The Great Barrier Reef belongs to all of us.

Could the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area become one of the largest coal ports in the world?

The Australian Government has approved construction of the devastating Carmichael mega-mine. This coal mine would be the largest Australia has ever seen. Its coal would produce a shocking 130 million tonnes of deadly carbon dioxide emissions every year.

And this coal would be transported straight through our Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area — which could be a potential disaster for its already fragile coral, and the animals and people who depend on the Reef for survival.

But if you and I act now, we can still stop this environmental disaster from going ahead.

Save The Reef

The Reef is one of the most remarkable places on earth and it belongs to all of us. We have an opportunity to stop the Reef from becoming a coal shipping superhighway – and if you and I don’t take a stand, who will?

  • Wu Joong

    is the time to Action! For Save The Patrimonium of Humanity:the Reef.For You Miss for Pollution, Greed, And Coal….And New Business: The Famigerate Bank: The Sea The Your Business! No Thanks……

  • Wu Joong

    After The Attack To Pecuful Protest on Canaria, The Artic, The Reef, The Oil-Drill. The Fish: The Sea Are The New Business of Bank, Lobbyes, Corruption, And Govern! Only A Massive (RE)Action Blocked this, And Greenpeace is This!The Action……

  • Adam Shakey Dawson

    i need a job with green peace or i would like to be involved in any activism at all if you can help in anyway to help me get more involved in what your doing to save the reef, or any other campin you are running!!!

    • Liza Dicks

      There are many others who are involved in saving the reef and who are grass roots organisations you should look into

  • Shane Betts

    The capitalists know they’re killing the planet. They know their time is nigh. That’s why they’re mobilising across the globe, trying to rape as much from the Earth as they can before the inevitable happens and the people of the world cry, “ENOUGH!”. We have to work together to bring that time forward to limit the damage.

  • Patrick Irwin

    Ridiculous to even think about this happening.
    Coal is the worst; it should stay in the ground where it is useful as a Carbon store.
    Coal for Carbon sequestration? Yes; but only if left in the ground.
    Tell Tony Abbott & the COALition, & Clive, to butt out and leave our planet habitable.

  • Liza Dicks

    This is a very good information outlining the plight of the reef. You always have the donate button ready for people to give but never say what this money will go to. How do you propose to conduct this campaign, what strategies are in place and how much of this money will actually go to help protect the reef not pay to keep the big Greenpeace organisation in motion
    You told me a little while ago how you helped to stop the shark cull in WA and sent me a letter to that fact. We were on the water everyday documenting the cull along with many others and Greenpeace was never seen. The money to help this campaign came from many sources but not from you. You put your name to a campaign which you were not physically involved with other than trying to fundraise again off the back of it. You seem to use campaigns to fill up your coffers but not to give the money to the cause. So please outline in detail how this money will be used as other organisations such as Get up do, and you actually see the work and advertisements they pay for. Thank you

  • Rob

    I think Lisa’s got a point. Few people have the discretionary resources to support every worthy activist organisation to work on every worthy cause – so they make assessments based on aligned interests, track record and perceived value for money. In the face of donor fatigue the more transparent and accountable the NGO, the more success they will have with fundraising. Inspiring and optimistic messages along the lines of ‘this is outrageous but we have a plan and together we can change it’ are all well and good – but increasingly they will become insufficient as donors become more discriminating. To the extent reasonably possible, a pitch for funds should explain what the plan is.

    After the plan has been executed it is important to report back in detail what happened, what you achieved and what lessons were learned. This is the way to reward your supporters – intelligently and with respect. Not only are the more typical congratulatory group back-slaps and flattery completely inadequate, they are downright insulting.

    With big signature campaigns such as the GBR those people most disposed to support are all receiving multiple requests from the multiple groups involved. If they have already given what they think they can afford elsewhwere, subsequent requests are going to need to be pretty compelling and one particular disincentive to give to Greenpeace specifically is the amount of time required to fill out a host of details on each an every occasion you want to make a one-off donation. I believe donors would look very favourably on integrated proposals from multiple groups working to an agreed plan and conducting joint fundraising. Working this closely together will no doubt be challenging but the potential efficiencies make it worth the effort. At the moment there is a sense that the struggle for funds to survive means NGOs are competing for glory and/or publicity, while the actual results are forced to take a back seat to organisational politics.

    Of course, any serious organisation is much more than a series of campaigns – it also needs a regular and steady base level of income for the inevitable overheads. Although the emotional appeal of particular campaigns will always be a powerful motivator, there will be another category of supporter who prefer to invest in the organisation itself with a smaller, regular donation. Investors tend to be ruled by their head and take a strategic view of things. All the points previously are even more important to those contemplating a long term commitment.