As Australia's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions comes under growing scrutiny, a landmark case in the country's federal court is set to shine a light on the consequences of ignoring climate warnings. The Woodside North West Shelf gas export project, which includes the Karratha processing plant in Western Australia, has been accused of being a "carbon bomb" by opponents who say its approval fails to account for the devastating impact on both the environment and Indigenous cultural heritage.
The Environment Minister, Murray Watt, allowed the Karratha plant to operate until 2070 last year, despite estimates suggesting it could release approximately 4 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere – roughly equivalent to a decade's worth of Australia's total annual emissions. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argues that the minister did not properly assess how these substantial emissions would harm protected environments, nor was sufficient detail provided regarding the gas from unapproved third-party projects.
The project's location adjacent to the Murujuga indigenous rock art complex, home to over a million petroglyphs dating back 50,000 years, adds another layer of concern. Friends of Australian Rock Art (Fara), which secured national heritage listing for the area in 2007, claims that industrial emissions from the plant are already causing erosion of these ancient artworks and will worsen with the project's extension – a claim government-backed monitoring has largely disputed.
The involvement of Astrid Puentes Riaño, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, highlights the global implications of this case. She has been granted permission to intervene as a "friend of the court" and will outline Australia's environmental obligations under international law in her written submissions, referencing the International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion that nations must prevent harm to the climate system.
Both the ACF and Fara are also contesting the minister's assessment of the project's economic benefits, arguing they were incorrectly calculated. Fara is further seeking details of meetings between Minister Watt and Woodside during negotiations for approval conditions, claiming the minister failed to identify risks posed to the rock art. This federal court challenge will serve as a critical test for Australia's environmental legislation and its capacity to address interconnected climate and heritage concerns.