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.

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.

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

_________________________________________________

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

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

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.

Banks go to a lot of trouble and expense to convince us that we should trust them with our money. But they tell us little about what they do with it.

In reality, much of the money we deposit in banks and other financial institutions is supporting destructive industries such as polluting energy production. Any corporation that must rely on ecologically destructive practices to turn a profit, is forcing the real costs onto taxpayers, the environment and future generations. Worse still, the artificial competitive edge enjoyed by these subsidised companies makes it harder for more sustainable companies, such as those in renewable energy, to compete.

But false economies are just that. It’s unacceptable for our banks to be propping up corporate free-loaders.

We’ve tirelessly lobbied our governments, just as we’ve campaigned against the most destructive corporations. Now it’s time to take aim at the financial institutions which are investing in environmental vandalism, all the while telling us (and their employees) what responsible corporate citizens they are.

Choking finance works. A number of dirty projects are already struggling as a result of activism directed at their financial backers. A prime example is when ANZ was forced to pull out of Gunns’s controversial Tamar Valley pulp mill following Australia-wide community outrage over the project. More recently, Mantle Mining’s Victorian soggy brown coal export project lost its backer, Intersuisse, after the company was bombarded with correspondence from outraged citizens. Within days of stepping in to rescue the project, Cygnet Capital’s Melbourne office was occupied by activists from Switch off Coal, four of whom locked-on to one another in the foyer, promptly telephoning media outlets. See one report here. Before rushing from the building, Cygnet’s managing director shouted to the protestors that they had no right to be on his premises, to which a Bacchus Marsh farmer replied “you have no right to be mining mine”. Within a fortnight, Switch off Coal activists occupied one of Mantle Mining’s drilling rigs, outside of Bacchus Marsh. At dawn, using thumb-cuffs, Shaun Murray locked-on to the eight metre high rig where he remained for five hours. Widely reported across the nation, the action exposed some of the unforeseen risks awaiting investors of dirty, controversial projects.

You may be aware that, along with Environment Victoria, Doctors for the Environment and a private citizen, LIVE is challenging the Victorian Environment Protection Authority’s controversial approval of HRL’s proposed new coal-fired electricity generator — our State’s first new coal plant in nearly 20 years. The EPA only approved a 300-megawatt plant, which is half the capacity that HRL applied for, so actually nobody is happy. As the October VCAT hearing looms (stay tuned), we are feeling somewhat encouraged by the fact that Australia’s Big four banks have all publicly rejected funding for the project. Is it too soon to call this an example of how strong community pressure can effectively frighten away dirty finance?

This is where you come in. Chances are that you are banking with one of Australia’s four major banks. Earlier this year LIVE eagerly participated in Greenpeace’s Dirty Banks Campaign. This clever campaign analysed and contrasted what the banks are saying from what they are doing with regards to sustainability. You can read our correspondence to ANZ, CBA, NAB and WBC and the responses from ANZ, CBA, NAB and WBC. We encourage you to participate and tell your bank to clean up its act  — we think this campaign is a game changer. Super funds, also beware.

We appreciate that there are many well-meaning people working in financial institutions. Our aim is to give decision makers in the financial sector the ammunition they need to direct investments away from ecologically destructive industries and into low-carbon ones which will employ more people in safer, cleaner jobs. If you work in a financial institution (a bank, super fund or other lending agent) and would like to help marry the rhetoric with the action, we’d love to hear from you – Contact LIVE!!

Please post your comment on the LIVE Blog, and visit LIVE for the latest goings on.

With best wishes

Deborah Hart, on behalf of LIVE

Hi Everybody,

Sunday was traumatic.

Just listening to Lyn White recount some of her experiences from her nine separate investigations into the live animal export trade was harrowing. Many of you will have seen her on the 4 Corners program A Bloody Business. It speaks for itself.

But something else disturbed me at Melbourne’s Ban Live Exports rally on Sunday. Standing just behind me was a supposed farmer with two female colleagues, all of them dressed in drysabone coats and akubra hats, you can picture them. The man was holding up a sign that said “End cruelty NOT live exports”.

A number of people around us (including myself) asked the man to put his sign down during the speeches as, in addition to being offensive to the other 9,000 or so people who were rallying to end the bloody and brutal trade, it was blocking people’s view. The man refused and instead, in a quite taunting manner, tried to engage people in a debate. Naturally, people were reacting with high emotion to the man’s insensitivity to the shocking evidence we have all been confronted with. The more upset he made others, the calmer he seemed to present in his ‘farmer’ suit.

Well, before you could say moo, a pretty in pink presenter and her camera man had swooped to film the ‘controversy’. This blatant attempt to misrepresent the rally was simply too galling, I fully saw red and threw myself between the ‘farmer’ and the camera to prevent a rally with thousands of people being turned into a story about this one man’s opposing view. The media told me they were just “doing their job”. Sounding like a familiar media angle???

After telephoning Animals Australia, I learnt that the so called ‘farmer’ was a regular at their rallies. While he has told people that he comes from Gippsland, he somehow manages to attend all of AA’s rallies, even the snap ones called on very short notice. Does that sound peculiar to you?

Whether Mr Gippsland farmer is an industry plant with a brief to incite ‘greenies’ in the hopes of getting some controversial footage into the media… or just some creepy guy who gets a kick out of offending people who care about things other than profits, do you think it is the media’s role to give his opposing view equal representation as that of around 9,000 others at a rally with a specific call? What is the role of the media in a modern democracy? How should common cause advocates relate to a media of this nature?

We want to hear your views on Live Animal Exports, or the Role of the Media. Please join our blog at http://live.org.au/blog/?p=326 and tell us what YOU think.

Meanwhile, if you think it is wrong to ship millions of animals to places where no laws exist to protect them and where it is well known that they (those that survive the journey that is) are treated appallingly, please add your voice in support of Nina Dubecki’s letter http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1097247/live/Ban_Live_Animal_Exports.doc. You can cut and paste Nina’s words with your own signature and send it to laborconnect@australianlabor.com.au and cc your local member (in our case Michael.Danby.MP@aph.gov.au) and/or you can sign Animals Australia’s petition http://www.animalsaustralia.org/take_action/live-export-conscience-vote calling for a conscience vote on this moral issue.

With best wishes

Deborah Hart, on behalf of LIVE

PS to read about other important campaigns please visit www.live.org.au

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