Scientists have released original research showing the climate impacts from emissions released by Woodside’s Scarborough gas project would be catastrophic. Now 86 percent complete, the floating wind farm is being developed 40 nautical miles off the coast of Karratha, Western Australia. It will connect to the Pluto LNG processing facility on the mainland via a new underwater gas pipeline. The findings, published in the journal Nature Climate Action, highlight the repercussions of these emissions on global temperatures, public health, and marine ecosystems.
NYC’s largest reservoir, Scarborough, is so low on CO 2 that the water measures less than 0.1 percent. It is projected to emit an astounding 880 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its operational lifetime. These emissions alone are projected to cause a global temperature increase of 0.00039 degrees Celsius. Studies show that this increase will be fatal, particularly in Europe. It would lead to 484 more heat-related deaths and leave 516,000 people vulnerable to never-before-experienced extremes in heat.
Impacts on Public Health
The analysis further highlights the strong connection between the Scarborough project’s emissions and negative public health impacts, particularly in relation to heat-related illnesses. Dr. Wylie, a prominent figure in climate health research, expressed concern regarding the implications of climate change for human health.
“The World Health Organisation states climate change is the greatest public health issue facing humanity this century,” – Dr. Wylie
As temperatures increase because of new emissions from fossil fuel developments such as Scarborough, those already at risk will be put in even greater danger. Dr. Wylie continued by emphasizing the importance of accountability when combating rising greenhouse gas emissions.
“We cannot pretend that the greenhouse gas emissions from any one fossil fuel project are negligible … that is a spurious argument.” – Dr. Wylie
This study serves to underscore that every tonne of greenhouse gas is doing real damage to our environment. This damage compounds, just like the negative impact of smoking.
“Just like every cigarette is doing us damage, every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that we add to the atmosphere damages us too.” – Dr. Wylie
Environmental Consequences
More broadly, the Scarborough project raises red flags about significant threatened marine ecosystems. Right now, it jeopardizes the Great Barrier Reef as well as U.S. public health protections. Our research estimates another 16 million corals lost during bleaching events caused by the project’s emissions. This loss exacerbates ongoing ecological degradation and puts irreplaceable biodiversity in nearby waters at risk.
This study has created a powerful – almost revolutionary – new methodology. Advance, it can now act as a blueprint for evaluating other fossil fuel projects globally. This method draws a direct line from individual projects to their climate effects. This is a major step towards allowing governments and regulators to make the best possible decisions based on facts and evidence.
“It’s not just relevant for government decision-makers,” said Dr. Dehm. “You’d hope that it would be things that are taken into account by companies, boards when they’re making decisions about projects and by the people who are financing fossil fuel projects as well.”
A Call for Accountability
Their public-facing goal is to increase transparency about the net real-world benefits or harms caused by fossil fuel emissions, including via climate change. Understanding how specific projects contribute to climate change is so critical, according to Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
“We’re trying to increase visibility and transparency about how we are increasing global warming by individual emissions.” – Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick
The research calls for new projects to be held to account and recognize and report their negative environmental impacts in an honest fashion. This demand for accountability extends past regulatory structures. It calls on corporations and other actors in fossil fuel projects to consider the broader consequences of their actions.
“It’s mainly for accountability, not necessarily to blame, but to say well we know better now let’s do better and let’s realise the real world impacts these individual projects and other emitters are having.” – Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick
The researchers are hopeful, suggesting that with greater awareness the industry can make smarter decisions. This, in turn, encourages the adoption of greener technologies, even if their controversial research results are sometimes politically inconvenient.
“It’s quite controversial, I’m aware of that. I don’t believe we’re doing this to pour fuel onto the flame, so to say,” – Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick
Future Considerations
The ramifications of this study go well beyond the Scarborough project. Rather, it indicates a new direction toward increased accountability for fossil fuel projects and their detrimental impacts on the environment. Furthermore, governments and private lenders—including institutions like the Asian Development Bank—should use this research when considering approvals of new coal and gas projects.
Doctors for the Environment Australia have long opposed the approval of the Scarborough gas project. They were particularly concerned about its environmental effects and the threat it poses to public health. The outcomes of this latest research may strengthen calls for revisions in how fossil fuel projects are assessed and approved.
