Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘The time is right’ for US to catch up on high-speed rail, says British Amtrak exec

News Feed
Sunday, June 16, 2024

After years of dashed hopes, delays and the all-consuming dominance of the car and airplane, high-speed trains may finally be about to have their breakthrough moment in the United States, according to one of the country’s top rail executives.Half a dozen high-speed rail projects across the US are currently planned or have already started construction, with a gush of federal infrastructure dollars, a supportive White House, and rising angst over snarled highways and the climate crisis all helping bring the prospect of bullet trains, belatedly, closer than ever before to the American public.“This is the golden opportunity for the US to join that high-speed club with all the benefits that it would bring,” said Andy Byford, a British executive who was nicknamed “Train Daddy” during a spell overseeing New York City’s subways. Since last year, he’s been senior vice-president of high-speed rail at Amtrak. “There’s no question the US is for now the outlier when it comes to high-speed rail.“But I think once we get one route up successfully, people will clamor for more. We believe the time is right for this where the topography, population and so on makes sense. I think if it’s not going to happen now, I wonder if it ever will.”Andy Byford rides the subway in New York in 2019 during his brief stint as head of the New York City Transit Authority. Photograph: Marc A Hermann/MTAHigh-speed trains, capable of 200mph (322km/h) or more, have long become commonplace in countries including France, Germany, Japan and even Morocco. Yet the US, despite being an early rail pioneer, has instead prioritized the build-out of vast and ever-widening highways, often choked with traffic and rammed through razed neighborhoods, supplemented by a matrix of flights linking even relatively close cities.This is gradually changing. In April, work started on building a high-speed rail project connecting Las Vegas to southern California, promising 200mph trains that will cut the normal four-hour drive time in half by the time of the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028. “If they pull it off it will be remarkable,” said Byford. “That would be practically a mile a day [of track] construction.”California has another high-speed rail project that has labored under grueling delays and ballooning costs over the past decade that aims to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. Projects in the earlier stages of planning include efforts to link Atlanta, Georgia, to Charlotte, North Carolina, as well as Chicago, Illinois, to St Louis, Missouri, and Vancouver, British Columbia, to Portland, Oregon.Brightline, the company behind the Las Vegas to California route, has already completed a line running from Miami to Orlando, Florida, running at slower, but still brisk, pace of 125mph, while Amtrak is looking to expand its class of east coast trains that can currently get to 150mph.Byford, meanwhile, is spearheading an Amtrak program to revive a moribund plan connecting Dallas and Houston with a high-speed track that will run the fabled Japanese Shinkansen bullet trains, offering people who have to drive three and a half hours down the I-45, one of the deadliest roads in the US, the option of a 205mph journey that will take around 90 minutes, with a stop at Texas A&M University between the two cities.“These trains would have the highest average speed in the world, which would be a real source of prestige for the state of Texas if we were able to go ahead,” Byford said. “We believe there is a very, very strong case.”Amtrak estimates the whizzing trains would remove 12,500 cars from the clogged I-45 as well as negate flights making the relatively short 240-mile hop, slashing planet-heating emissions. For those who want to spend a full day of their lives traveling from Dallas to Houston by train, there are currently two Amtrak services each day that go via San Antonio, taking, with a lengthy stopover, an incredible 23 hours in total, about an hour more than it would take to bicycle between the two cities.The prospects for high-speed rail have been buoyed by recent support, such as the federal bipartisan infrastructure law that retained much of the American fixation upon funding roads but also provided a cash injection to rail. In December, Joe Biden, once known as “Amtrak Joe” due to his regular use of trains when he was a US senator, announced $8.2bn to secure rail corridors to accelerate the building of high-speed rail in what the White House called “historic investments in world-class rail”.Major barriers remain for high-speed rail, however. “I’m not going to sugarcoat the remaining challenges,” Byford said of the Texas project, which still needs to acquire around 80% of the land needed for its route, get federal permission to use Japanese trains, pass environmental reviews and then raise, via partnerships with private companies and others, the $30bn or so needed to build a system that, in the most optimistic scenario, will be completed by 2031.Eye-watering costs and delays have dogged the California scheme, meanwhile, which has rocketed from a $33bn to at least a $113bn project amid contentious re-routes and political wrangling. Opponents of high-speed rail have found reliable allies among Republicans in Congress, who complain it is an expensive indulgence that tramples upon the property rights of rural Americans.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“If you want to look in the dictionary, under the word ‘boondoggle’, you would probably find the California high-speed rail project process,” said Doug LaMalfa, a California Republican congressman. In May, the two top Republicans in the House and Senate transportation committees, Garrett Graves and Ted Cruz, wrote to the US Department of Transportation criticizing the administration’s support for “this highly questionable endeavor”.In Texas, opposition from landowners, hostile state lawmakers and lobbying airlines sunk a previous effort to bring high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas, along with a mooted extension to Austin and San Antonio, in the 1990s. Texas Central picked up the idea of the Houston to Dallas line in 2009, only to put the plan on ice following court challenges and the Covid pandemic in 2022, prior to its resurrection under Amtrak.Building any sort of rail is difficult in a state with a particular zeal for the primacy of cars, with 97% of Texas’s entire transport budget, by law, going to the expansion and maintenance of roads. “People are flocking to Texas and we can’t just keep widening our highways forever,” said Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates. “More people are understanding this but it’s been very slow going. We may now be starting to crawl before we walk and then run.”Objections remain, with Byford recently traveling to a ranch near Dallas to meet the Texans Against High-Speed Rail group, to assure them Amtrak wouldn’t use eminent domain to secure needed farmland. Some lawmakers remain unimpressed.Joe Biden arrives to speak at an Amtrak maintenance facility in Bear, Delaware, on 6 November 2023. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP“This project does not only impact rural Texas but all of the United States,” said Jake Ellzey, a Republican congressman who represents a district in the path of the planned rail route. “In a time of a global food shortage, we cannot allow our farmland to be destroyed, and taxpayer dollars squandered for an unsustainable and unnecessary project like this.”Still, optimism is growing among supporters of high-speed rail. Byford is deluged by emails from enthused rail fans suggesting sometimes outlandish ideas, such as bullet trains from New York to Los Angeles, but he can envision a more realistic future of swift connections between US cities lying in the “sweet spot” of distance from each other, around 200 to 600 miles apart.“There are so many cities like that in the US, just in the right zone for high-speed rail,” said Byford. “I hope that we will be able to deliver a network around the north-east, Florida, Texas, on the west coast and the midwest. There’s lots of great city pairings.”Most Americans “don’t know the joy of going downtown to downtown over 200mph without having to go out to the airport, having to line up in security, and then taxi on the runway and take off and land probably miles away from where you actually want to be”, Byford said, adding that the experience of avoiding traffic jams or strolling from a cathedral-like train station to get a meal and a drink also remains a largely foreign concept.“You don’t know what you’re missing,” he said. “I think now is our best opportunity to deliver that, there’s no question.”

With half a dozen US rail projects in the works, Andy Byford thinks Americans will soon clamor for 200mph train linesAfter years of dashed hopes, delays and the all-consuming dominance of the car and airplane, high-speed trains may finally be about to have their breakthrough moment in the United States, according to one of the country’s top rail executives.Half a dozen high-speed rail projects across the US are currently planned or have already started construction, with a gush of federal infrastructure dollars, a supportive White House, and rising angst over snarled highways and the climate crisis all helping bring the prospect of bullet trains, belatedly, closer than ever before to the American public. Continue reading...

After years of dashed hopes, delays and the all-consuming dominance of the car and airplane, high-speed trains may finally be about to have their breakthrough moment in the United States, according to one of the country’s top rail executives.

Half a dozen high-speed rail projects across the US are currently planned or have already started construction, with a gush of federal infrastructure dollars, a supportive White House, and rising angst over snarled highways and the climate crisis all helping bring the prospect of bullet trains, belatedly, closer than ever before to the American public.

“This is the golden opportunity for the US to join that high-speed club with all the benefits that it would bring,” said Andy Byford, a British executive who was nicknamed “Train Daddy” during a spell overseeing New York City’s subways. Since last year, he’s been senior vice-president of high-speed rail at Amtrak. “There’s no question the US is for now the outlier when it comes to high-speed rail.

“But I think once we get one route up successfully, people will clamor for more. We believe the time is right for this where the topography, population and so on makes sense. I think if it’s not going to happen now, I wonder if it ever will.”

Andy Byford rides the subway in New York in 2019 during his brief stint as head of the New York City Transit Authority. Photograph: Marc A Hermann/MTA

High-speed trains, capable of 200mph (322km/h) or more, have long become commonplace in countries including France, Germany, Japan and even Morocco. Yet the US, despite being an early rail pioneer, has instead prioritized the build-out of vast and ever-widening highways, often choked with traffic and rammed through razed neighborhoods, supplemented by a matrix of flights linking even relatively close cities.

This is gradually changing. In April, work started on building a high-speed rail project connecting Las Vegas to southern California, promising 200mph trains that will cut the normal four-hour drive time in half by the time of the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028. “If they pull it off it will be remarkable,” said Byford. “That would be practically a mile a day [of track] construction.”

California has another high-speed rail project that has labored under grueling delays and ballooning costs over the past decade that aims to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. Projects in the earlier stages of planning include efforts to link Atlanta, Georgia, to Charlotte, North Carolina, as well as Chicago, Illinois, to St Louis, Missouri, and Vancouver, British Columbia, to Portland, Oregon.

Brightline, the company behind the Las Vegas to California route, has already completed a line running from Miami to Orlando, Florida, running at slower, but still brisk, pace of 125mph, while Amtrak is looking to expand its class of east coast trains that can currently get to 150mph.

Byford, meanwhile, is spearheading an Amtrak program to revive a moribund plan connecting Dallas and Houston with a high-speed track that will run the fabled Japanese Shinkansen bullet trains, offering people who have to drive three and a half hours down the I-45, one of the deadliest roads in the US, the option of a 205mph journey that will take around 90 minutes, with a stop at Texas A&M University between the two cities.

“These trains would have the highest average speed in the world, which would be a real source of prestige for the state of Texas if we were able to go ahead,” Byford said. “We believe there is a very, very strong case.”

Amtrak estimates the whizzing trains would remove 12,500 cars from the clogged I-45 as well as negate flights making the relatively short 240-mile hop, slashing planet-heating emissions. For those who want to spend a full day of their lives traveling from Dallas to Houston by train, there are currently two Amtrak services each day that go via San Antonio, taking, with a lengthy stopover, an incredible 23 hours in total, about an hour more than it would take to bicycle between the two cities.

The prospects for high-speed rail have been buoyed by recent support, such as the federal bipartisan infrastructure law that retained much of the American fixation upon funding roads but also provided a cash injection to rail. In December, Joe Biden, once known as “Amtrak Joe” due to his regular use of trains when he was a US senator, announced $8.2bn to secure rail corridors to accelerate the building of high-speed rail in what the White House called “historic investments in world-class rail”.

Major barriers remain for high-speed rail, however. “I’m not going to sugarcoat the remaining challenges,” Byford said of the Texas project, which still needs to acquire around 80% of the land needed for its route, get federal permission to use Japanese trains, pass environmental reviews and then raise, via partnerships with private companies and others, the $30bn or so needed to build a system that, in the most optimistic scenario, will be completed by 2031.

Eye-watering costs and delays have dogged the California scheme, meanwhile, which has rocketed from a $33bn to at least a $113bn project amid contentious re-routes and political wrangling. Opponents of high-speed rail have found reliable allies among Republicans in Congress, who complain it is an expensive indulgence that tramples upon the property rights of rural Americans.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“If you want to look in the dictionary, under the word ‘boondoggle’, you would probably find the California high-speed rail project process,” said Doug LaMalfa, a California Republican congressman. In May, the two top Republicans in the House and Senate transportation committees, Garrett Graves and Ted Cruz, wrote to the US Department of Transportation criticizing the administration’s support for “this highly questionable endeavor”.

In Texas, opposition from landowners, hostile state lawmakers and lobbying airlines sunk a previous effort to bring high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas, along with a mooted extension to Austin and San Antonio, in the 1990s. Texas Central picked up the idea of the Houston to Dallas line in 2009, only to put the plan on ice following court challenges and the Covid pandemic in 2022, prior to its resurrection under Amtrak.

Building any sort of rail is difficult in a state with a particular zeal for the primacy of cars, with 97% of Texas’s entire transport budget, by law, going to the expansion and maintenance of roads. “People are flocking to Texas and we can’t just keep widening our highways forever,” said Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates. “More people are understanding this but it’s been very slow going. We may now be starting to crawl before we walk and then run.”

Objections remain, with Byford recently traveling to a ranch near Dallas to meet the Texans Against High-Speed Rail group, to assure them Amtrak wouldn’t use eminent domain to secure needed farmland. Some lawmakers remain unimpressed.

Joe Biden arrives to speak at an Amtrak maintenance facility in Bear, Delaware, on 6 November 2023. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

“This project does not only impact rural Texas but all of the United States,” said Jake Ellzey, a Republican congressman who represents a district in the path of the planned rail route. “In a time of a global food shortage, we cannot allow our farmland to be destroyed, and taxpayer dollars squandered for an unsustainable and unnecessary project like this.”

Still, optimism is growing among supporters of high-speed rail. Byford is deluged by emails from enthused rail fans suggesting sometimes outlandish ideas, such as bullet trains from New York to Los Angeles, but he can envision a more realistic future of swift connections between US cities lying in the “sweet spot” of distance from each other, around 200 to 600 miles apart.

“There are so many cities like that in the US, just in the right zone for high-speed rail,” said Byford. “I hope that we will be able to deliver a network around the north-east, Florida, Texas, on the west coast and the midwest. There’s lots of great city pairings.”

Most Americans “don’t know the joy of going downtown to downtown over 200mph without having to go out to the airport, having to line up in security, and then taxi on the runway and take off and land probably miles away from where you actually want to be”, Byford said, adding that the experience of avoiding traffic jams or strolling from a cathedral-like train station to get a meal and a drink also remains a largely foreign concept.

“You don’t know what you’re missing,” he said. “I think now is our best opportunity to deliver that, there’s no question.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

Climate Tipping Points Are Being Crossed, Scientists Warn Ahead of COP30

By Alison WithersCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an...

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an almost irreversible die-off, marking what scientists on Monday described as the first “tipping point” in climate-driven ecosystem collapse. The warning in the Global Tipping Points report by 160 researchers worldwide, which synthesizes groundbreaking science to estimate points of no return, comes just weeks ahead of this year's COP30 climate summit being held at the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil.That same rainforest system is now at risk of collapsing once the average global temperature warms beyond just 1.5 degrees Celsius based on deforestation rates, the report said, revising down the estimated threshold for the Amazon.Also of concern if temperatures keep rising is the threat of disruption to the major ocean current called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, which helps to ensure mild winters in northern Europe.“Change is happening fast now, tragically, in parts of the climate, the biosphere,” said environmental scientist Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter, who is the lead author of the report.Lenton noted positive signs when it came to phasing out the fossil fuels most responsible for climate change. Renewables, for example, accounted for more electricity generation than coal this year for the first time, according to data from the nonprofit think tank Ember.“Nobody wants to be just traumatized and disempowered,” Lenton said. “We still have some agency.”The scientists implored countries at November's COP30 to work toward bringing down climate-warming carbon emissions.Scientists have been surprised by how quickly changes are unfolding in nature, with average global temperatures already having warmed by 1.3-1.4 degrees Celsius (2.3 to 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average, according to data from U.N. and EU science agencies.The last two years were Earth’s warmest on record, with marine heatwaves that stressed 84% of the world’s reefs to the point of bleaching and, in some cases, death. Coral reefs sustain about a quarter of marine life.For corals to recover, the world would need to drastically ramp up climate action to reverse temperatures back down to just 1 degree C above the preindustrial average, the scientists suggested.“The new report makes clear that each year there is an increase in the scope and magnitude of the negative impacts of climate change,” said Pep Canadell, a senior scientist at Australia’s CSIRO Climate Science Centre.The world is currently on track for about 3.1 degrees C of warming in this century, based on national policies.(Reporting by Ali Withers; Editing by Kirsten Donovan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Baby numbats spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in hopeful sign for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials

Video shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park in south-western NSWSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereBaby numbats have been spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in south-western New South Wales, sparking hope for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials.Video captured by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park. Continue reading...

Baby numbats have been spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in south-western New South Wales, sparking hope for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials.Video captured by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park.Five numbat joeys, including quadruplet siblings, were seen at Mallee Cliffs and two more at Scotia wildlife sanctuary. The wildlife conservancy works with state national parks staff at both sites on projects that have been reintroducing the species in predator-free areas.Brad Leue, the videographer and photographer who captured the footage at Mallee Cliffs, said he watched the animals exploring outside the family den, which has an opening about the size of a coffee cup. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter“I was lucky enough to observe them for a couple of days and get an idea of their routine, which involved sharing a den with mum overnight, venturing out around 8am, and playing within 50 metres of their home while mum hunts for termites,” Leue said.Rachel Ladd, a wildlife ecologist with AWC, said babies were always a special find, “particularly for a species as difficult to spot in the wild as the numbat”.“Seeing seven young numbats lets us know that the population is breeding in favourable environmental conditions and becoming more established.”Numbats are one of Australia’s rarest marsupials and are listed as endangered under national laws.Numbat quadruplets emerge from their den at Mallee Cliffs national park. Photograph: Brad Leue/Australian Wildlife ConservancyA curious young numbat at Mallee Cliffs. Photograph: Brad Leue/Australian Wildlife ConservancyUnlike other Australian marsupials, they are active during the day and feed exclusively on termites.Numbats were once found across much of arid and semi-arid Australia, but by the 1970s had disappeared from most places except for isolated parts of south-west Western Australia due to predation by feral animals, such as foxes and cats, and habitat destruction.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThey are listed as extinct in NSW but projects such as those at Mallee Cliffs and Scotia sanctuary are reintroducing the animals to re-establish populations in parts of their former range.The AWC said the five juveniles at Mallee Cliffs were believed to be the great-great-grandchildren of a cohort of numbats reintroduced to the national park in 2020.“It felt surreal seeing four siblings in the one location,” the AWC land management officer Michael Daddow said.“They were just cruising around, falling asleep and playing with each other. The bravest of the lot even ran up to me to check me out before scurrying back – it wasn’t scared at all.”The other two babies were observed running around logs at Scotia wildlife sanctuary on Barkindji Country, where the species was reintroduced in the late 1990s. The AWC said this observation along with other recent numbat sightings at that sanctuary gave conservation workers optimism the population was recovering after a decline triggered by the 2018-19 drought in the lower Murray-Darling region.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.