The Australian arm of environmental campaign group Greenpeace is taking independent oil and gas producer Woodside Energy to court, alleging it has deceived the public about the climate impact of its operations.
Greenpeace, represented by Australian publicly funded law group the Environmental Defenders' Office (EDO), claims Woodside has mispresented its performance on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and has failed to account for scope 3 emissions in its net zero 2050 ambition, in a case filed on 13 December in the Federal Court of Australia.
Woodside falsely claimed it had cut emissions from upstream oil and gas extraction by 11pc in 2022, while increasing GHG output by 3pc and using carbon credit offsets to reduce net emissions, Greenpeace said on 14 December.
The environmental lobby also said Woodside's net zero 2050 plan failed to account for the 90pc of GHG pollution stemming from the end use of its products, known as scope 3 emissions.
Greenpeace described the case as central to holding fossil fuel companies to account for deceiving or misleading its shareholders, politicians and the public on emissions progress.
"Woodside believes that Greenpeace's claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action," a spokeswoman said on 14 December, confirming court papers had been served. "Woodside invests significant time and effort into preparing its public reports, having regard to both its legal obligations and its desire to inform investors and other stakeholders."
Woodside said an offer to meet with Greenpeace representatives regarding its climate reporting had not been taken up. It was targeting $5bn of investment in new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030 to reduce its scope 3 emissions.
The company's most recent climate report to go to a vote was its 2021 version, while Woodside's chairman Richard Goyder confirmed the 2023 climate report will go a vote of shareholders at its 2024 annual general meeting.
Woodside and fellow Australian independent Santos, currently considering a merger, have been locked in multiple climate-related cases led by environmental groups for several years.
Santos' $3.6bn Barossa and Woodside's $12bn Scarborough offshore projects have been stalled this year by EDO-led lawsuits alleging a lack of consultation with traditional owners.
Scarborough won fresh approvals for its seismic testing environmental plan this month, while Barossa's pipeline lay remains largely delayed awaiting a Federal Court decision regarding possible damage to underwater cultural sites.
Santos is also facing a case brought by investor advocacy group the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, arguing it engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct over its plan to reach net zero emissions.
