18 August 2015, The Guardian, Abbott government war on green ‘saboteurs’ is Laurel and Hardy slapstick. The Coalition’s ‘war on environmental vigilantes and saboteurs’ isn’t consistent: it’s waged against anti-coal activists but in support of anti-windfarm activists. Even for the Abbott government the inconsistencies in the latest “war on environmental vigilantes and saboteurs” are astonishing. And the slapstick nature of its attempt to use the issue as a political wedge is up there with Laurel and Hardy. When an environment group successfully uses 16 year-old national environmental laws to delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change the law to prevent them from ever doing it again. But if an anti-windfarm group can’t find a way to use existing laws and regulations to stop or delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change laws and processes to make it easier for them to succeed. The first is called green “vigilantism” and “sabotage” and the second is, according to environment minister Greg Hunt, a reasonable response because “many people have a sense of deep anxiety, and they have a right to complain.” The government calls regulations that stop fossil fuel or mining projects “green tape”, but a wind commissioner and yet another scientific committee to look at unsubstantiated health complaints regarding wind turbines is apparently no kind of “tape” at all. Read More here
Category Archives: PLEA Network
18 August 2015, The Conversation, The government vs the environment: lawfare in Australia. A key feature of authoritarianism is that the government is above the law – it is not accountable to the people for its actions. In contrast, under a democratic system, the rule of law means that the government is constrained by law and can be held accountable by the people. This is particularly pertinent to the move by Attorney-General George Brandis to restrict green groups from challenging major developments under federal law, a direct response from this month’s successful appealagainst the approval of the controversial Carmichael coal mine, being developed by the Adani Group, on environmental grounds.Brandis plans to repeal section 487(2) of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act and “return (it) to the common law”. His actions follow comments by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Trade Minister Andrew Robb. Read More here
5 August 2015, Renew Economy, Australia still subsidising fossil fuels at rate of $1,712 per person a year. In a week punctuated by heavy criticism of financial support for renewable energy in Australia, a report from the International Monetary Fund has reminded us that the age of entitlement for fossil fuels never really ended, with subsidies to the sector averaging at around $US1,000 a year for every citizen living in the G20 group of the world’s leading economies. New figures from the IMF have revealed that Australia still provides $US1,260 per head – or $A1,712 – in fossil fuel subsidies in 2015, while the US – the second-worst offender (in dollars), behind China – provides $US700 billion a year, equivalent to $2,180 for every American.
The report finds that the bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution – especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions – and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. “In many top subsidisers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.” The rest of the IMF estimates for 2015 come from payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. The IMF, which published a global estimate – $5.3 trillion a year – of fossil fuel subsidies in May, calculates that ending fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emissions by 20 per cent. It has also estimated that this would lead to a 50 per cent cut in premature deaths caused by air pollution, while also being an economic “game-changer” for many countries, freeing up much needed funds. For advanced economies, like Australia, the IMF estimates eradicating fossil fuel subsidisation would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending. Read More here
3 August 2015, The Conversation, The scariest part of climate change isn’t what we know, but what we don’t. We know a lot about what climate change will do, but ‘when’ is a tougher question. “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”: so goes a Danish proverb attributed variously to baseball coach Yogi Berra and physicist Niels Bohr. Yet some things are so important — such as projecting the future impacts of climate change on the environment — that we obviously must try. An Australian study published last week predicts that some rainforest plants could see their ranges reduced 95% by 2080. How can we make sense of that given the plethora of climate predictions? In a 2002 press briefing, Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defence, distinguished among different kinds of uncertainty: things we know, things we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know. Though derided at the time for playing word games, Rumsfeld was actually making a good point: it’s vital to be clear about what we’re unclear about. So here’s my attempt to summarise what we think we know, don’t know, and things that could surprise us about climate change and the environment. Read More here