<
https://reneweconomy.com.au/consultants-might-profess-a-commitment-to-net-zero-but-they-are-core-to-fossil-fuel-propaganda-playbook/>
"The fossil fuel industry playbook is so predictable, it is almost tedious.
They continue to plan for ever-expanding oil, gas and coal production. They
seek to win over governments by commissioning modelling that exaggerates the
economic benefits new projects could deliver, all while ignoring the
catastrophic harm fossil fuels will cause to the world’s climate systems and
vulnerable communities.
The playbook was on show again last month, when fossil fuel giant Woodside
announced that its proposed Browse to North West Shelf Project – a project that
Woodside describes as “Australia’s biggest undeveloped offshore gas resource” –
would generate more than $140 billion in economic benefits and billions in tax
payments for Australia, and create thousands of new jobs.
Woodside’s figures are based on a report it commissioned from ‘big four’
consultancy Deloitte. That the ‘independent’ report was produced by the global
consultancy firm lends its findings the veneer of credibility.
This is very much part of the service firms like Deloitte offer to their
clients, particularly when those clients want to convince governments to
approve new projects.
And, with a final decision on environmental approvals for the Browse gas
project expected in coming months, the clear audience for Deloitte’s report is
government decision makers.
Woodside is hoping that it can win support from the federal and Western
Australian governments with the promise of billions in new investment,
thousands of new jobs and a flood of new tax payments. Following the playbook.
Woodside’s release of the Deloitte report prompted Climate Integrity – a
not-for-profit research organisation that works to increase science-alignment,
transparency and accountability in corporate decarbonisation in Australia, and
my employer – to dig deeper into Deloitte’s ‘economic impact assessment’ of
Woodside’s Browse gas project.
To explain the extent of the problems with Deloitte’s analysis, it is useful to
detail some of the flawed assumptions and analysis that have influenced its
conclusions."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
