Tag Archives: Fed Govt

PLEA Network

2 June 2016, YALE Climate Connections, U.N., UCS Point to Risks to World Heritage Sites. Australia concerns lead to holding-back case study on Great Barrier Reef, so Union of Concerned Scientists posts it independently. Climate impacts seen posing risks to sites . . . and to tourism. Sometimes, too often in fact, it’s not what’s included in the text of a report that captures the attention. It’s what’s omitted from that report, often not mistakenly. That’s a lesson learned and re-learned in the public policy field, but apparently not really absorbed in many cases. Those who internalized the lessons from the early-70s Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon’s resignation know well that it’s the cover-up, more so than the initial offense, that is the real crime. Only slightly more recently, the original “Jaws” in 1975 taught a similar lesson, as the fictional Amity Island town council sought to silence the truth in an effort to protect its tourism financial interests. World Heritage report cover

News Analysis and Commentary Advance now to a new report, “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate,” released May 26 by two United Nations agencies and the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS. In a somewhat dual-personality report that at times seems as concerned tourism as with impacts of climate change, the report paints a dire image of 31 natural and cultural World Heritage sites in 29 countries around the world. Around the world, that is, save for Australia and its, ahem, rather important Great Barrier Reef (GBR), by any practical measure a worthy entry among top-ranking heritage and tourism sites. And clearly one with observed and serious impacts from rising ocean temperatures, increased acidification, and continuing carbon dioxide emissions. It ends up that the Australian government prevailed on the U.N. and its United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Environment Program to omit any reference to GBR. Those Sydney folks must never have seen “Jaws.” Read More here  Also access missing chapter here

PLEA Network

23 May 2016, The Conversation, Why has climate change disappeared from the Australian election radar? Two weeks into a protracted election campaign, it is looking ever-more likely that climate change is to be placed way down the order of business – at least for the major parties. The contest over climate change that characterised the previous three elections seems to have disappeared off the political radar despite the issue being more urgent than ever. Since the Paris climate summit, global average temperatures continue to break month-on-month records. Just a few weeks after the summit, the North Pole was briefly not even able to reach freezing point – in the middle of winter. And just this month, Cape Grim surpassed a 400 ppm baseline minimum. Then there is the truly frightening climate spiral developed by Ed Hawkins from the University of Reading. It shows what an El Niño amplified global temperature has climbed to. The spiral assumes a tight-knit but ever-expanding ball until April 2015, when the spiral line starts to separate dramatically from the ball. This year it careers dangerously close to the 1.5℃ threshold. Climate spiral. Ed Hawkins. The diminishing political and media spiral on climate.  While global temperatures may be spiralling out of control, the opposite appears to be happening with the climate issue attention cycle in Australia.Apparently, climate is less important than jobs and growth – or, in Labor’s case, health and schools. A big part of this change in political climates is undoubtedly the Paris summit itself. The political triumphalism of the summit belies the scientific pessimism of so many climate scientists and activists. Kevin Anderson from Manchester University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research even declared the summit to be “worse that Copenhagen”, in that it is based on out-of-date science, does not include aviation and shipping, and includes negative emissions in its scenarios for achieving abatement. On the other hand, after the collapse of talks at Copenhagen, some activists see no choice but to climb aboard with the Paris agreement, insofar as it at least signifies a mainstream seachange in action – even if the actual measures are inadequate. The INDCs that came out of the conference still put the world on a path to 3.5℃. Read More here

PLEA Network

16 May 2016, MSF, IF EUROPE TURNS ITS BACK NOW THE CONCEPT OF ‘REFUGEE’ WILL CEASE TO EXIST. This week Europe celebrated unity and peace on Europe Day. But in 2016 we fear its leaders, like Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, are united in turning their backs on those seeking our protection. In March, Europe’s leaders passed a deal with Turkey that allows Greece to send people back to Turkey in exchange for, among other things, a multi-billion Euro financial aid package. Sound familiar? Just like Australia’s “push back” policy and offshore detention program this new agreement, the so-called “EU-Turkey Deal”, threatens the right of all people to seek asylum and violates governments obligations to assist each man, woman or child asking for protection. Putting people’s lives or health at risk and causing suffering in asylum seekers is not a justifiable way to stop others risking their lives at sea, or worse, to control borders. Pushing people back to their country of last transit or banishing them to offshore detention transforms asylum into nothing but a political bargaining chip to keep refugees as far away from our borders and the eyes of the voting public as possible. “It betrays the humanitarian principle of providing impartial aid based on need, and need alone, without political strings attached” In exchange for this deal, Europe promises “humanitarian” and development aid to fulfill the needs of Syrian refugees and presents these funds as a measure to ease human suffering. But this aid to willing neighbours such as Turkey (just like the aid given to Papua New Guinea and Nauru), is conditional on shipping suffering offshore. It betrays the humanitarian principle of providing impartial aid based on need, and need alone, without political strings attached. By offering billions of euros to care for people out of sight in Turkey, Europe is also asking aid agencies to become complicit in their border control scheme. The Australian government has also referred to its push back policy as ‘humanitarian’. It has similarly funded it at the cost of its overseas development aid budget. But there is nothing whatsoever humanitarian about denying people their right to seek protection, and instead leaving people to suffer or die out of sight.Read More here

PLEA Network

6 May 2016, The Guardian, Greg Hunt: no definite link between coal from Adani mine and climate change. The federal environment minister has argued in court that coal from Australia’s largest coalmine would have no “substantial” impact on climate change and as a result he did not need to consider whether it would affect the Great Barrier Reef. The Australian Conservation Foundation challenged Greg Hunt’s approval ofAdani’s Carmichael mine, alleging he failed to consider the impacts the burning of the coal from the mine would have on climate change and hence on the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists have found the current mass bleaching event affecting 93% of the reefwas made 175 times more likely by climate change and would become a biennial event within 20 years. After that point, the continued existence of the reef would be in doubt. In federal court documents obtained by Guardian Australia, Hunt denied he failed to consider the impacts of coal on the reef. In the outline of submissions filed on behalf of the minister, the Australian government solicitor explains that the minister did not think the burning of the coal “would be a substantial cause of climate change effects” and would have “no impact on matters of national environmental significance”. Read More here