Hi Everybody,

We thank our friend Peter Logan from Save Albert Park for putting this information together for us, and for their 17+ years of campaigning on behalf of our community. Whether you live near the Grand Prix or not, we think you will find this information as illuminating as it is outraging. You can post any comments you may wish to contribute here on the LIVE BLOG where this email is posted.

The following has been written by Peter Logan, a former councillor with the City of Port Phillip. T 9699 1606, M 0412 697 074.

For the sixteenth year in a row, many opinions are expressed on the Grand Prix but how many are based on fact, rather than lies and propaganda?

Now there is independent evidence on the so called economic benefits, branding, putting Melbourne on the map and other intangible benefits to the state. Our democracy cannot thrive on perception. Perhaps Jeff Kennett should have made Victoria’s number plate slogan ‘State of Delusion’ as he never wanted us to know the facts about his Grand Prix.

Many – including some politicians (privately), those in the media and motor-racing fans themselves – acknowledge attendance numbers and other claims of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and the government are highly dubious.

The Australian Grand Prix has no turnstiles or barcoded ticket system, yet Grand Prix attendance numbers were, for many years, quoted as fact until the Ombudsman investigated and found them to be estimated. Now, there is solid evidence from the AGPC’s own audited accounts that they are overstated and many other long maintained claims are being challenged as we discover the truth.

These facts we now know, as we have evidence:

• Claimed attendance numbers for the four days have plateaued at around 300,000. Yet, during the same time, corporate and grandstand seats have plummeted and remain largely empty on the first two days of the event. Sales revenue (mainly ticket sales) in 1997 was $38m and dropped to only $26m last year, while claimed attendance went up from 287,000 to 298,187 in the same period. The Age article ‘Truth on crowds would hurt us’, admits GP chief (26/02/08) has now come true. The attendances are grossly exaggerated. And sponsorship revenue has dropped even further than ticket sales.
• The Economist  indicates the global numbers watching the Australian event to be just 16 million. Grand Prix chair Ron Walker has put out figures ranging from 54 billion a year for F1 (yes, 7 or 8 times the world population) through 500 million to 350 million for our race. All of these have been proven to be wrong by independent ratings agencies, and indeed, by Formula 1 organisation itself.
• Branding, that is exposure of MELBOURNE for the 2011 event according to Formula Money’s return on investment review was only $262,552. That means we spent $50 million plus to get back a quarter of a million dollars last year.
• The economic impact study commissioned by the state government and undertaken by Ernst & Young was always going to return a positive number – it doesn’t address costs. The Auditor-General and Ernst &Young both advised a cost benefit analysis is needed to determine whether the Grand Prix delivers a net benefit to Victoria or not. Natural disasters provide an economic impact but this does not mean they benefit the state.
• The Auditor-General’s peer reviewed cost benefit analysis of the 2005 Grand Prix found it was a net negative economic investment for Victoria. He recommended this be updated annually and is the only measure recommended by the majority of economists to determine whether an event or project is worthwhile or not.
• Victorian taxpayers have so far provided $427 million in cash to keep the Grand Prix in Melbourne – and the losses are increasing annually. In addition there are subsidies hidden on other government accounts that would probably add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, rent forgone from Parks Victoria, the interest incurred by State Treasury for the cash going into the Grand Prix, TAC, VicRoads and City of Melbourne sponsorships, plus a secret number of free tickets given away. Freedom of Information right to know on the GP has been legislated away.
• ‘Intangible benefits’ are always claimed but can’t be substantiated. The assumption is that those watching the race who saw ‘MELBOURNE’ will flock to our city. The Victorian Auditor-General researched this and found no extra tourists have come to Victoria because we have a Grand Prix.
• Even the Herald Sun, the event’s most ardent supporters, are beginning to see it as a poor investment. Executive editor, Alan Howe this week asked “…if our money might not be better spent on medical research where the return on investment is about six-to-one.”

So do we really need to spend $55 million a year to attract a few thousand Grand Prix fans while other tourists stay away and residents go away because a Grand Prix is in town?

And why keep it when Bernie’s apparently keen to axe the Melbourne event anyway? Not because it’s a Victorian taxpayers’ nightmare but because it’s not lucrative for him! Why? Because he says the television ratings are too low. But didn’t Ron Walker say hundreds of millions watch our GP? No wonder people have confused opinions on the Grand Prix.

We recommend you seek expert advice before forming an opinion. Save Albert Park has media releases on its website with references to independent studies. That’s a good place to start.

Please let’s hear what you think by posting your comment on the LIVE BLOG here.

Regards

Deborah Hart

PS: You may wonder why we have called this posting “You pay $880 for everyone at the Grand Prix”. As our friends well know, we have not had any other opportunity to credit our local Federal Member, Michael Danby, for properly representing our views so are delighted to finally agree with him regarding the Australian Grand Prix at Albert Park. We just think it’s a pity he didn’t speak up forcefully when the ALP was in power in Victoria. http://www.danbymp.com/recent/1684-it-costs-you-880-per-attendee.html

PPS: For those of you who live in the City of Port Phillip, and particularly those who live in ELWOOD, and were affected by the floods a year ago, LIVE will be hosting an ELWOOD FLOODS FORUM on Monday 26 March. Details at live.org.au/elwood.

After 22 hearing days, the community’s legal challenge to HRL’s proposed new brown coal plant concluded this week. This case was particularly important for being the first time that Victoria’s environmental laws (not just stated principles and broken election promises!) were applied to a major proposal that will emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, in the context of climate change.

It goes without saying that running a case against a government agency and a well-resourced company is a significant challenge. We submitted that Dual Gas did not provide enough information to show that their project was economically viable or that it would displace dirtier brown coal fire power stations. And, having watched the hearing and read the transcripts, we can tell you that there was evidence presented that the Dual Gas plant would not be economically feasible.

Doctors for the Environment argued a strong case centered on the air pollutants that HRL’s plant would generate. The Doctors presented evidence showing that cumulative emissions from coal power stations can have serious health impacts on members of the community.

In order to demonstrate the social and economic impacts that the HRL plant would have on all Victorians, Martin Shield (an individual objector) sought to demonstrate the many ways in which climate change impacts from the plant would affect him personally. Shield earned the respect of all parties for the intelligent, measured way in which he represented his case.

With Environment Victoria leading the case, and on behalf of LIVE, the Environment Defenders Office, along with a committed team of pro bono barristers, ran what I believe was the best case that could have been brought at this time.

Our case relied on evidence that the Environment Protection Authority has approved a permit for a project (300Mw) that is inconsistent with:

• the principles of the Environment Protection Act, with specific reference to the State Environment Protection Policy;
• the broader government policy framework (including the Climate Change Act 2011), the stated aim of which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
• the obligation under the law to demonstrate best practice in the management of emissions.

Our case raised the principle of intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, and the principle of integration to highlight the need for social and environmental concerns now and in the future to be given equal attention in decision-making. We submitted that HRL is a private corporation seeking to profit from a project that could have enormous short and long term affects on Victorians, for decades to come. As we all know, according to mainstream science, the most costly affects of climate change (to human health and the environment) will ultimately be borne by the community.

We are not likely to hear the Tribunal’s final decision before the end of March at the earliest. In the meantime, the Federal government has extended HRL’s period to meet the conditions of its $100 million grant (to complement its $50 million from the State government) until 30 June 2012. You may have heard that, on the eve of the hearing’s conclusion, Michael Danby MP, the local member for Melbourne Ports where LIVE is based, addressed Parliament to defend the government’s decision to give HRL more time. (see our press release here).

Indeed it’s been an eye-opening, time warping adventure. On behalf of LIVE, an enormous thanks goes to our tireless friends at Environment Victoria, our wonderful legal team, the great Doctors for the Environment, and the amazing Martin Shield. Credit must also go to the three Tribunal members who patiently presided over this long and complicated case. Finally, we’ve also very much appreciated the encouraging well wishes from so many of you, stay tuned!

Fingers crossed everybody!
Deborah Hart

PS: For those of you who live in the City of Port Phillip, and particularly those who live in ELWOOD, and were affected by the floods a year ago, LIVE will be hosting an ELWOOD FLOODS FORUM on Monday 26 March. Preliminary details are here. . . http://www.live.org.au/elwood.

From: Deborah Hart
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:47:18 +1100
To: <Martin.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au>
Cc: <Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au>, <Senator.Milne@aph.gov.au>, <Andrew.Robb.MP@aph.gov.au>, <Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au>, <Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au>, Senator.Bob.Brown@aph.gov.au
Subject: FW: FOI enquiry [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Martin Ferguson AM, MP,
Federal Member for Batman,
Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism.

Dear Minister,

Given that Australian Customs officials were giving me, along with my traveling companions, a rough time before you were in office, you can’t be entirely blamed for the surveillance systems established to spy on private citizens publicly expressing their concerns about the rapidly deteriorating state of our environment. Clearly, for some time now, both major Australian parties have considered environment activists to be a threat to our democratic ‘system’.

When the searches began, the only thing that had changed in my life was that I had become politically active in the climate change debate.

Is it our referencing of mainstream science (read: the latest findings from NASA, the IPCC and every other internationally esteemed science agency) to express our deep concerns about reaching greenhouse gas emission tipping points that will force catastrophic climate change that makes climate activists such grave dangers to the state?

Or is it that many of us are criticizing decision makers for giving billions of our taxes to the very transnational corporations responsible for it (read: many of us private citizens resent being forced to bankroll the collapse of our own climate)?

Are you aware of the countless hours environment activists have spent writing submissions, letters, petitions, attempting to engage with decision makers at all levels of governments to express our science-based concerns? For years we have dutifully followed our governments’ ‘official processes’, as we have witnessed greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar, and our leaders have used their power to further entrench a system designed to protect the worst polluters. Do you know how we really feel about this? Do you know how we feel when we explain this diabolical situation to our children?

I am looking forward to reading our files. I wonder, do they contain details of the various school and sport committees many of us sit on, or the numerous other ways in which we serve our community? (I know, I know it’s shameful to have baked the exact same biscuits for every single school fete!).

Meanwhile, which government agency is monitoring the activities of the lobbyists whose influence over decision makers really is threatening our so-called democratic ‘system’. I understand from numerous well-placed bureaucrats that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber democratically elected representatives many times over. In contrast to lobbyists, everyone knows who we are. We’re the people staging the public rallies and protests, driving petitions to all levels of government, writing submissions and so on, and so on. There’s nothing covert or unseen about us climate activists for goodness sakes!

Anyway, Minister, you will note below that I am seeking access to my file under FOI.

Yours faithfully,

Deborah Hart

PS: BTW, to ensure energy security we must replace the old, centralised polluting energy infrastructure with clean, decentralized renewable energy technologies quick smart. By their very nature centralised power supplies are more vulnerable to major disruptions caused by storms — which scientists predict will become more ferocious and more frequent — as well as accidents and deliberate attacks. Logically, if air conditioners were required to be powered using solar energy then we would have no more blackouts or brownouts during heat waves. And through the merit order, electricity prices overall would come down more than enough to cover the costs of the feed-in tariffs required to enable the widespread adoption of solar pv, see: http://www.smh.com.au/business/creating-electricity-at-home-the-cleanest-and-most-sensible-option-under-the-sun-20120116-1q399.html.

From: Deborah Hart
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:14:37 +1100
To: FOI Requests
Subject: Re: FOI enquiry [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear Ms Constant,

Thank you for acknowledging the receipt of my request and I shall look forward to hearing back from you again in a month or so.

Meanwhile, of course, please don’t hesitate in requesting any further information you may need from me in order to fulfil my request.

Yours faithfully,
Deborah Hart

From: FOI Requests
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:32:04 +1100
To: Deborah Hart
From: FOI Requests
Subject: RE: FOI enquiry [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Good Morning Ms Hart

I hereby acknowledge your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) dated 22 January 2012 which was received by this section on the same day.

Your request will be processed as quickly as possible. Please note that the statutory timeframe of 30 days applies on receipt of a valid request.

Kind Regards

Margarita Constant

Freedom of Information and Privacy Section | Office of Corporate Counsel
Attorney-General’s Department | 3 – 5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600

From: Deborah Hart
Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 9:44 PM
To: FOI Requests
Subject: FOI enquiry

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write seeking access to documents that may explain the routine treatment I receive from Australian customs officials.

On every occasion that I have entered Australia since 2006 I, along with my travelling companions, have been singled out to be searched. I have been told that this is a requirement because my passport carries a ‘U’.

I look forward to hearing what explanation there may be for this ‘U’, and what avenues exist for me to challenge it.

With thanks for your attention to this request -

Yours faithfully,

Deborah Hart

We Don’t Want Coal For Christmas! from Quit Coal on Vimeo.

Dear Santa,

It was so nice to see you in the Bourke Street Mall with the Quit Coal group the other day. I hope you don’t mind me sharing this lovely clip of you with your dashing reindeer and ever so loyal elves. http://vimeo.com/33905543 I think the shoppers really enjoyed their presents too, especially all those naughty people who got lumps of coal!

Honestly, we are so grateful that FINALLY we don’t have to put a price on pollution at the very top of our wish list. Of course we’ll have to be asking for it to be raised to where it should be ($200 per tonne sounds about right to us), but that should be fairly straightforward shouldn’t it Santa?

Look, we know you’re really busy this year, especially with all those problems you and Mrs Santa have had with the foundations of your home in the North Pole, and your workshop flooding, what with all that ice melting everywhere and making a right mush of things. So, we don’t want to be too much trouble, or take up too much of your time, but what we REALLY NEED most here in Australia is a new Energy Minister.

You see, our current Federal Energy Minister simply cannot understand any form of energy that isn’t dug up out of the ground by profiteering transnational corporations. It’s just so turn of the previous century, and we can’t put up with such stupidity killing our environment any longer. Santa, if you please, take a moment to read the message below that pretty much explains what that naughty Martin Ferguson is doing here in Australia and why he has to go. Honestly, Ferguson’s constant pandering to our biggest polluters left right and centre simply won’t do at all. We know how you must feel having to deal with naughty children, and would appreciate any tips you have to offer!

In the meantime, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Santa, send us a new Energy Minister for Christmas!

If you have any special requests for LIVE’s wish list, you are welcome to put them on our blog http://live.org.au/blog/?p=380

With BIG THANKS and Best wishes,

Deb

PS Please send LIVE’s supporters lots of zero waste presents and nice candy to let them know that their presence on our list is a real present to our ongoing lobbying efforts. The more the merrier, ho, ho ho!

PPS Also, could we please win the legal challenge to stop HRL’s proposed new coal fired electricity generator here in Victoria. That too would be much appreciated!

_________________________________________________

From: Deborah Hart
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:16 +1100
To: Martin.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au, Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au, Greg.Hunt@aph.gov.au, J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au, Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au, Senator.Milne@aph.gov.au, Andrew.Robb.MP@aph.gov.au
Subject: [Switchoffcoal] FW: HRL & a reality check

Dear Minister,

I have been listening to your ‘renewables can’t do’ rhetoric, and finding it dangerously far removed from reality.

In recent years investments in renewable energy capacities and manufacturing have grown from just $30 billion in 2004 to more than US$211 billion in 2010 (read: a 540 per cent increase). Each year since 2008, more money has been flowing into new renewable energy capacity than in new fossil fuel capacity. This happened even while fossil fuel energy sources continue to enjoy massive public subsidies, a virtual monopoly of the energy market and the rights to freely pollute. Even in the heat of the Global Financial Crisis, the renewable energy industry grew by 32 per cent per annum worldwide. With such serious money now being injected into alternative technologies, all indicators are suggesting that a major transformation in the way the world makes and uses energy is well on its way.

In terms of local jobs, with a fraction of Australia’s renewable energy sources, by 2010 Germany had created more than 367,000 jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. In May 2011 the IPCC published a special report for policymakers, demonstrating that by 2050 nearly 80% of the world’s energy supplies could be met by renewable energy.

Meanwhile, I keep hearing you talking about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Is it acceptable for public money to be used for the funding of experimental, clean coal infrastructure and technologies which are unproven, may never be technically or economically feasible, and which represent another massive subsidy to an already heavily subsidised, private and highly profitable sector? On technical grounds, nobody is convinced that CCS is safe or secure. Escaping plumes of CO2 from underground reservoirs are known to be deadly. In Cameroon, Africa during the mid-1980s, 1,700 people suffocated to death when CO2 escaped from Lake Nyos.

There is no way for any government to ensure that CO2 pumped underground can be kept secure — now, or many centuries into the future. Because CO2 expands as it rises, thus increasing pressure, geophysicists are concerned that if enough CO2 is injected into aquifers, it could reactivate faults and trigger earthquakes and tsunamis. There are also concerns that CO2 in a compressed form could act as a lubricant on underground rock, making it shift more easily. With this uncertainty, who would want to live near a CO2 dumping site? And, assuming CCS could be made economically feasible, who would be held liable if toxic plumes escaped and destroyed the surrounding area and/or if pressure within aquifers triggers earthquakes or tsunamis? If it was possible to clean up such a mess, would it be within the capacity of any single private company, or is it more likely that taxpayers would be left holding the bill for the damages?

Another serious problem for CCS technology is its water consumption, which is above coal-fired electricity’s already high level. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the planet. Even if CCS ever becomes technically feasible, the costs associated with its development, and of the electricity ultimately generated with it, will dwarf the costs associated with the new infrastructure required to bring online a plethora of zero emission renewable and energy efficient sources (e.g. wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal), which are available now and carry none of the risks associated with attempting to bury untold amounts of humanity’s pollution. If CCS was really such a great idea, surely the coal industry would have developed the technology by now using just a fraction of the billions in profits they’ve been pocketing every year?

Every step in the production of energy from coal — mining, transporting, washing, burning and depositing of the waste — poses grave health and environmental hazards. Gas is proving just as hazardous. Extracting gas requires enormous amounts of fresh water and the environmental and health impacts of ”fracking” include scarred landscapes and contaminated ground water from migrating gases and chemicals. Meanwhile, fugitive methane emissions from gas, which are difficult to quantify, are at least 72 times, and possibly 105 times, more potent than CO2 when in the atmosphere. In case you hadn’t heard, coal seam gas horror stories are popping up as fast as the wells themselves.

Finally, in economic terms, it is well documented that as more renewable energy enters the marketplace, electricity costs overall come down. In case your advisors are not properly explaining this to you, allow me: most energy markets are based on a ”merit order” that gives preference to energies that have the cheapest marginal fuel costs. For a set period, energy suppliers must bid into an energy stack until the demand is filled. Since the marginal cost of generating electricity from renewable energy is next to nil, they are picked up first, followed by brown coal, black coal, gas and then gas peaking stations in cases where demand is very high. According to the International Energy Agency, as a result of renewable energy entering the EU market place, the cost savings on wholesale energy prices have in some cases more than compensated for the costs of the subsidies that enabled the renewables to be built in the first place.

Minister, I would suggest that your definition of ‘feasible’ is somewhat confused and that you are quickly losing your credibility with the Australian public. Just how far on the wrong side of history you will fall is a choice for you to make now. For you to turn this around, to earn any credibility from this point, you must lock your door to the fossil fuel industry that has dictated your policies up till now. Your job is to serve Australians, not transnational or even local fossil fuel interests.

Thank you for your time and consideration -

Yours faithfully,

Deborah Hart
Albert Park VIC 3206

The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever. – Faith Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency, November 2011

PS I have Bcc’d this to thousands of activists all over the country

_________________________________________________

The other evening I was at a meeting organized by the Quit Coal
Collective. (ad break: these people are second to none direct action
activists). Naturally, exchanging information about mining projects popping up
left, right and centre, in our precious places and our critical food bowls,
overwhelming our land, threatening our water supplies and so on was exhausting
and deeply depressing.

There was a reflective moment when we questioned our country’s national
identity. For more than a century Australians lived off the sheep’s back but
we’ve largely replaced that with transnational corporations (read: most
shareholders are not Australian) digging up and taking away swaths of our
country. How do we really feel about being a quarry, and leading exporter of
climate change?

We think of ourselves as people of the land, as down to earth and resilient.
Given that our iconic Great Barrier Reef is hanging on by just the skin of its
teeth, experts say that it could be lost any year now, perhaps our new national
identity will be forced on us sooner than we think.

Well, we have solutions that could be adopted immediately. Right now our new
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) is accepting submissions and the 100% Renewable Energy
campaign has a quick, simple and creative solution to make a submission (see
my submission below). The only catch is that you also have to be quick about it
because submissions close on 8 December.

Tell the CEFC that we want Australia to be a hub for renewable energy in the
southern hemisphere. Tell them that we are tired of witnessing the fruits of our
cutting edge renewable energy R&D leave our shores to be commercialised
overseas. Tell them to use their new powers to protect our climate, create clean
local jobs, ensure a safe and secure energy future and embrace a new national
identity that we can be proud of.

With thanks and best wishes,

Deborah on behalf of LIVE

PS Our legal challenge to the EPA’s approval of a new coal fired power
station has been adjourned until 6 Feb, stay tuned. See http://www.live.org.au/component/content/article/59-events/399-brown-coal-in-court

PPS please let others know about this important submission opportunity

Whether they accept mainstream science or not, the future of ALL Australians
is just a little less precarious today than it was this time last week. Finally,
after decades of delay and double speak from both major parties, Australia has
laws to target carbon as a no no, and some measures to support renewable energy
solutions (see http://live.org.au/blog/?p=280).

It makes me feel sad to acknowledge how long this basic reform has taken, how
much time it has taken so many of us away from our family and friends to achieve
it. Even if the science is only half right, history will be a merciless
judge.

Our fight to decouple the most powerful industries on the planet — the
industries that control our energy supplies and therefore our economies — from
their control over our decision makers will take many more rounds yet. And as
the science demands, we must continue to refine the rule book fast, to one that
is based on the reality that we share a finite planet determined by immutable
laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

OK, doing this is a numbers game. It’s so much more than that too. We need
the numbers in the right places at the right times. We have the Greens, and the
climate friendly independents to thank for our new climate protection laws.
They’ve played the hung parliament cards cleverly. They’ve negotiated tirelessly
and in good faith to force the Gillard government to deliver what her
predecessor had a mandate to do but only talked about (while drafting laws to
pay polluters with our taxes!) — the start of
effective climate action.

As an independent, non-partisan group, LIVE gratefully acknowledges the
Greens and Independents for standing firm and delivering on their promise to
represent the best interests of Australians now and in the future. Gillard’s
team deserves credit too for weathering the storm of relentless nastiness from a
self-serving Opposition to negotiate a deal that the broader ALP would
support.

Fundamental to this historic win, we acknowledge the efforts of EVERYONE who
has helped line up the pieces. For every rally you’ve attended, correspondence
you’ve sent and so on and so on, you’ve contributed to this milestone.

To end on a positive ‘doing’ note, please join us this Sunday at the Going Backwards Under Baillieu March, a public
demonstration to hold our state leaders to account (1pm, 13/11@Parliament House)
for (so far) blocking renewable energy projects, ignoring CO2 targets, logging
the habitats of endangered species, supporting new coal projects, fast-tracking
the destruction of the Westernport, threatening Melbourne’s Green Wedges

A landmark, once in a generation legal challenge is about to be heard in
Victoria.

In July Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority (EPA) gave a works
approval to HRL (former SEC) to build a new brown coal-fired power station in
Victoria – the first to be built in nearly 20 years.

100% renewable energy is feasible, affordable and long overdue so why
would our EPA, whose job it is to protect our environment, decide in favour of
another dirty coal plant? To get an idea of the global, rocket-speed growth of
renewable technology see “industrial-scale  renewable electricity generation”.

This Monday, 24 October 2011, is Day 1 of the community court
challenge of the EPA’s controversial approval, being brought by LIVE,
Environment Victoria, Doctors for the Environment, and Martin Shield, a
concerned private citizen.

Thanks to the Environment Defender’s Office, and a highly committed team of
lawyers and barristers who are donating their time and talent, we have this rare
opportunity to stand up for our community’s best interests by directly
challenging coal in a court of law. Why exactly? Because every step in
the production of energy from coal — mining, transporting, washing, burning and
depositing of the waste — poses grave health and environmental hazards,
and is forcing climate change.

Instead we are demanding renewable energy to produce clean, safe electricity
and generate new jobs in local economies. While our new carbon laws (BIG THANKS
to the Greens and friendly independents!) are designed to help shift investments
away from polluting power sources and into clean ones, it will take immense
people power to make it happen in the time frame required by mainstream science.
So…

PLEASE JOIN US TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR SUPPORT TO THE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO COAL!

We are meeting outside VCAT (55 King St, Melbourne) at 12.30 pm on Monday  24 October.

Please come along…and invite your friends too!

Please pass on this message to your networks.

Malcolm Turnbull demonstrated true leadership last week when he defended scientists against self-serving polluting interests that are throwing their weight around in a desperate bid to avoid responsibility for the life-threatening damage their emissions are causing. He noted that, just like the tobacco companies before them, vested interests are deliberately distorting the science and misleading and frightening the public about the effects of taking the necessary action to protect our climate. Turnbull also pointed out how “galling” it is for the leaders of China and India (whose respective per capita emissions are one-fifth and less than one-tenth of Australia’s) to hear our leaders use their economies as an excuse for not taking responsibility for Australia’s role as the highest per capita emitter in the developed world. Civilisation-saving climate policies ought to have full, bipartisan support and Turnbull deserves acknowledgment for his strong stance, at this important time.

As Turnbull pointed out with the example of Margaret Thatcher, many conservative politicians around the world have a long history of concern regarding the threats posed by climate change and are working hard to strengthen global action to combat it. In the UK, it is the conservative (Tory) party that has been leading the push to strengthen emission reduction targets. According to UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne:

It puts Britain at the leading edge of a new global industrial transformation as well as making good our determination that this will be the greenest government ever.

Acknowledging the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee for negotiating under extreme pressure from self-serving polluters and a viciously hostile opposition party, the Gillard government’s Carbon Plan is undoubtedly an improvement on Rudd’s worse than nothing Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is important to note that the opposition was invited to be represented on the MPCCC but Abbott refused and has subsequently attacked it at every stage of its development and proceedings.

Combined with a fixed price on pollution ($23 per tonne and set-to-rise), the new ‘independent’ support for renewable energy initiatives, as well as annual reporting on emissions targets, are encouraging developments. Who does not want 100% renewable energy to replace polluting energy?

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), will have $10 billion worth of funds ($2 billion a year raised over 5 years) to allocate as loans or equity investments for “clean energy”. Half of the funds will be for strictly renewable energy, while the other half will be available to renewables or “clean” gas/renewable hybrids, but not for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. In addition to this, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will administer $3.2 billion of existing renewable energy projects.

During the Plan’s start-up period (until 2015), dodgy offshore permits cannot be substituted for Australia’s emission reductions. After 2015, when the Plan’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is set to start, there will be a limit of 50% for overseas offsets, whereas the CPRS was unlimited (read loophole that meant it was OK if NO emissions were reduced in Australia ever). Because vested interests can so easily manipulate ETS schemes, and they rely on a speculative carbon market, LIVE will fight this transition and do not expect to be alone in doing so. To give you an idea, recent analysis of the EU’s ETS revealed that the scheme has become a major source of hidden subsidies for emission intense industries (in the form of free pollution permits which are traded), with power companies expected to receive windfall profits of more than €70 billion in the current phase (2008 – 2012, the second of three planned phases).

An important improvement on Rudd’s CPRS is that our individual efforts to reduce our carbon footprints will not translate into free carbon permits for polluters (typically transnationals) to trade in a speculative carbon market. The psychological impacts of removing that loophole cannot be overstated.

Another improvement is that this scheme sets aside $1 billion for the protection of Australia’s unique biodiversity, wildlife and woodlands. With the potential for raising further awareness of what is under threat from climate change, this addition has the capacity to punch above its weight.

The support for ordinary Australians (about $4 billion over the next 4 years), transferred through the tax and welfare system, means that most people will be sheltered from most increases in energy costs, whereas Rudd’s loophole ridden CPRS was entirely focused on protecting industry profits.

Of course, the generous level of corporate welfare (a whopping $9.2 billion) offered by this scheme is wrong by every measure. Public discussions about carbon pollution contributing to climate change have been going on for decades and any business leader/investor that has ignored them should not be in business. The fossil fuel industry represents the most profitable/powerful corporations on the planet, so regardless of what Abbott thinks (clearly nothing for Australia’s future) propping up polluters profits now should not be the job of Australian taxpayers. This aspect of the Plan ought to be vigorously, and continuously challenged as we ‘move forward’. The plan mentions seeking to negotiate coal closures, specifically the most polluting (brown coal) plants in Victoria, but has not been backed up with any comprehensive measures to assist coal-affected regions to re-build with new low carbon industries. Transitioning to a low carbon economy will demand skilled labour, so compensation money should be going into retraining carbon affected workers to fill the new jobs that will be created.

In addition to the unjustifiable corporate welfare, most of the fossil fuel subsidies (roughly $12 billion) remain in place. Agriculture and most transport are not covered, which not only reduces the scheme’s effectiveness but also its capacity to raise funds to finance the renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions.

Arguably the biggest flaw of the scheme is that it will not prevent a gas rush which would be financially (read stranded assets) and environmentally disastrous. Extracting gas requires enormous amounts of fresh water and the environmental and health impacts of ‘fracking’ include scarred landscapes and contaminated ground water from migrating gases and chemicals. Meanwhile, fugitive methane emissions from gas, which are difficult to quantify, are at least 72 times, and possibly 105 times, more potent than CO2 when in the atmosphere.

Ultimately the Carbon Plan maintains a pathetically low emission reduction target (5% by 2020 from base year 2000, compared to the EU target of 25% by 2020 from base year 1990), that is light years away from the reductions the science demands if we are to avoid dangerous runaway climate change. The game is about reducing emissions FAST and anything else is a distraction.

So, be assured that LIVE will continue to support and push all Australian decision makers to adopt further, numerous measures (such as gross metered feed-in-tariffs for renewable energy) to drastically reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in the quickest time frame possible. We will continue to demand climate policies commensurate with the threats we face from climate change.

Finally, we encourage you to share your views with decision makers (including opposition members, this is very important!) and have provided contact details below.

For news about LIVE’s latest direct actions, including the recent presentation to Adam Bandt of campaign material resulting from our month of May Deckchair Democracy action, see www.live.org.au. Bandt will be presenting LIVE’s Federal petition with more than 3,000 signatures, along with video and photograph petitions and hand-written letters from children in Federal Parliament.

We welcome your comments on the bottom of the LIVE BLOG PAGE.

See the ABC Lateline report (above) on Malcolm Turnbull’s speech at the inaugural Virginia Chadwick Memorial Foundation Lecture.

Malcolm’s Speech
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/homepage-speeches-articles/inaugural-virginia-chadwick-memorial-foundation-lecture-sydney-july-21-2011/

SMH Report
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/turnbull-defends-scientists-20110721-1hr6s.html

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee contact details:
Julia Gillard: (02) 6277 7700 webform: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm
Wayne Swan: (02) 6277 7340 email: Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg Combet: (02) 6277 7920 email: Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony Windsor: (02) 6277 4722 email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Rob Oakeshott: (02) 6277 4052 webform: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=IYS
Christine Milne: (02) 6277 3063 email: senator.milne@aph.gov.au

The opposition’s contact details:
Tony Abbott: (02) 6277 4022 Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Joe Hockey: 02 9929 9822 joe@joehockey.com
Julie Bishop: 08 9388 0288 Julie.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Malcolm Turnbull: 02 6277 4144 Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg Hunt: (02) 6277 2276 Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au

Hi Everybody,

It is looking like Santa has organised for our Christmas wish to come true!…Australia will have a fixed price on pollution (with NO international offsets allowed) starting 1 July 2012, YAY!

But, because scientists are telling us that we have only a very small window of opportunity to transition away from greenhouse gas pollution, we have to get the fine print right, NOW.

A low carbon price of $10-20/tonne is somewhat useful, as it will still create a disincentive to build new coal-fired power stations, and will ensure that coal is more likely to be displaced by renewables (like wind and solar) than by gas. However, a carbon price which is greater than $25/tonne will ensure a mass rollout of gas-fired power stations, while renewables are left out in the cold. (See the BZE Report at http://tinyurl.com/BZE-Carbon-Price-2011-02-28)

Careful analyses of the way our energy markets work shows that if the new price on pollution is introduced at anything below $200 per tonne (dreaming) OR without any schemes to directly support 100% renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, then all we will achieve is a big win for entrenched, finite, BIG fossil gas (NOTE: methane from leaking gas is 72 times more greenhouse gas intensive than carbon, connect the dots…).

So to avoid a lot of money being invested in gas infrastructure—which would, in a very short period of time, become stranded assets and need to be taken apart and replaced because, like coal, it is finite and greenhouse gas polluting—the most affordable and sensible path is to bite the bullet and directly invest in the right solutions NOW. We must call for renewable energy sources (0% coal) that will 1) ensure we have energy security (peak oil will soon force prices of everything way up), 2) stimulate jobs in more sustainable, local economies, and 3) bring our greenhouse gas emissions from stationary electricity down to zero as fast as we can.

There are several paths we could take:

1. Introduce a price of around $20 per tonne on CO2, combined with a national, gross-metered Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) (learn more at http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/feedintariff.php#fit-gross-net) , along with a stronger Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (learn more at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target.aspx). Together these policy measures have driven the renewable energy boom in Europe and we think this is the more likely of our two options to be adopted;  OR
2. Introduce a carbon price of at least $200 per tonne so that gas is not a feasible option (I repeat ‘dreaming’ because we know that is not going to happen). But that is around the price that the free market will need to pull out of polluting energy sources. Remember that our current (read very old) energy system was not built by free market forces, it was by and large established by governments and paid for by tax payers.

You can be sure about this: once the renewable energy infrastructure is established—except for basic maintenance, operating and transmission costs, which are in fact much less for renewable energy technologies than large power plants—the electricity generated from renewable energy sources costs nothing. Renewable energy is very cheap in the LONG run and that is what we must remain focused on.

Also, renewable energy supplies—sourced from a range of technologies located in numerous locations using high voltage direct current lines that will allow more flows and considerably reduce transmission losses—will ensure a more robust and secure power supply than the current centralized models. By their very nature centralised power supplies are more vulnerable to major disruptions caused by storms—which scientists predict will become more ferocious and more frequent. This summer has been bad enough!

And more good news is that—contrary to what deniers/scare mongers are saying—in places where renewable energy has entered the market, the wholesale price of electricity has decreased. This is because the low operating costs of renewable energy reduces wholesale price spikes, which is how fossil fuel electricity generators make most of their money.

So, it seems the planets are aligning for this ideally timed national campaign calling for A Fair Go for Renewables, http://100percent.org.au/content/help-gather-20000-survey-results-nation-wide-community-survey to gather more than 20,000 surveys for Rob Oakeshott to table in Parliament in June, just prior to the new Greens Senators entering the Senate. LIVE is supporting A Fair Go for Renewables and would love to hear from you if you would like to help too.

And, another exciting initiative launched last night in Melbourne is CoalWatch see http://www.environmentvictoria.org.au/coalwatch. This important new project is tracking the coal industry’s dangerous expansion plans and includes rich content about why coal is the problem, along with a list of all coal projects on the table in Victoria. Once you see how many billions of dollars are being spent on coal you will fully understand why we claim that there is no shortage of money to fund renewable energy now.

In the meantime, we suggest that you write or telephone members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) to encourage them to take effective action to reduce Australia’s soaring emissions. As you have probably heard they are under enormous pressure from vested interests and their foot soldiers, including at least one reported death threat.

Julia Gillard: (02) 6277 7700 webform: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm
Wayne Swan: (02) 6277 7340 email: Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg Combet: (02) 6277 7920 email: Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony Windsor: (02) 6277 4722 email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Rob Oakeshott: (02) 6277 4052 webform:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=IYS
Christine Milne: (02) 6277 3063 email: senator.milne@aph.gov.au

My email to the MPCCC is here if you are looking for some ideas. Or if you are listening to talk back, it would be great if you could challenge the misinformation being spread by vested interests.

Thanks and best wishes!

Deborah Hart

PS: Please forward this email, or a link to this page, onto your friends.

As I was just sitting down to write another blog—questioning why commentators are ignoring liberal green voters, that is voters who are dumping Liberal Party pollies in favour of candidates with smarter policies, there are more than a few to be sure, definitely a story in it—the below transcript landed in my inbox.

It is from a speech given by Adam Bandt (Greens lower house member for Melbourne) in Federal Parliament on Monday morning (22/11). It truly sums up our parliamentary situation.

Now I’m asking HOW do we get more intelligent people like this—people who will represent our best long term interests—into decision making positions? How do we make more Australians realise what urgently needs to be done now to secure a safe climate future? Because without this, we have no chance of securing anything else.

The answer to that question is YOU— and people like you—are the best chance we have now.

Please read the below speech and if you also agree with its contents send it to as many other Victorians as you can before they cast their vote on Saturday.

We don’t want to tell you who to vote for but ask that you please research the policies of the candidates so that you are informed regarding who will represent your true, long term interests best. If we want to enjoy the benefits of living in a fair, equitable, healthy community then we must all play a role in challenging the commodified ‘what’s this pollie going to do for ME?’ attitude that has bred a greed-fuelled political culture.

And if you have any doubts that we could be doing things differently—that Australia could power its economy, including transport, using 100% renewable energy—then read this article: Is baseload power necessary?
With thanks and best wishes,

Deborah Hart

PS : Please read and pass on Adam’s terrific speech!
Please  Leave a Reply  to add your Comment to the others below.

QUOTE: “The political party which accepts the science but not the need for drastic action is like the 40-a-day smoker with impending cancer who gets told by their doctor to give up and cuts down to one pack a day, thinking that is a reasonable compromise.”

Parliamentary climate debate
Monday 22 November 2010

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11.07 am) – This motion seems simple, but accepting it means accepting all the consequences that flow from it. By publicly calling the science of climate change ‘crap’ and then cleverly maintaining wiggle room, as the members for Flinders and Mitchell have just done—that, perhaps, any changes in temperature are not in fact human induced—the opposition condemns itself globally as a fringe group unwilling to accept the logical consequences of the argument that they have made for many years.

Those in the opposition have told us for many years that humans are a special species capable of moulding and transforming the world. Many on the conservative side of politics have told us consistently of the powers of science and of our ability to understand the basics of the atom and the elements. So why, when we have heard in the last few weeks from one of Australia’s and the world’s foremost climate scientists, Professor Will Steffen, that the planet was hotter this decade than in any other in recorded history and that there is now near certainty that humans are playing a significant role in contributing to this warming, do we not accept the truth of what he and the scientists are saying?

But worse than the denial of climate change itself is the denial of the need to act in line with the science. This is not an issue with which one can play the usual kind of political negotiation. This is not an issue where we can strike a deal with nature and attempt to negotiate the laws of physics and chemistry.

The political party which accepts the science but not the need for drastic action is like the 40-a-day smoker with impending cancer who gets told by their doctor to give up and cuts down to one pack a day, thinking that is a reasonable compromise. So to pass this motion now is to accept the primary role of the science in framing the options that are available to us from here on in.

The planet does not have a finely calibrated thermostat that one can turn up and down by parts of a degree. The better analogy is with the human body. There is a normal band of the body’s core temperature within which human beings can survive. Move the body more than a small amount above normal, however, and fever, hypothermia or organ failure become appreciable risks. Likewise, there are climate thresholds that must not be breached. For example, if we allow the planet to warm up too far we will unlock the vast carbon stores of the permafrost, driving up temperatures even further.

At Copenhagen it was agreed that we should try to stay below a two-degree guardrail to avoid appreciable risks of these extreme events. But if all the other countries of the world adopted Australia’s woeful five per cent bipartisan pollution reduction targets we would be on track for a world that is on average four degrees hotter, with extreme climate events the norm and where as few as 500 million people might survive.

In the face of all of this, when we continue to expand our coalmines, coal-fired power stations and coal exports one wonders whether federal and state governments are really getting the message. We have a carbon budget that requires us to peak in our emissions within the next few years. And yet one of the first acts of the new Gillard government was the approval of new coal export contracts, and hundreds of millions of dollars of public money have been allocated for infrastructure to help export that coal.

In Queensland, we have the Wandoan coalmine and, in the Surat Basin, coal seam gas as the subject of intensive investments. In Victoria, the Brumby Labor government is opening a new coal-fired power station, HRL, which in one fell swoop will wipe out any suggested gains that might be made from the closure of a quarter of Hazelwood. As a country we are on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading exporter of polluting energy.

If we were to take this motion seriously, we would be taking real action to end our reliance on coal. The climate emergency requires us to take strong and profound action to cut carbon pollution. That is why the Greens are working with the government to put a price on carbon. We acted swiftly, across countries and with enormous resources, when the financial system was in trouble. Let us extend to the planet the same courtesy as we have to the banks. Our future, and our children’s future, depend on nothing less.

Please  Leave a Reply  to add your Comment to the others below.

After the goal post moving Federal election, state polling in both Victoria and NSW further suggests that there has been a fundamental shift in the minds of a significant proportion of Australians.

As the mainstream media obsesses over the percentages of voters haemorrhaging from both major political parties—from what were their traditional bases—there is a distinct lack of meaningful discussions about why this is happening.

We suspect enough voters to make a difference have discovered that the fine print of the policies on offer from both major parties is virtually indistinguishable. For instance, on the issue of climate change, most policies only create the perception of meaningful action while harbouring enough holes and escape clauses to ensure that they do not meet their stated aims. Why?…Because they are based on political expediency and largely drafted by vested interests instead of being informed by the latest most credible science; our best chance of understanding  the natural laws which determine our habitable planet.

Ultimately, by their very nature, political parties that are bankrolled by vested interests— driven by profits and the need to increase market share—are incompatible with healthy, intelligent societies and a healthy planet.

Serge Thomann, Martin Foley, Peter Norden (Moderator), Mark Lopez and Ann Birrell
Photo by Peter Stewart

So to give our candidates a chance to speak for themselves, on 10 November LIVE co-hosted the Albert Park Candidate’s Forum for the 2010 State Election at the St Kilda Town Hall. Around 150 people attended to hear Serge Thomann (Independent), Martin Foley (ALP), Mark Lopez (Liberal) and Ann Birrell (Greens) speak to their policies. The Forum was in Q&A format, with audiences members asking questions of the candidates

The evening was courteous and efficient. To our relief, there was no questioning that healthy communities rely on healthy ecosystems and it is not possible to have the former without the latter. And, with the exception of Mark Lopez (Lib), the candidates expressed confidence in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure greater energy security.

We were disappointed by the little said about the Green Economy’s capacity to also create tens of thousands of new more secure and sustainable jobs in local economies. In fact, Lopez suggested more than once (although not as often as insisting that we need more police to feel safe in our community) that adopting sustainable solutions could wreak the economy. Clearly he is unaware that all indicators are now suggesting that the future economy is the Green economy.

The smart money senses the time has come and billions are now flowing into renewables, getting ready for the inevitable boom that will be driven by the transition. With over $100 billion invested per year in both 2008 and 2009, we are now talking serious money. Of perhaps even more significance was that in both years more money was invested in new renewable power capacity than in new fossil fuel capacity, indicating a tipping point has been reached. Read more from Paul Gilding: http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20101012financialmktsturning.html

After all was said and done, we think our sitting member Martin Foley (ALP) was the best performer. We like what Foley stands for and the way he expresses his values, even though these are not ideally translated in the political reality of his party. Having said this, it is important to note that we have witnessed Foley take a stand against Brumby on a number of important issues including:

• When the Brumby Government approved GM crops when there are clear long-term and wide-ranging risks involved with the technology and in the knowledge that no regulatory agency anywhere in the world is adequately addressing the human health and environmental impacts and no government has passed legislation which will effectively manage them.
• When the Brumby Government raised the possibility of exporting our highly greenhouse gas intensive brown coal

We found Lopez slippery. He seemed incapable of answering a direct question directly and his style was conspiratorial. Sure, it is easier to lean forward and suggest we should be fearful…than to intelligently engage with complex issues. As the moderator, Peter Norden, AO pointed out, resorting to obsessing over law and order suggests a party is in a ‘desperate state’ (both may be true!). Most certainly, Lopez’s fear and greed founded appeals did not engage this audience.

Birrell and Thomann performed reasonably well, although they are clearly less experienced/trained at public speaking and performing.

Birrell focused her energy on communicating the reasons why voters should vote Green: it is a community based, grassroots party with strong connections with many social justice and environment groups that bring to it a ‘genuineness’, richness and diversity that is no longer reflected in the major parties. We agree.

Having considered the Greens extensive policies (43 in total) http://greens.org.au/policies/, we think that they will best equip us to meet the critical 21st century challenges of climate change and peak oil that threaten future water and food security.

So the upshot is that LIVE recommends voting for Birrell (Greens) and, at least in the seat of Albert Park, directing preferences to Foley (ALP). Ultimately we think Foley works hard for our community and represents us to the best of his ability within a corporate party machine. As a result of the recent rise and rise of new green politics, we are hopeful that if re-elected Foley will have more opportunities to do more good for us and all Victorians.

Meanwhile, for a comprehensive analysis of where Victoria’s parties stand on environment issues (thanks to a group of hard working climate activists!) visit http://www.stateelection.net.au/party-ratings/

This event was one of 7,347 events held in 188 countries as part of an International Day of Climate Action on 10/10/10

1964 was a year of the dragon. It was the year Hazelwood started tipping pollution into the atmosphere. Since it was also the year I took my first breath—and I imagine it chugging away through all the moments of my life—I feel this strange and horrible connection with the accumulative plumes of deadly greenhouse gas it has created. By my calculations Hazelwood’s black balloon contains around 740 million tonnes of pollution. Accepting that adult elephants weigh about 5 tonnes, Hazelwood is responsible for a herd of around 150 million elephants, in the room! Hazelwood is a death machine.

This northern summer, more glaciers carved into the ocean and more ice melted than ever before. Both Antarctica and Greenland are now losing ice at twice the rate they were in 2002 — as much as 400 billion tons each year and accelerating. Thousands upon thousands of people died in flash floods in Pakistan and China, and in fires in Siberia. As devastating droughts grip West Africa, millions of people are facing starvation. 2010 is on track to be the hottest year ever, as the sun sets on the hottest decade since instrumental records began.

What makes this empirical evidence particularly disturbing is that it directly matches the peer reviewed findings of literally tens of thousands of scientists who are experts in their fields—oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists and snow and ice researchers from the world over—who for decades have been warning our decision makers that climate change is a deadly threat. Clearly their voices were drowned out by the fossil fuel lobbyists responsible for the countless Hazelwoods now littering our planet.

We could kick our addiction to fossil fuels starting NOW. As Beyond Zero Emission’s Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report demonstrates, we have feasible, affordable renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions to bring our stationery electricity emissions to zero within a decade. And achieving this will generate many thousands of new jobs in local more secure and sustainable economies. Besides Big Coal and emerging Big Gas, who could not want this for Australia?

Clearly I’m questioning the obvious here; why do we have to come out to this industrial relic and risk arrest speaking common sense while this dirty plant is allowed to continue spewing dangerous greenhouse gas into our air? Something is very wrong with this logic!

Fundamental to the duty of care of any government is to do its best to protect its citizens, its public property and territory from threats and harms. Yet after decades of climate warnings, our very life support system—our most valuable public asset—is now collapsing.

Meanwhile, as the horrifying evidence mounts, decision makers from both major political parties continue to largely ignore—in many cases outright deny—the science and marginalize the experts, as they use our taxes to bankroll the very corporations which have been largely responsible for our climate’s devastation. By any definition this is wicked behavior.

Assaults and crimes on our environment are just that; Hazelwood is a crime scene.

As our precious little time for real action slips into the pages of history, we are increasingly weary of hearing politicians say they care about climate change as they waste our time proposing false solutions and more problems for the future—such as gas and the pipe dream tech for carbon capture and storage—while continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects of all types. We know that only climate policies based on the most credible, up-to-date science—which calls for zero emissions and mass efforts to draw excess carbon out of the atmosphere—will secure a safe climate.

As just causes throughout history have shown, civil disobedience is the inevitable result of governments defending practices which are unjust. In this case our leaders are expecting us to continue to participate in a system that threatens our very survival; the survival of all life on earth as we know it. It is telling that, as more and more of us challenge the absurdity of this situation, democracies everywhere are responding by imposing greater restrictions on our rights to protest. Just look at this show of might to defend the rights of climate criminals; our taxes at work.

Ultimately we are here to demonstrate that if our leaders are not prepared to protect our future then we will. Social uprising and chaos will result if they continue to defend a system that threatens to destroy us.

It is encouraging that the likes of James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate scientist, is not only prepared to testify in court on behalf of climate protestors—he even travelled to a small courtroom in Kent in south east England to testify on behalf of the Kingsnorth Six—but has himself joined the growing ranks of arrestees for taking non-violent climate action.

In my view the people arrested here at last year’s Hazelwood rally—and climate arrestees all over the world—deserve to be honoured. Ultimately it is for the benefit of others that they taking significant personal risks to directly challenge the laws protecting climate crimes. This is exceptionally courageous and generous. They have justice, if not the law, on their side.

In finishing lets acknowledge and thank everyone involved in the grassroots climate action movement. The tireless and selfless work put in for this just cause is a gift. Although I know that to say that the pace of change feels frustrating is a gross understatement, progress on this issue is being made. I hope you can see that together we are ‘moving forward’.

Thank you people, YOU are the vanguard of this movement, our greatest hope for a future that is best and fair for all.

Thank you again

The question Australians should be asking is: why are they so fearful?

Ghosts are tumbling out of Canberra’s cupboards and their howls can be heard echoing through some prominent media outlets.

More than happy to influence Australia’s law making process over expensive meals behind closed doors, top-shelf lobbyists are understandably feeling jittery about our ‘new paradigm’ Government. Thanks to those pesky Independents and Greens, present governing will not lend itself so keenly to the good-ol’-style, vested interest driven decision making process that so suits industries.

The verging on hysterical reactions from some corners—namely Big Coal and other mining giants through their mouthpiece, The Australian— indicate where the key fault lines in our democracy lie. The thought of decision makers considering policies that aim to factor in the true worth of the countless invaluable services provided free by our environment clearly will not serve the balance sheets of the many transnational corporations we host. When massive profits can only be generated with resort to ecologically destructive practices, clearly there is a problem with the business model in question.

AFTER establishing their credentials as economic dunces, the Greens, contrary to their own propaganda, are increasingly emerging as environmental dunces over the core issue they claim as central to their platform — man-made climate change…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hypocrites-greens-would-block-clean-power-sources/story-e6frg71x-1225922933832

Surely when assaults become so vicious they risk alienating even the perpetrator’s own followers. As this MediaWatch story Gunning for the Greens demonstrates, The Australian’s attacks are oozing out of the Opinion section and spilling right through its so called news content: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3010433.htm

Surely there is an inherent contradiction in a strategy vilifying the Greens for promoting (for a long time actually) the progressive policies that increasing numbers of Australian voters want. By and large Australians want to protect and preserve their natural assets for present and future generations.  And, besides Big Coal and other major polluters, who would not want Australia to be a leader in 21st century appropriate renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies which will generate many thousands of new jobs in local, more secure and sustainable economies?

As Australia’s night of the long knives starkly revealed, transnational mining corporations operating within our shores are proven masters at getting their policy demands met. As that new day dawned, we awoke to discover our Prime Minister had been replaced and his proposal for a Super Profits tax on mining profits—a key recommendation of Australia’s Future Tax Review, http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=html/the_review.htm —had returned to dust.

If not intimidation from industry, then how else can we explain the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being tabled without a price on pollution and instead heaped with compensation for polluters? By any measure this was peculiar behavior from a Government that came to power with a mandate to take effective action to address climate change.

But even stranger things are happening now. Surely you have heard that BHP, which has continuously and intensely lobbied for delays on climate action and NO price on pollution, has suddenly made a dramatic, highly public call for a carbon tax.

Could it be that, having more than doubled its net profit over the last year—from $US5.88bn to $US12.72 billion—the Big Australian doesn’t want to be greedy? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bhp-billiton-more-than-doubles-full-year-profit/story-fn65t1pq-1225910023134

A more realistic explanation for the world’s biggest transnational mining company’s radical reversal is that its shareholders will surely suffer less with a carbon price—which will be much easier to pass on to consumers—than they will with a direct tax on BHP’s Super-dooper profits.

In reality both taxes are more than warranted: 1) in exchange for taking our treasures, and 2) in exchange for destroying our life support system.  A carbon tax is arguably the fastest, most efficient way to force fossil fuel energy supplies to compete in a more fair and equitable energy marketplace. And a Super Profits tax would be mighty effective tool to fund major renewable energy and energy efficiency projects which will reduce Australia’s greenhouse gases and create countless new jobs in more secure and sustainable regional economies. As BHP’s balance sheet clearly demonstrates, at least this company is more than capable of sharing its (our) wealth.

But why is BHP finally coming to the party now?

Since a price on pollution is inevitable, it would be reasonable to assume that BHP has fears around how high a carbon price could go if transnational mining corporations are forced to negotiate with those pushy Greens and Independents. After all these newcomers to Parliament are far more inclined to honour the spirit of democracy by representing the best interests of their constituents.

There is no doubt that BHP has its finger on the pulse and can see the writing on the wall; a price on pollution is inevitable. And the Big Australian knows well that by supporting the leaders of the two major parties—who have served industry so well up till now—they stand the best chance of getting away with a price on pollution which is not high enough to create any meaningful transition away from fossil fuels.

If BHP was interested in more than just creating the perception that it is taking climate change seriously then it would throw its might and its money behind the development of 21^st century appropriate technologies which work with rather than destroy the ecosystems upon which we all depend for life. Since at this stage such an awakening is unlikely, then our leaders ought to at least ensure that a greater proportion of the spoils of BHP & co’s dirty trade are used to ensure there is a future for Australia’s future generations.

A climate activist recently said to me ‘I just feel like it’s all I can do to keep picking myself up off the floor’. His words resonated so sharply that the only thing that stopped me embarrassing us both by sobbing was to imagine how career scientists must feel.

What would it feel like to have your life’s work, along with your integrity, rubbished by an orchestrated pack of self serving liars and ignorant bullies whose only discernable talent is in grabbing A LOT of media attention for their unfounded gobbledegook?

Driven by a mix of greed and ignorant arrogance in the extreme, it is about time the vicious, relentless attacks upon scientists and climate commentators are exposed for what they are.

The laws of physics will relentlessly assert themselves, unswayed by public opinion, political shenanigans, or elections. Ultimately, the laws of physics will speak so loudly that no amount of wishful thinking can prevent them from being heard; but because any delay in taking action against climate change will increase the human and financial burden on future generations, it is our responsibility now to cease tolerating lies, misrepresentations,
puerile accusations, and conspiracy theories that are unworthy of public discourse in a mature democracy.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky’s Climate debate: opinion vs evidence http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842091.htm.

For a sobering and thoroughly referenced series on climate denier orchestrated smear campaigns (see links below), check out Clive Hamilton’s series for ABC’s The Drum Unleashed.

Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm

Think tanks, oil money and black ops http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2828195.htm

Manufacturing a scientific scandal http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2829295.htm

Who’s defending science? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2830890.htm