stone
I’m not meant to face this all alone
The stars shine, I can hear them sing
Even through despair, I’ll find my wings

Bridge:
It’s okay to cry, to feel afraid
This hurt we feel means we’ve still awake
But don’t build your home in the pain you find
Let love and awe hold your mind

Chorus:
We’ll grow our roots around the stone
We’re not meant to face this all alone
The stars shine, we can hear them sing
Even through despair, we’ll find our wings

Outro:
So close your eyes, my precious one
The fight’s not over, and we’re not done
It’s a broken system, but we still belong
And only love will keep us strong

Audio clip:
ABC News: “Authorities are warning Australians to stay out again after heat records were broken to almost 50C.”

Inspired by Atmos’ Dear Climate Therapist

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Events we have talked about in The Sustainable Hour

Events in Victoria

The following is a collation of Victorian climate change events, activities, seminars, exhibitions, meetings and protests. Most are free, many ask for RSVP (which lets the organising group know how many to expect), some ask for donations to cover expenses, and a few require registration and fees. This calendar is provided as a free service by volunteers of the Victorian Climate Action Network. Information is as accurate as possible, but changes may occur.

Petitions

→ List of running petitions where we encourage you to add your name

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Live-streaming on Wednesdays

The Sustainable Hour is streamed live on the Internet and broadcasted on FM airwaves in the Geelong region every Wednesday from 11am to 12pm (Melbourne time).

→ To listen to the program on your computer or phone, go to www.947thepulse.com – where you then click on ‘Listen’ on the top right of the page.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Podcast archive

Over 600 hours of sustainable podcasts

Listen to all of The Sustainable Hour radio shows as well as special Regenerative Hours and Climate Revolution episodes in full length.

→ Archive on climatesafety.info – with additional links
→ Archive on podcasts.apple.com – phone friendly archive

Receive our podcast newsletter in your mailbox

We send a newsletter out approximately six times a year. Email address and surname is mandatory – all other fields are optional. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Find and follow The Sustainable Hour in social media

Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheSustainableHour → All podcast front covers

Instagram: www.instagram.com/TheSustainableHour

Blue Sky: www.bsky.app/profile/thesustainablehour.bsky.social

Twitter: www.twitter.com/SustainableHour
(NB: we stopped using X/Twitter after it was hijacked-acquired by climate deniers)

YouTube: www.youtube.com/c/thesustainablehour

Great if you’ll share the news about this podcast in social media.

→ Podcasts and posts on this website about the climate emergency and the climate revolution

→ The latest on BBC News about climate change

Fighting Australia’s carbon bomb – choosing courage over cowardice

Climate 200: Wipe the smile off Matt Canavan’s face

Wow, Australia is #1 in the world

Australia needs strong environment laws