Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle

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

26 August 2015, The Guardian, US environmental agency advising Australia on impact of fracking on water. The US’s Environmental Protection Agency has given Australia’s Department of the Environment details of recent fracking study and is peer reviewing papers. The Australian government has obtained information from US environmental regulators on the impact of fracking upon water supplies to help inform a new set of guidelines it is preparing on the controversial activity. The US’s Environmental Protection Agency has supplied the Australian Department of the Environment with the details of a recent study on fracking. The EPA has also helped the department peer review a number of its own documents. The EPA report is the result of a request from Congress to analyse how fracking for oil and gas is affecting water supplies in the US. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process where a combination of water, chemicals and sand is injected deep underground in order to release oil or gas from rocky areas. Fracking is banned in Victoria and has faced opposition from environmental groups, some farmers and radio personality Alan Jones in New South Wales and Queensland. However, the EPA report said it could find no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” from fracking, which is deployed across vast swathes of the country. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

25 August 2015, BBC, Carbon credits undercut climate change actions says report. The vast majority of carbon credits generated by Russia and Ukraine did not represent cuts in emissions, according to a new study. The authors say that offsets created under a UN scheme “significantly undermined” efforts to tackle climate change. The credits may have increased emissions by 600 million tonnes. In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash. As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production. Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union’s carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts. But this study, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, “hot air” – no actual emissions were reduced. Read More here

PLEA Network

25 August 2015, The Conversation, Time for the ‘green tape’ debate to mature: jobs and the environment are not implacable foes. The highly charged debate over the proposed Carmichael coal mine, which culminated in Attorney-General George Brandis’s decision last week to propose winding back environmental legal protections, has exposed the simmering tension between “jobs” and “the environment” on Australia’s political landscape. On one hand, those seeking to invest in the development of Australia’s natural resources and jobs growth have been making a clear case that Australia’s system of assessment and approval for major projects is riddled with procedural uncertainty. On the other, environmental advocates and local communities feel that the current system does not adequately protect the environment – correctly pointing out Australia’s less than stellar record in preventing species from going extinct. As a nation, however, we need to lift our game on both fronts. Investors in the Australian economy and those seeking jobs and growth need certainty with regard to where and how they invest. Equally, to avoid warfare (or “lawfare”) on a project-by-project basis, Australia’s environmental advocates and local communities need certainty too. They need clarity about where and how economic development can occur without harming our environmental heritage. Read More here