THE ELECTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

For environmentalists across Australia, particularly those who campaigned for climate change action, saying the election result was a disappointment would be a massive understatement. 

That disappointment is all the more poignant because while a vast majority of Australians rated climate change as their greatest concern, it seems that most are more interested in immediate threats to their personal well-being.

While I was handing out how to vote leaflets, one lady informed me she firmly believed climate change predictions were nonsense, and the changes that are occurring were simply a 20 year weather cycle. That is the level of denial we are facing, because our feuding political class refuses to be up-front with the Australian people, and acknowledge the threats facing the planet, and what needs to be done to limit their impact on our children and grandchildren.

In the lead up to the election, neither major party had any ambitious plan for action on climate change, beyond a few grandiose uncosted statements from Labor. Those were negated by a series of conciliatory promises to the mining industry that appeared to support an expansion of coal mining and 'fracking' for unconventional gas, actions guaranteed to further drive global warming.

Regrettably, mining industry backed scare campaigns, and political stunts like waving lumps of coal around in parliament, have made the whole climate change debate so toxic, that no-one in government is game to act.

The consensus of scientific opinion agrees there is now no way to save our iconic Great Barrier Reef, and the immediate extinction of tens of thousands of the earth's species is now inevitable. The only hope for the remainder, they say, is immediate and drastic action, something now put on hold, in Australia at least, for another 3 years.

Only this week, research results by the respected Pottsdam Institute were released showing that polar melting of ice caps is accelerating at a much faster rate than expected, something that cannot be reversed for thousands of years. 

These are just some of the challenges the new government faces. For our grand-children's sake, let us hope they are up to that challenge.

            - John Edwards

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on May 27, 2019

IS THIS FEDERAL ELECTION THE CLIMATE ELECTION?

Australia faces some serious environmental problems, many having been highlighted in the current election campaign.  But the environmental problem receiving the most attention is climate change.

This is not surprising as it has become increasingly obvious to a growing number in the community that climate change is fuelling extreme weather events such as prolonged drought and heatwaves as well as reef bleaching, bushfires and many other dramatic changes to natural systems. 

More electors are demanding effective action to curb the emissions causing these changes.  Of particular significance are the growing calls for action from the young – those who will be forced to deal with catastrophic impacts if effective action is not taken urgently.

So what is on offer from the major parties in the election campaign?

The Coalition parties are promising more of the same – a continuation of the direct action policy in which taxpayers pay polluters to curb their emissions.  There are no plans to lift energy from renewable sources above 23% and there is clear support for the continued burning of coal and building of coal power stations instead of any plan to phase out this energy source.

The division on climate policy within the Coalition has made it impossible for it to develop and implement an effective policy. This was clearly shown with the failure of the NEG (National Energy Guarantee) last year and the coup against Prime Minister Turnbull.   Despite this division and the continuing rise in carbon emissions, the current Prime Minister and others in the Coalition have unrealistically claimed that the nation will meet its Paris commitments “in a canter”. 

The Coalition is failing future generations as well as ignoring the long term national interest.

The Labor Party wants much greater cuts to emissions – 45% by 2030 - and the move to 50% renewable energy by 2030.  While this is a distinct improvement on the Coalition’s position, there are significant weaknesses in its policy including its support for fracking gas in the NT’s Beetaloo Basin.

A climate emergency has recently been declared in the UK.  What chance is there of that happening in Australia?

            - Leonie Blain

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on May 6, 2019

LOCALS ACT TO SAVE IMPORTANT HABITAT TREES

The way potential impacts on threatened species are assessed when compiling an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), has always been a concern. This was highlighted recently when Essential Energy decided to move a transmission line in Lawrence, east of Grafton.

Despite assuring concerned citizens that they always minimise environmental impacts, their plan would arguably have had the greatest possible impact. 

That choice required the removal of twelve old-growth eucalypts, including one Forest Red Gum where Koalas are regularly sighted. The ecologist's report also made the patently erroneous claim that the 200 year old trees had “few if any hollows”, and a legal requirement that an EIS must contain“a description of any feasible alternatives”, was ignored.

A mandatory search of wildlife atlas records was undertaken to determine what threatened species have been recorded in the vicinity. However, no survey was undertaken to determine if any of those species were actually present.

The EIS concluded that “The proposal will not have a significant impact on any threatened species that may use the trees”, and “With the implementation of mitigation measures described in this report, risk to threatened species that may periodically use the trees, is considered low”.

A search for those “mitigation measures”, found only an assurance that tree removal would not occur during their breeding season. For the 6 identified micro-bat species, that period was identified as spring. However, where micro-bats are involved, there is a well-recognised season when clearing should not occur, that is winter when they go into a type of hibernation known as “torpor'. Unsurprisingly, that fact received no consideration.

When that anomaly was raised, the response further highlighted their knowledge gaps, claiming bats live under loose bark on trees, and as the trees in question were smooth barked, they were unlikely to be used as habitat. The fact is that, while there are bat species that live under loose bark, none of the 6 identified species do that, with most known to use tree hollows.

Fortunately, locals have done their homework, and identified a route option which required virtually no tree removal, and that option is now under consideration.

            - John Edwards

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on April 15, 2019