Category Archives: Australian Response

PLEA Network

15 October 2015, Carbon Pulse, Australia reapproves gigantic Adani coal mine, Indian CO2 emissions to soar. Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Thursday reapproved the construction of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, Australia’s biggest ever which will see around 60 million tonnes of coal exported to India annually. Hunt first approved the mine last year, but a court annulled the approval earlier this year as the government had failed to take into account the mine’s impact on two threatened species. There has also been strong public opposition against the project amid suspicions it would damage the Great Barrier Reef. The minister said on Thursday the mine had now been “approved in accordance with national environment law subject to 36 of the strictest conditions in Australian history”. Coal from the mine will cause annual CO2 emissions of around 128 million tonnes – roughly similar to the combined GHG emissions of Norway and Sweden – although those emissions will take place in India, where the coal will be exported to. Indian owner Adani has estimated coal from the mine will create 3 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over its 60-year lifespan. “With regard to the impacts of the emissions caused by the use of the coal from the mine, recipient nations will need to meet their obligations under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change,” Australia’s Environment Ministry said. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

8 October 2015, The Conversation, FactCheck: does Australia co-operate with the UN on its human rights obligations? At its narrowest interpretation, Brandis is correct: at a purely procedural level, it is true that Australia does comply with its formal obligations to report to the UN, and has issued an open invitation for UN investigators called Special Rapporteurs to visit. However, taken more broadly, Brandis overstates Australia’s human rights record i relation to the UN. Australia has been widely criticised, including by the UN, for its weak compliance with substantive obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Australia and the UN The “UN envoy” that Insiders host Barrie Cassidy mentions is United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Francois Crepeau. To understand Brandis’ reply, we must first understand the role of a Special Rapporteur. The UN Human Rights Council is a body established by the UN General Assembly to oversee human rights compliance by UN member countries (“states”). The UN uses what it calls “special procedures” for this purpose, such as Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups, to investigate and report on human rights issues, or the situation in particular states. Current issues under investigation include education, food, freedom of expression, and indigenous peoples. A special procedures visit to a state is only by invitation, and so a request is made for an invitation from a state. Some states issue the requested invitation and some don’t. Some states have issued a standing invitation, indicating a willingness to receive visits at any time. Australia issued a standing invitation in 2008, before which it agreed to every request it had received. Under the standing invitation, Australia has received special procedure visits on Indigenous people, health, foreign debt, and people trafficking; previously it received visits on freedom of religion or belief, contemporary forms of racism, arbitrary detention, and adequate housing. Read More here

PLEA Network

8 October 2015, Renew Economy, Hunt stacks Climate Change Authority with Coalition advisors and ex MPs. The Turnbull government has stacked the independent Climate Change Authority with Coalition advisors and former MPs in a bid to redress what it says have been “partisan” politics from the board of the institution that it had tried to dismantle. The CCA has been a thorn in the side of the Abbott government before and since its election in 2013. The Coalition tried to dismantle the authority, but was stymied by the Senate. Ultimately, it was saved in a bizarre deal cut with Clive Palmer that led to the repeal of the carbon price. However, the CCA has continued to attack the Coalition, criticising what is saw as “weak” emissions targets, and questioning the effectiveness of the core Direct Action policy. Only on Wednesday, at the All Energy conference in Sydney, environment minister Greg Hunt said the current board members – including academic and former Greens candidate Clive Hamilton, economist John Quiggin and climate scientist David Karoly – were “some of the strongest, most outspoken partisan political players in the country in this space.” “I respect these views, but I wouldn’t say it’s a body that has no political history,” Hunt said, and foreshadowed the appointment of new members who would be “really credible people”. On Thursday, he announced the list, which includes two people who advised the Coalition on its Direct Action policy and two former Liberal and National Party politicians. As the right-wing and climate denying Catallaxy Files blog, peopled by many commentators in The Australian, observed: “Looking at the names it looks like the Authority has been stacked. Good.” Read More here

PLEA Network

7 October 2015, The Conversation, Oh no, we forgot about China – the flaw at the centre of the TPP.  Like many trade policy initiatives, the newly finalised 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is motivated by a desire to help domestic exporters get better foreign market access. The key idea is one of mutual concessions – in exchange for foreign market access we give up some of our own subsidies or protection. Despite the headlines, however, the TPP agreement has little to do with the economic argument for free trade. This is because the economic gains from trade trade don’t come from exporting more, or from preferential market access. They have nothing to do with mutual concessions. Rather the gains from trade are derived from being able to import at lower prices. This means that costs of trade barriers are incurred by consumers in the country that imposes the trade barriers. Consequently the benefits of free trade can be mostly gained by removing one’s own trade barriers. This is the approach the Australia took toward trade policy when it unilaterally reduced tariffs throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This generated economic gains to Australians and didn’t require armies of lawyers and bureaucrats to manage the preferential access as rules of origin or tariff schedules. When one thinks about the costs of trade barriers and the benefits of trade liberalisation in these terms, it is easy to see major flaws in the TPP as an economic policy. Firstly because tariff barriers are all already very low between the member countries, any economic gains that might be realised by mutual concessions are likely to be exceedingly small. Reasonable estimates come up with numbers like one tenth of a percent of GDP. This, as the Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman notes, is hardly world-shaking. Second, the TPP is an international club with exclusive benefits for members. Like any selective club, it’s not so much about who you let in, but who you keep out – like China. Read More here