Doctors for the Environment Australia Media Release
Doctors for the Environment Australia has expressed disappointment after the Federal Court today upheld the government’s approval of the Scarborough Gas Project’s environment plan, clearing the way for the controversial project to go ahead.
DEA, the nation’s leading medical voice on health and climate, had argued the national offshore gas regulator, NOPSEMA, acted unlawfully in approving Woodside’s environment plan without fully understanding how the project’s impacts would be managed. DEA also argued NOPSEMA did not properly apply the legal criteria for approvals.
However, the Federal Court has dismissed DEA’s application, which means the project can proceed. NOPSEMA’s acceptance of Woodside’s environment plan earlier this year was the last hurdle before work on the project could begin.
It has been estimated the Scarborough Gas Project would result in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) equivalent to 878Mt of CO2. That is equivalent to twice Australia’s annual GHG emissions from all sources in 2024.
- Legal explainer and background available here
- Images of doctors and legal team at court available here
- Video of DEA’s Executive Director Dr Kate Wylie on the decision statement available here
“After today’s decision, it is clear that Australia’s offshore gas regulations are not living up to the broader public interest,” DEA Executive Director Dr Kate Wylie said.
“Everybody needs a safe climate for their health and wellbeing, so we all have an interest in the effective regulation of industries that are making our climate more dangerous.
“The offshore gas industry in Australia is one of the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, so the Australian community should be able to expect the government to regulate those impacts seriously.
“The government’s decision to approve this environment plan appears to fly in the face of that commonsense expectation.”
Dr Wylie said DEA would review the decision with its lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office and assess its options.
“DEA’s legal action took place in the broader context of a global climate emergency. This crisis has had profoundly harmful consequences for the health of billions of people around the world, and the impacts are becoming worse,” she said.
“Doctors are responding to emergencies such as heatwaves, floods, bushfires and storms. The toll is not just on physical health—but also on mental health.
“The scientific consensus and the advice of the United Nations is that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with a safe climate and human health.
“Sadly, governments around Australia continue to approve coal and gas projects against such advice.
“In these circumstances, the least our governments can do is to ensure such projects are subjected to thorough scrutiny to ensure proposals address climate impacts in a meaningful way.”
DEA Chair Laureate Professor Nicholas Talley said, “As doctors, caring for the health of our communities is at the heart of what we do. It is incumbent upon us as health professionals to address climate change, and highlight the health hazards of our dependency on fossil fuels.”
Dr Wylie thanked DEA’s lawyers, the Environmental Defenders Office, and Senior Counsel Chris Young KC and Counsel Sophie Molyneux for their work on this matter.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
EV TAX???? ‘Doctors for the Environment Australia Media Release’ is more important than my latest horror: But the ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION really has something to answer?: ALP (Net Zero) Govt is ready to evoke EV Vehicle Taxes not based on GVM Registration tariffs but based on the extra weight of Battery laden vehicles: IS ANYONE ACTUALLY MONITORING THIS LNP/fOSSIL fUEL lOBBY campaign? Sounds to me like the Petrol/Fossil Fuel Industry wants a TAX on EV vehicles (because they {Petroleum Industry} are enduring a Petrol Excise fee and want non-petrol users to pay a similar fee?!!!)
What happened to the ALP’s great Environmental Policy that won the first and second elections?
If the ALP’s EV Tax were to go ahead, this would certainly expose the ALP’s close ties with the fossil fuel industry Lobby Groups!
Why hasn’t the ALP’s Environmental principles chosen to tax the Trucking Industry on their overloaded road weights?
The next issue is how much heavier are Battery Cars compared to the Monster V8 Trucks, we see around us, every day!?
All Govt employees are safely employed by the ACT: Those who do the real work will never be employed by the ACT!
All corporate and Government employees are protected by the most insidious levels of Observation! If you choose to act outside Offical Observation, then you need to DISENGAGE from Council AUTONOMY! If you choose to act outside the Norm/Box: then please dissociate yourself from Council propagamda.
Is EV Tax a necessary deduction?
Why would the ALP Govt, wishing to lower Carbon Dioxide emissions, want to introduce a tax on EV vehicles?
Apparently, they weigh much more than an average Petrol-fuelled vehicle!
But if we’re paying GVM proportional Fees, why are we expected to pay more for our Clean vehicles?
Looks like our Labor Government doesn’t actually know where it’s voters actually lie?
I still try to weave one thread to another: But always feel useless and insignificant.