PISFCC Statement: Woodside Gas Expansion Undermines Climate Justice

Australia’s plan to extend the Woodside North West Shelf (NWS) project until 2070, doubles down on a disaster that is already in motion. This facility is one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas operations and has already poured billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, fuelling climate breakdown. Extending it will lock in even more emissions, even faster, at a moment when the world cannot afford any delays to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Even more telling is that this extension was approved with 48 conditions - a clear admission that the project is harmful. But conditions cannot make a destructive project safe. Australia has required Woodside to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 60% by 2030 and 90% by 2061, to align with a net-zero target by 2050, to publicly report emissions, and to create new management plans for air quality and for protecting the Murujuga rock art. 

These measures acknowledge the damage this project will cause, to the climate, to human health, and to cultural heritage, yet still permit it to proceed. Instead of preventing harm, Australia is attempting to regulate it. This is not climate leadership. It is compliance with destruction, and it exposes just how far Australia is willing to go to defy science, human rights, and now, the law.

This decision is a direct conflict with its obligations under international law, following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on climate change. The Ruling has made it clear that States have a duty to prevent activities that add to climate harm and violate the human rights of current and future generations. The Court has provided a definitive ruling, establishing a clear and enforceable legal pathway for State action.

Vishal Prasad, Director of PISFCC, said:
"The ICJ has made it unambiguous that continuing to expand fossil fuel projects in the face of escalating climate harm is inconsistent with international law and a violation of the rights of present and future generations. Australia now faces its first test under this ruling and, with this approval, it has failed. Even attaching nearly 50 conditions to the project only confirms that the harms are real, yet it has been allowed to proceed. Persisting on this path is policy failure and a breach of duty. There are lawful, just, and viable alternatives, and many States are already pursuing them. The Advisory Opinion is clear: harm from fossil fuel projects is no longer a theoretical risk. Governments and corporations that continue to expand these projects do so knowing they will face lawsuits, scrutiny, and legal consequences for the destruction they cause.”

Pacific nations presented overwhelming evidence, compelling science, and deeply personal testimonies during the Advisory Opinion oral hearings, laying bare the realities of climate devastation. Entire nations, like Tuvalu, have already been devastated, with citizens displaced and seeking refuge abroad, including in Australia. 

The climate crisis is destroying our planet and it is reflected in the displaced lives of people already forced from their homes. Australia cannot continue expanding fossil fuel projects while ignoring the science, the human stories, and its moral duty to act.

By approving this extension just one day after Pacific leaders launched the Pacific Resilience Facility to safeguard regional futures, profits are being placed above the survival of entire communities and nations. 

This decision not only threatens lives and livelihoods but also endangers the ‘Murujuga rock art’, one of humanity’s oldest cultural treasures which is already under pressure from industrial activity.

Indigenous communities across the Pacific are among the most vulnerable to projects of this scale - through displacement or the loss of essential resources, through the erosion of cultures, identities, and ways of life tied to the land. For Indigenous peoples, separation from ancestral lands represents a profound loss of heritage, knowledge, and belonging. Projects like NWS disproportionately threaten communities that have contributed least to the climate crisis. 

Australia’s decision is not the act of a partner to the Pacific - their continued fossil fuel expansion is at odds with its commitments and with its clear legal and moral obligations.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion has made clear that states have the means to pursue accountability for climate harm. Decisions that prioritise short-term gain over long-term survival will not escape the reach of this new legal clarity.

-ENDS- 

For follow-up interviews, please contact Vishal Prasad at vishal@pisfcc.org.