Australian researchers have linked a single fossil fuel project to climate impacts, modelling that Woodside’s Scarborough project will cause 484 heat-related deaths in Europe.
It is the first time a scientific paper has attributed the climate impacts of a specific fossil fuel project.
It also found that the incremental rise in global temperatures from that one project would result in an additional 16 million corals lost in every bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, and expose an extra 516,000 people around the world to unprecedented heat.
The research projects the impact of emissions from Woodside’s Scarborough gas project on coral bleaching. (Supplied: Brooke Pyke)
The team of leading researchers says their methodology could be used by governments when approving coal and gas projects.
Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick says small increases in temperature can cause significant impacts. (Supplied)
Until now, fossil fuel proponents and government ministers have frequently used the justification that the impacts of individual projects are negligible compared to global emissions.
“We want to hold new projects accountable and keep them truthful as to the real-world effects that they’re having,” said study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at ANU.
“This no longer only holds the projects accountable, but our governments as well. We can no longer use that as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
“We’ve just basically shown that’s completely false. It is non-negligible.”
In response to the research, Woodside said climate change was caused by the accumulation of emissions over more than a century.
“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity,” it said.
Calculating impact of Scarborough’s emissions
Woodside’s Scarborough project, in waters off the coast of Karratha in Western Australia, will be connected to the Pluto gas processing facility on the mainland via an underwater gas pipeline.
It is still under construction and is 86 per cent complete.
In the new paper published in the Nature journal Climate Action, researchers found Scarborough’s 880 million tonnes of emissions over its lifetime — including emissions when the gas was burnt — would increase global temperatures by 0.00039 degrees.
The small increase can still have significant consequences, according to Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
“The impact — when we’re talking about human lives, when we’re talking about displacement, when we’re talking about impacts on individual organisms — is huge and that’s precisely what we’ve seen in this paper.”
Climate Integrity asks regulator to investigate gas lobby claims
The increase in temperatures would result in fewer cold deaths in some parts of Europe, but even accounting for those deaths, the study estimates that 118 more people would die in Europe overall.
According to the study, another 356,000 people globally would be pushed outside the human climate niche — a comfort zone defined by scientists as the climate conditions in which human societies have historically thrived.
“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 said.
“We just want to keep these things accountable, that’s what we’re trying to do.
“We’re trying to increase visibility and transparency about how we are increasing global warming by individual emissions.”
In its documents put to the regulator, Woodside stated that emissions from the Scarborough project were “negligible” in a global context.
“It is not possible to link GHG emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts,” the report read.
“Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1 per cent carbon dioxide.
“The project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets,” a company spokesperson told the ABC in a statement.
Low carbon concentrations mean there are fewer emissions from extracting the gas, but the majority of emissions will come when the gas is burnt.
Doctors’ warning on climate change health threat
Doctors for the Environment Australia appealed unsuccessfully against the approval of the Scarborough gas project. Its executive director, GP Dr Kate Wylie, says this new research shows that all projects contribute to climate change.
Kate Wylie is a GP and executive director of Doctors for the Environment Australia. (Supplied)
“The World Health Organisation states climate change is the greatest public health issue facing humanity this century,” Dr Wylie said.
“We cannot pretend that the greenhouse gas emissions from any one fossil fuel project are negligible … that is a spurious argument.
“Just like every cigarette is doing us damage, every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that we add to the atmosphere damages us too.”When heat turns deadly
The study focuses on heat deaths in Europe because that is where the most data for modelling these impacts is available, but the researchers say the impacts will be more widespread.
For Dr Wylie, the exposure of more than half a million people to unprecedented heat is concerning.
“I read a number like that and I think, that’s more heart attacks from heat, that’s more kidney disease from heat, more stroke from heat, that’s more strain on emergency departments and our health systems trying to deal with heat waves, that’s more people having mental health exacerbations from heat.
“In Australia, we’ve got data about heat-related illness. We know that it causes about 3,300 excess deaths per year in Australia, and this number’s only going to get bigger.”
Joining the dots on science to attribute impact
This research is believed to be the first of its kind to link impacts with a specific project, but it joins together a number of well-established aspects of climate science.
Firstly, the relationship between emissions and temperature increase.
This relationship is linear and has been studied as far back as the 1800s. Now there is a simple equation that works out exactly how much global temperatures will rise based on emissions.
From there, researchers can then turn to attribution science, which models how much worse or more likely certain climate impacts are with additional warming.
“What we’ve done is bring various bits of science together,” Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.
“Being able to join the dots … that’s what climate scientists can do.
“When we bring our expertise together, this is the sort of work that we can do.”
Could this be used in fossil fuel approvals?
Under Australia’s current environmental laws, the environment minister is not required to consider the climate impacts and emissions when approving a fossil fuel project.
This has been an issue for two decades — something then-shadow environment minister Anthony Albanese urged parliament to rectify back in 2005.
The ‘dangerous loophole’ in the law
Projects are also assessed individually, which means the cumulative build-up of emissions and impacts are not taken into account.
According to the Climate Council, since the Albanese government came to office, it has approved 31 fossil fuel projects, resulting in 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon-equivalent emissions directly and from the combustion of the coal and gas they produce.
Under the environmental laws, however, the minister must consider if the project would impact on “matters of national significance”, a list of protected flora, fauna and ecosystems that includes the Great Barrier Reef.
According to La Trobe Law School associate professor of climate law Julia Dehm, this research is the missing link for many legal cases that appeal fossil fuel approvals.
“Now you’ve increasingly got that causal evidence that … could show that a fossil fuel project is going to have an impact on the reef. If it’s seen to be a significant impact, that would then have to be considered and assessed,” Dr Dehm told the ABC.
Many legal cases appealing fossil fuel projects, like Woodside’s gas projects in north-west Western Australia have been unsuccessful in the past. (ABC News: Brendan Esposito)
“Then the minister … is prohibited from making a decision that would be inconsistent with our World Heritage obligations.
“When we think that’s an additional 16 million corals that are lost in each bleaching event, I think that starts to really highlight why it is significant ecologically.”
The minister can also consider social and economic impacts when making assessments under the environmental laws, including the impacts of heat.
Minister for the Environment and Water Murray Watt did not respond to the ABC’s questions about whether this new research would be used when weighing up future fossil fuel project approvals.Â
Dr Dehm believes the research could be used for more than just the approvals process.
“It’s not just relevant for government decision-makers,” she said.
“You’d hope that it would also 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. There’s a lot of decision-makers that go into getting a project off the ground.”
Dr Dehm said from a legal perspective, it could also be relevant retrospectively.
“[It could be relevant] if there are actions around liability for the harms that have been caused by particular [fossil fuel] projects to demonstrate for compensation or reparations,” she said.
For Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick, the focus of the research is to show how every project adds to the problem.
“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.”