MARIAN WILKINSON Woodside vs The Planet: How a company captured a country. Reviewed by Braham Dabscheck

Australian governments are addicted to fossil-fuel exports that harm the climate and return little to the country. How did this happen?

In this Quarterly Essay Marian Wilkinson examines Australia’s contribution to global warming and greenhouse pollution, in particular the impact of Australia’s exports of fossil fuels. She begins Woodside vs the Planet by saying:

Australia’s huge fossil-fuel exports were always the elephant in the room … Until recently the greenhouse pollution from these exports was seen by most Australian politicians and policy-makers as largely the responsibility of our Asian consumers – not ours. That assumption is now unravelling at speed.

Wilkinson focuses on the activities of Woodside, especially its production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and its successful applications to open up more gas fields on the North West Shelf in Western Australia. In 2025, the Albanese Labor government extended the life of such plants to 2070, a decision supported by the Western Australian Labor government. How, asks Wilkinson, does opening up new gas fields, and extending the life of them, accord with Australia’s commitment to reduce global warming?

The world – and Australia – is moving to renewables, solar and wind power. This process will take time. LNG is seen as being less polluting than coal – 50 per cent less, though this figure is disputed and Wilkinson shows that, after taking into account the pollution generated in the production of LNG, the real figure is 25 per cent.

In moving from coal to renewables companies like Woodside claim – a claim supported by both sides of politics at state and federal level – that it makes sense to use LNG to maintain supply during this transition phase. Moreover, while the production of more LNG in Australia will add to Australia’s level of pollution, this should be set against how the export of LNG (mainly) to Asia helps reduce pollution in those nations, as they substitute LNG for coal. Against this, Wilkinson points out that switching to LNG has a chilling effect on the development of renewables as an alternative energy source in those countries.

Woodside has received continual support from governments. Wilkinson points to, for example, how governments at different times have provided Woodside with financial support, with royalty holidays, generous royalty deals and other concessions. The Western Australian treasury calculated in 2010 that its total support for the North West Shelf project had exceeded $8 billion. Woodside was exempted from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax by the Hawke government and has been able to write off its huge capital costs on infrastructure against profits.

Whenever a scientist, an environmental group or an official from a governmental body makes recommendations hostile to its interests, Woodside produces its own experts to counter such claims and lobbies politicians not to act on the recommendations. Invariably Woodside can rely on Kerry Stokes’ media empire to support its campaigns. This media card and the threat that government decisions will have a negative impact on jobs and the Western Australian economy are particularly effective in solving such problems for Woodside whenever an election looms.

The areas Woodside mines for LNG are rich in First Nations rock art. Indeed, Wilkinson reports that ‘One of the greatest rock art landscapes on Earth is hemmed in by a massive industrial zone.’ Claims concerning the cultural and religious significance of such artifacts have the potential to hold up Woodside’s plans for expansion. The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) is an umbrella organisation representing First Nations peoples in negotiations with Woodside and the Western Australian government.

When Labor’s Mark McGowan was elected premier in 2017 he promised the MAC that he would support a bid for Murujuga (also known as the Burrup Peninsula) to be awarded a UNESCO World Heritage listing. Woodside and other companies supported the MAC in this application and a Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program with $29 million devoted to the current program. However, in 2021 climate activists opposed an extension of Woodside’s gas developments.

Woodside has made clear that its support for the listing was only ‘on the basis that heritage and industry can and will continue to exist’ … Archeologists and local Indigenous people who had fought for decades to protect the rock art became deeply divided over the climate activists’ campaign, with some fearing it could jeopardise the World Heritage listing and MAC’s funding.

The Australian government has introduced a safeguard mechanism to reduce the carbon emissions of large emitters around the nation. One of the ways an emitter can reduce their footprint is by using carbon credits for things like forest regeneration. Wilkinson examines how such a scheme operates in the case of Woodside, and the particular way it emits pollutants.

There are three types of pollutants associated with LNG projects:

Scope 1 comes from burning fuel onsite, which happens during the extraction and processing phases.

Scope 2 comes from the plant’s indirect emissions, such as consuming fuel produced offsite.

Scope 3 emissions mostly come when the LNG is burnt by customers (mainly overseas).

Wilkinson says the safeguard mechanisms of the Albanese government are only designed to tackle Scope 1 (and presumably Scope 2, which would be relatively minor), not Scope 3.

She quotes Piers Verstegen, the Executive Director of the Conservation Council of Western Australia, who said that if Australia is to reach its 2030 targets, it would need to reduce Australia’s emissions by about 950 million tonnes of CO2.

But the fossil-fuel projects that are being approved and supported under the government are going to release more than seven times that.

Global greenhouse emissions are continuing to rise. There are more extreme weather events across the globe. Wilkinson is concerned about this existential threat to our wellbeing.

Australia needs a broader, national debate about gas exports and climate change – and not the one Woodside and the gas industry want. It’s one that asks: can Australia really be a responsible climate actor if it keeps developing major gas projects as global emissions continue to rise and the chances of holding global warming to 1.5°C fade? It asks state and federal governments to assess the full impact of Australia’s fossil-fuel exports on climate change at both home and abroad.

Marian Wilkinson’s Woodside vs The Planet raises issues that are not only of significance to Australia, but also the rest of the world and the future of the planet. 

Marian Wilkinson Woodside vs The Planet: How a company captured a country Quarterly Essay 99 Black Inc. 2025 PB 128pp $29.99

Braham Dabscheck is a Senior Fellow at the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne who writes on industrial relations, sport and other things.

You can buy Woodside vs The Planet from Abbey’s at a 10% discount by quoting the promotion code NEWTOWNREVIEW.

You can also check if it is available from Newtown Library.

Tags: Australian gas exports, Australian government, Burrup Peninsula, fossil fuels, global warming, greenhouse gasees, Kerry Stokes, Marian | Wilkinson, Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, Quarterly Essay, renewable energy, rock art, Scope 3 emissions, Western Australian government, Woodside