↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports
Home→Author hmcadmin - Page 336 << 1 2 … 334 335 336 337 338 … 387 388 >>

Author Archives: hmcadmin

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

August 2015, The Australia Institute, Key administration statistics – 3rd Party Appeals and the EPBC Act. Details from a forthcoming Australia Institute Report 

  • Since the EPBC Act commenced in July 2000, there have been approximately 5500 projects referred to the Minister under the environmental impact assessment provisions.
  • Of the 5500 referred, around 1500 have been assessed as requiring formal assessment and approval.
  • 12 projects have been refused approval.
  • 9 projects have been deemed to be ‘clearly unacceptable’ (i.e. rejected prior to proceeding to formal assessment and approval).

Key 3rd party litigation statistics. Read More here 

PLEA Network

28 August 2015, The Conversation, Newcastle’s ‘divestment’ is a chance for the world’s largest coal port to consider its future. The City of Newcastle council’s Tuesday night endorsement of an “environmentally and socially responsible” investment policy threw more mud than a pig wrestling competition at the country show. The controversy thickened this morning as stories emerged that the council also recently accepted an A$12-million offer to expand coal terminals at its port, the world’s largest in terms of coal exports. Amid jeers of hypocrisy and cheers of climate leadership, what can we really say about this policy move in one of New South Wales’ historic coal towns? Investment, not divestment. The council’s unprecedented move to adopt an investment policy which applies traditional investment criteria but also adds a “preference for environmentally and socially responsible investment (if criteria are met)” might rate a media mention, given the recent fossil fuel divestment move by certain universities and governments. But Newcastle’s historical dependence on coal means that the council’s decision sparked a media frenzy and councillors have been in overdrive explaining the policy and their position towards the region’s major industry. Defending both the nuance and intention of the Investment Policy, Newcastle Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes explained to ABC Newcastle that “it is not at all and never will be about undermining the coal industry”. Similar statements have been made by the councillor who moved the climate-friendly policy motion, 23-year-old Declan Clausen. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has come out against the policy. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

27 August 2015, The Conversation, Teens sue Obama over climate, asking why future generations’ rights are not respected. This month’s decision by 21 young American citizens, mostly teenagers, to sue President Barack Obama and various branches of the US government over climate change has highlighted a crucial issue that is all too often overlooked: the tendency to value current generations’ well-being much more highly than that of future generations. The “youth plaintiffs”, aged between 8 and 19, argue that the US government has known for more than 50 years that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is causing dangerous climate change, and yet has not prevented emissions from rising. Their lawsuit – filed in an Oregon district court and directed at Obama, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Authority and others – argues that future US generations will disproportionately bear the cost of a destabilized climate, despite having the same constitutional right to freedom from harm as current generations. They are aiming to obtain a federal court order that would require the government to develop a plan to protect the atmosphere and climate system. Lead counsel Julia Olson said that the US federal government: “has a constitutional responsibility to leave a viable climate system for future generations. The Government has consciously chosen to endanger young people’s right to a stable climate system for the short-term economic interests of a few… This administration must no longer consign future generations to an uninhabitable planet.” Read More here

 

PLEA Network

27 August 2015, UNHCR viewpoint: ‘Refugee’ or ‘migrant’ – Which is right? With almost 60 million people forcibly displaced globally and boat crossings of the Mediterranean in the headlines almost daily, it is becoming increasingly common to see the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ being used interchangeably in media and public discourse. But is there a difference between the two, and does it matter? Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter. The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations. Here’s why: Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 19.5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as “refugees” with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences. Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government….For individual governments, this distinction is important. Countries deal with migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through norms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in both national legislation and international law. Countries have specific responsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories or at their borders. UNHCR helps countries deal with their asylum and refugee protection responsibilities…. Politics has a way of intervening in such debates. Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring the two terms takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require. It can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before. We need to treat all human beings with respect and dignity. We need to ensure that the human rights of migrants are respected. At the same time, we also need to provide an appropriate legal response for refugees, because of their particular predicament. Read More here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Tags

Agriculture animal response Antarctica Arctic Attribution Bioenergy Bushfire carbon capture coal Community consumption Deniers Drought Economy Emissions Extreme Events Fed Govt forest response gas geoengineering groundwater health insurance Legal Action Local Action Migration native forests New Technology nuclear oceans oil Renewables RET scheme State Govt subsidies trade agreements UNFCCC United Nations Waste Management water
©2025 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑