BAIRD GOVERNMENT'S WAR ON TREES

Criticism of the NSW State Government’s attitudes towards environmental protection is growing. One example is the recent claim that the Baird Government is engaging in a war on trees in urban areas. 

Jeff Angel, Executive Director of the Total Environment Centre (TEC), has pointed to government decisions over the last 18 months which support this view. 

The first he identified is the 10/50 rule allowing landowners to remove trees which could pose a bushfire risk in bushfire-prone areas. The Government ignored concerns about loopholes in the code and the possibility it would be abused.  As a result many mature trees across the “leafy” suburbs were felled without clear evidence that bushfire risk would be mitigated.  This poorly thought-out code allowed developers to clear blocks and home-owners to improve their water views.  Community and local council concerns have since forced three separate changes to the code.

Another major urban vegetation loss will be in the Wolli Creek area (in Sydney's south) with the destruction of a threatened vegetation community when the West Connex road is built.  All told the TEC lists over 20 current attacks on urban bushland in Sydney.

A recent incident causing considerable community anger is the removal of mature trees, many of them large figtrees – some over 100 years old – along the Alison Road and Anzac Parade light rail route in eastern Sydney.  Suggestions from local residents and Randwick Council about alternatives to felling these significant trees were ignored by the government. Eight young replacement trees will be planted as an offset for every mature tree removed.  All very well - but as Jeff Angel states, “They cannot replicate what is lost in any useful time frame.” 

While the Baird Government is overseeing the clearing of mature urban trees, the Federal Government is planning to increase urban tree canopies to assist in cooling cities to combat the effects of the rising temperatures cities will experience with climate change. In a  recent article Oisin Sweeney, Science Officer of the National Park Association of NSW (NPA)  has used this as an example of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the approach of the Federal and NSW State Governments on environmental matters.  Such inconsistency would perhaps be understandable if these governments were from different political parties - but both are Liberal-National Coalition.

The NSW Government’s vegetation policies will affect non-urban areas because it is abolishing the Native Vegetation Act 2003 which was introduced in order to stop broadscale land clearing.  Given the Baird Government's poor environmental record there are real fears that the new legislation replacing the 2003 Act will downgrade environmental protection in response to urging from farming interests.  With so much native vegetation  already lost there are concerns about the survival of many flora and fauna species if the new legislation offers diminished protection.

KOALA PROTECTION IN NSW STATE FORESTS LIKELY TO BE WEAKENED

The NSW Government is in the process of changing the broad suite of legislation which protects the natural environment. While this presents an opportunity to improve environmental protection, it also presents an opportunity for the Government to weaken it.  

 

One area of particular concern for environment groups is changes to the rules governing logging operations, changes which will seriously weaken protection for koalas. These new Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOAs) being written by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be available for public consultation early this year.

Koalas in this state are already in serious trouble – a situation which resulted in the listing of the species as vulnerable under the federal EPBC Act in 2012. 

The new IFOAs plan to replace on-ground surveys with habitat models to streamline pre-logging koala surveys.

Dr Oisin Sweeney, Science Officer with the NSW National Parks Association, said, “The experts that reviewed the EPAs models found that they can’t predict the occurrence of koalas because they don’t take into account either the social nature of koalas or past disturbance.”

“Basically koalas, like humans, like to stay close to their families.  These social ties mean that habitat is not the sole driver of koala occurrence.  The models don’t consider past disturbance either: intensive logging and fires leave a legacy which affects whether koalas will use an area.”

Dr Sweeney is also concerned that the EPA has not analysed the effect of the current regulations on koala populations. “It is extraordinary that despite huge documented declines in koala populations across the NSW coast, the EPA would consider weakening logging regulations without knowing what the current ones do.”

The North Coast Environment Council’s Susie Russell is scathing about the proposed changes.

Ms Russell said, “This is pretending to look for koalas, not looking for koalas.  And we know from past experience in Royal Camp [State Forest] that if you don’t look you don’t find and if you don’t find you don’t protect.”  

Questions obviously need to be asked about why the EPA, which does not have a good record with forestry compliance, is weakening koala protection.

-          Leonie Blain

This post originally appeared in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on 11 January 2016.

AUSTRALIA AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Has Australia missed the renewable energy boat? The answer appears to be a resounding YES, and the irony is that much of the technology currently providing major employment opportunities worldwide was actually developed here in Australia. While renewable energy entrepreneurs have thrived overseas, successive Australia governments have remained wedded to coal, cutting support for alternative clean energy projects, and spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on carbon capture and storage technologies which, if implemented, will double the cost of coal-fired electricity.

The story of Australian expat, Danny Kennedy, is a typical example. Attracted by the progressive stance on renewable energy by California's Governor Schwarzenegger, he moved to San Francisco in 2008 to start the rooftop solar company, Sungevity. With some 1,000 employees that company is now one of America's biggest, and part of one of the USA's fastest-growing industries which employs some 55,000 people in California alone.

California has already shut down almost all its coal-fired plants and set a deadline of 2027 to stop importing coal-fired electricity. This is happening elsewhere with progressive countries like Germany and the Netherlands opting out of coal. India, the country on which Australia has seemingly pinned the future of our coal industry, has announced that solar and wind are their first commitment, and vowed to cut coal-fired electricity production.

More bad news for fossil fuel companies is that, according to CSIRO chief economist for energy Paul Graham, costs of solar panels now, 2015, are 20% cheaper than was predicted half a decade ago; and according to the Energy Networks Association, John Bradley, will continue to fall, along with the cost of storage. In fact, Mr Bradley believes the new technologies are changing so quickly that within the next 10 years electricity storage costs will fall by two-thirds, and solar costs continue to fall by another third again.

Is there any wonder therefore that, in the 10 weeks running up to the Paris climate summit, more than 100 institutions controlling $US800 billion in funds worldwide, opted to make new divestments of at least some of their fossil fuel assets.

            - John Edwards

This post was initially published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on 7 December, 2015.