Who will call out climate destruction wrapped in progressive language?

Woodside to 2070: A project that breaks 1.5°C

After Labor’s first decision to approve Woodside to pollute until 2070, I argued that the climate movement’s softly-softly approach wasn’t working. Criticism has been held back, presumably in the hope of gaining influence, but Labor’s record — from approving coal extensions to ditching its promised federal EPA — suggest the approach isn’t working. I asked then: can we afford three or six more years of muted ambition? Perhaps the question was naive. A more apt question may be “can we afford three or six more years of climate destruction wrapped in progressive language?” 

Last week the government approved Woodside’s North West Shelf extension, Australia’s largest gas project, locking in fossil fuel processing until 2070.

The minister put 48 conditions on Woodside, but they won’t change the project’s destructive impact. An approval that locks in gas for another 45 years cannot be squared with net zero, let alone keeping warming to 1.5 degrees.

Pacific demands vs. Labor’s reality

The timing is striking. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just returned from the Pacific Islands Forum, where leaders once again declared climate change the region’s number one security threat. Pacific Islands leaders have been explicit: new gas and coal projects are incompatible with a safe future for the Pacific. Yet the PM returned from Honiara, where he was accused of restricting questions from Pacific journalists, and signed off on the North West Shelf anyway.

Labor is also positioning itself to co-host COP31 with the Pacific. But how credible is that bid when the Prime Minister greenlights projects Pacific leaders have warned could breach international law under the ICJ’s new Advisory Opinion? What message does that send to our so-called Pacific family — that shareholder profits matter more than Pacific lives, and that fossil fuel lobbyists are heeded over frontline communities?

Neutralising the movement

As frustrating as this dynamic is, it’s not surprising. Labor’s relationship with the movement has always been about neutralisation. Labor wants to be seen consulting, but not conceding. Anything. They want to name drop supportive orgs in press conferences and pose for social media photos, not adopt their policy proposals. Labor’s calculation is simple: the green groups might complain, but they won’t defect to the Coalition. And many environment groups simultaneously temper criticism of Labor believing that the ALP’s polar opposite rhetoric and actions are the best we can hope for.

And the calculation is working for the government. Despite the gravity of this decision, much of the movement’s response has been tepid. We hear warnings that Labor is “risking credibility” on climate, or “coming close” to losing it. But wasn’t that credibility squandered some time ago? How can a government that locks in decades of new gas expansion while acknowledging the catastrophic risks of climate change still be treated as credible?

This is the contradiction the movement struggles with. If the Coalition had approved Browse, would the reaction be the same? Would groups be holding back in the name of preserving access? Or would there be outrage?

If the strategy is to sit quietly, hoping Labor will eventually deliver, how many more failures do we accept before admitting the strategy itself is broken? Do we wait for the next disastrous approval, and the one after that, always promising ourselves this will be the catalyst?

Silence is not a strategy

Meanwhile, the window to act is closing. The government just released Australia’s first national climate risk assessment, which warns that even at 1.5 degrees of warming, 1.5 million Australians will face inundation from rising seas by 2050. The science says we are on track for close to three degrees of global heating. Every new approval entrenches that trajectory and locks in decades of damage.

So how do we reconcile these two events — a risk assessment warning of dire consequences, and the approval of a project guaranteed to make those consequences worse?

The questions I asked earlier this year feel even more urgent now. What will it take for the movement to step up? To hold Labor accountable with the same force it would use against the Coalition? To recognise that being polite has not translated into influence, and that environmental defenders are supposed to defend the planet, not the Labor Party.

Labor faces no serious opposition in parliament. That makes the role of the movement even more critical. If we can’t summon the courage to confront those in power, then who will defend the future?