Blogger's block

Bloggers blog with varying frequency: some may produce several short sharp bursts a day; others create infrequent measured treatises seemingly unconstrained by format or deadline.

I'd like to think I blog when I have something to say – recounting a road trip; outraging about an environmental violation; pontificating about grammar; calling politicians to account; or commenting on mores in my adopted country – rather than writing because of an intention I once had to produce five or six posts a month.

I constantly battle time. Editing photographs; fact-finding; tempering passionate beliefs into measured reporting; editing and reworking. All these gobble up time that could be spent lobbying the state or federal government; researching for my volunteer organisations; even studying hundreds of must-read articles and documents I have previously filed away until there was time.

Do I still have things to say?

A week or so ago I moved house (yes, again, for the fourth time in six and a half years). And then, unsurprisingly, I succumbed to a horrible long-lasting coughing bug that's doing the rounds. But for weeks I should have been writing about California's Joshua Tree National Park; drafting a letter to Queensland's Environment Minister Steven Miles on behalf of The Bimblebox Alliance; researching mangrove die-back in the Gulf for Protect the Bush Alliance; and reporting on two rallies in Brisbane, yet another visit to the Land Court, and a presentation by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) about the abject failure of mining companies to clean up their mess.

Once there's a backlog, how do you prioritize topics, especially when there are stacks of removal boxes waiting to be filled, and then emptied? And where do you find the wherewithal to keep banging on about the same topics when, inevitably some days, you feel precious little progress is being made?

The first of the rallies was in support of the Palaszczuk Government's legislation – an election commitment – to amend the Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Act of 2013 which 'relaxed' vegetation laws that had been successfully reducing land clearing before Campbell Newman and the LNP came along. In 2014 alone, nearly 300,000 hectares were cleared, mainly to create yet more pasture. Queensland's poor land clearing record had been re-established.

The problem for Labor in passing their legislation was that, since the two Katter Party MPs had declared they would be voting against, the government was dependent on three remaining Independents to get the bill through. Unfortunately Billy Gordon also voted against. Many environmental organisations as well as Government ministers (Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, watched by assorted Cabinet ministers, preaches to the converted at the rally, top) had worked hard to bring the legislation to Parliament, so there was deep disappointment when it failed at the last hurdle.

On the day of the rally (and the vote), I spoke to Rob Pyne, who confirmed his commitment to support the bill. I phoned Peter Wellington's office: as Speaker, he might be called upon for a casting vote. A lady listened, and assured me she'd taken notes and would pass them on, as I made the case for leaving trees be. I rang Bill Gordon's office and left the same message, but in vain. His reasons for voting against were complicated, he explained to others. I suspect the prospect of jobs for young Indigenous men in high-value agriculture had more than a little to do with it.

Barely ten days later some of us were back at Speaker's Corner 'For the Love of Queensland'. This gathering was organised by Lock the Gate to celebrate everything Queenslanders love about their country, and to express concern about food-producing land, water resources and ecosystems at risk from unsafe coal and gas mining. Speakers included Peter Wellington, Rob Pyne and ex-Senator Glen Lazarus, as well as residents of the Western Downs whose lives have been blighted by the actions of unscrupulous mining companies.

Talking of which, I attended an EDO LawJam entitled 'Cleaning up after miners walk away: are you OK with footing the bill?' The speakers were Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies (Australasia) at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis; Lock the Gate's Mine Rehabilitation Reform Campaign Co-ordinator, Rick Humphries; and Dr Peter Erskine, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation at UQ's Sustainable Mineral Institute.

If you're angry at the prospect of Santos developing 6100 new coal seam gas wells in the Surat Basin of South-Central Queensland that will, over 30 years, extract 219 billion litres of water, then you'll be furious when I tell you there are 50,000 abandoned mines across Australia, 15,000 of them in Queensland. Of those 15,000, not a single one has been 'relinquished', which I think refers to the surrender of the mining lease following adequate rehabilitation. According to Rick Humphries, in Queensland there is a coal industry financial assurance deficit of $3.2 billion. So who will fund a statewide clean-up?

Whether it's compelling miners to clear up their mess at the end of the extraction process, or, 30 years beforehand, enforcing sufficiently robust environmental conditions attached to an Environmental Authority (EA) before the excavators move in, it is highly questionable whether legislation drafted last century is up to the job today. The absence of a legislative framework that considers emissions reduction obligations, habitat loss and biodiversity extinction, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, adequate hydrogeological modelling, practical offset management planning preceding mining, and so on, provides grist to the mill for environmental protectors and those defending threatened farmland, communities and areas of high conservation value.

A couple of days ago I attended the Land Court, where the Aldershot and District Against Mine (AADAM) community action group are trying to prevent the Colton Mine from going ahead two kilometres from their homes near Maryborough. Counsel for Colton glibly declared that conditions attached to its EA embraced the precautionary principle; and its expert witnesses unanimously agreed that thousands of litres of waste mine water discharged into the beautiful Mary River – which flows into the Great Sandy Marine Park and the Great Sandy Dugong Sanctuary – would not present a threat to aquatic ecosystems. He pointed out that the duty of the Court was to consider factual evidence, not 'concerns'.

I have concerns till they're coming out of my ears. That the recently re-elected Turnbull government (how did that happen?) is proposing to cut funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and Labor is not opposing the idea – because they accept donations from the fossil fuel industry, too.

That August was the hottest August on record, as was July. And that neither Australia nor the UK have ratified the Paris climate treaty yet.

That, if it weren't bad enough that Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party has four representatives in the Senate, one of them is a climate change denier with a loud mouth. And it is still possible that Donald Trump could become the next President of the United States.

The blogger's block seems to have been eased. Where to from here? Back to California… perhaps.

Words matter

My supper last night was interrupted by an automatic telephone survey about how I was intending to vote in the upcoming election and how important were certain issues. I don't mind surveys but I do mind careless wording.

I was given a list of topics – jobs, tax, health… and so on. I waited for 'climate change', but it didn't come up; environment did.

When the word 'environment' is used as an umbrella term, what do you think it means? How green is your suburb; how many lovely old Queenslanders on their spacious shady blocks are being replaced by multiple indistinguishable tight-fitting units; how clean is the water in your local creek; when did you last see a koala in South East Queensland; do you live within a kilometre of uncovered coal-trains; have the mangroves on the Bay disappeared for another marina; do you approve of fracking to extract coal seam gas; do you think the proposed Galilee coal mines should be allowed to obliterate remnant vegetation and ecosystems; how do you feel about such large areas of the Great Barrier Reef being bleached to death?

Oh, hang on, the bleaching is a result of the warmer, more acidic ocean, right? And climate change can be mitigated by not exploiting any more fossil fuel resources, and not clearing land of trees.

And then there's the loss of regional biodiversity throughout your state. Is that because of hotter droughts or habitat loss during development? Biodiversity is not a user-friendly word, we environmental activists are taught. People's eyes glaze over when they hear it; they start to think about what they'd like to eat for dinner; and many of them don't know precisely what it means, nor are inclined to find out.

Politicians of whatever colour know that Australia must live up to its international obligations to reduce carbon emissions globally, but at the same time many of them, and probably the majority of the people they represent, believe that action on climate change remains in the too-difficult box. They don't want to reduce their number of gadgets, cars and flights/year. The economy must transition to renewables, ah but some people get headaches from those wind turbines, and solar subsidies mean higher energy bills for everyone; and other myths.

When Aussie pollies list their priorities in slick, sound-bitey slogans, they tend to stick to must-have-otherwise-I'll-never-be-elected policies: the economy, jobs, education and health; the big four. Those politicians must be brave, however, and include the most pressing issue of all, action on climate change. There's no point in having a job in a landscape that's burnt to a frazzle and won't support food crops. Hand in hand with action on climate change goes transition to renewable energy. And specific environmental issues such as conservation of threatened species must be talked about too because everything is interconnected. If you destroy wetlands so you've got more berths for your boats, migratory shorebirds won't visit and there'll be less vegetation to check high tides when sea levels rise. If you cover more hinterland with concrete not only will there be less koala habitat but the impact of flash-flooding during intensifying storms will be more devastating.

If your candidates only list the obvious, ask them about the protection of dwindling water resources and endangered wildlife; how they intend to persuade Australians to reduce their high per capita carbon emissions; and will they make solar panels and insulation compulsory on new builds in the Sunshine State. Put them on the spot; a hot spot. If they waffle on about 'environment', ask them to clarify their position on 'climate change'. The careful choice of words is key to easier important conversations.

Votes in the time of transition

Four Outback towns in Queensland experienced their hottest May night on record last Saturday. In one of them, Birdsville, the temperature didn't fall below 25.4 degrees: the May night-time average for the town is 12. The next day, 700 kilometres to the northwest and almost at the Northern Territory border, it reached 38 at Urandangi aerodrome, which is ridiculous.

It seems that gone are years with cooler May days and doona-nights heading into winter. Sundown here in the South East is already far too early – nearer 5 than 6 – but mozzies are still biting and there are too many sultry days. Hot and humid Noosa on Labor Day weekend felt more like Brissie in February.

While Urandangi sizzled on Sunday, in Canberra Malcolm Turnbull went to visit the Governor-General to request a double dissolution of Parliament. He had been threatening this for a while if the Senate didn't pass his bill to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He had recalled Parliament to give them one last chance; but they refused to be bullied. I have yet to meet anyone who believes such a policy is necessary, or that it is an issue worthy of dissolving both houses and the considerable costs of a general election. The last double dissolution was in 1987.

My third federal election will take place on 2 July, when I will be in the UK. Between now and then will be eight long weeks of campaigning, for at least one whole day of which I will be at 35000 feet and blissfully oblivious of the policy ping-pong beneath.

The most important issue is without doubt how this nation will tackle climate change: how it will execute its international obligations to reduce global carbon emissions; how it will prevent further harm to the Great Barrier Reef caused by a warmer, more acidic ocean; how will it transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy; how will it scale back rampant consumerism into much more sustainable living.

'Jobs and growth' is not the most important issue, but it is already the most annoying slogan. In the Turnbull government's budget last week, Treasurer Scott Morrison declared that Australians know that their country's future depends on how 'we transition from the unprecedented mining investment boom to a stronger, more diverse new economy', but he didn't finish the sentence. '…A more diverse new economy based on renewable energy', is what he should have added.

Labor's climate action agenda, while more ambitious than that of the Coal-ition, falls far short of brave and bold. Brave and bold is what is required. So scared is Labor of suggesting anything that could be construed as a great big new sort of carbon tax, it has compromised*, instead of declaring that all remaining coal deposits must stay in the ground. Adani Mining should be shown the door. No more faffing; no more approval conditions tacked on. Adani, go home.

Labor's problem is Australians' cognitive dissonance: that is, they have inconsistent thoughts or beliefs, especially relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change. So, they might be aware that the koala is virtually extinct in South East Queensland, but they don't protest the relentless encroachment of development into koala habitat. They know there is more plastic in the ocean than fish, and that fish populations have collapsed, but it doesn't stop them going to buy kilos of barra to fling on the barbie next weekend, and it wouldn't even occur to them to ask their fishmonger if the prawns were sustainably caught. They want more jobs for Central Queenslanders, but the Galilee Basin coal mines will render the Reef beyond bleached, for sure, and ongoing drought will no longer support 29 million cows eating their way across a parched continent.

This problem isn't confined to Australians, of course. But it's particularly marked here because many people can't begin to imagine modifying their beachy keen lifestyle. Australians don't want to go it alone on the world stage, in case they lose out competitively, but in fact they should be a global leader. Blessed with more sunshine than practically anywhere else, they should set an example of what to do with it. Like slip slap slop, but orders of magnitude greater.

Sustainability is about more than recycling or taking your own shopping bags to the supermarket – although, dear gods, not enough people even do that. It's about owning fewer gadgets and repairing them rather than throwing them away; using water sparingly every day; eating less meat; reducing your power consumption; catching fewer planes; owning fewer cars; using public transport; owning fewer dogs; having fewer children; thinking beyond your own little bubble.

It reached 28 today in Brisbane, as predicted. The weather system that kept temperatures up in the far west over the weekend, and subsequently brought much needed rain in some places, rolled mistily over the city yesterday morning. There's still cloud lingering today, which has meant dramatic front lines and a beautiful sunset.

We're fortunate in this corner of the globe, but time and luck are running out. The necessary transition will be extremely challenging, and you need to think long and hard over the next couple of months about who will be best equipped to face the challenge. This time, you can't put it off until next time.

* http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/04/27/06/51/labor-pledges-emissions-trading-scheme

Where to from here?

I've never been one for New Year's Resolutions. In Australia, they seem even more doomed to failure since everyone's on the biggest holiday of the year. There's no change of behaviour required of climate activists or environmental protectors, however. Regroup and make plans; the issues haven't gone away during the summer.

Following the excitement of the Paris Climate Conference at the start of December – and if you believe all remaining coal reserves should stay in the ground then it was not a good outcome – the focus now becomes this year's federal election here. Australia's poor climate-action rating in the planetary scheme of things, charted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 December (below), was exemplified by the December 2015 quarterly emissions report (to June 2015) released extremely quietly on Christmas Eve, always a good day to bury bad news. It showed Australia's emissions rose by almost one per cent 2014-15, compared with the previous year*.

Things are unlikely to improve unless there is a change of government. Minister 'for' the Environment Greg Hunt has recently been sitting in his office striking out conditions previously attached to coal mine approvals, making it easier for proposals to get off the ground and for resource companies to make profits. Wouldn't his energies be better employed working out how to make mining companies ultimately responsible and accountable for the rehabilitation of their mine sites? This is a huge problem in this country, and the public should pressurise the federal government to make polluters pay.

Clive Palmer's Queensland Nickel refinery is a fine example of how companies extricate themselves from their environmental obligations, if we are to believe the Australian Financial Review**. As QN totters on the edge of the precipice, taxpayers in this cash-strapped state are least likely to be able to pick up the bill when 'financial assurance schemes' prove massively inadequate. (See Post script below.)

There are more than 50,000 abandoned mines across Australia, where, in the early days, mining companies just upped and left when profits dried up. Has anything changed? When a company obtains an approval to mine these days, it pays a woefully inadequate rehabilitation security and the terms of clean-up are woolly and protracted. Stringent measures are required to ensure that pollutants cannot contaminate land or water; that the landscape is stable and safe for grazing animals and cropping; and that land is rehabilitated sustainably.

In mid-December, the environmental ministers of those states beholden to the coal industry – namely Queensland and New South Wales – ensured that Australia's National Clean Air Agreement did not embrace World Health Organisation clean air recommendations. Victoria and the ACT independently adopted WHO's pollution guidelines, but it doesn't look likely that we'll be getting covers for coal trains trundling through Southeast Queensland any time soon. That fight continues.

Last November, an Asian partnership won the tender to build a gas pipeline across the Northern Territory from Tennant Creek to Mount Isa in Queensland. This will serve the NT's shale gas industry, bringing fracking to the region and constructing a pipeline across 622 kilometres of arid lands where, so far, no ecological field surveys have been conducted. Job opportunities blind state governments to conservation concerns.

The pipeline plan is in addition to the Queensland government offering 11,000 square kilometres of Channel Country for exploration by international oil and gas companies (in May last year), allegedly without prior consultation with Traditional Owners of the land. Native title rights cannot be swept under the carpet in the pursuit of profit. Neither should limited and ephemeral water supplies be compromised. Water, in fact, must be placed at the top of the list of priorities across all economic sectors.

Despite a poll last October than indicated the Australian public had got a sense of perspective about the coal industry and its environmental damage†, a poll published last Friday showed that PM Malcolm Turnbull's popularity has increased against that of Opposition leader Bill Shorten††, despite Turbull's lack of action – apart from smugly smiling, that is.

So, I'm opening my election campaign with this thought. I know the Australian Labor Party and the LNP are almost indistinguishable when it comes to transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables, and I support neither for this reason alone. But I believe Labor will be quicker than the self-aggrandising Liberal Coalition to grasp that we have no alternative course of climate action.

Post script 29 January 2016. I wake this morning to a report in The Guardian about an opportunistic 'mining minnow' buying an Anglo American cast-off (the Callide mine in Queensland's Bowen Basin) for a pittance. The $640,000 question – that's a saying, the cost of rehabilitating the mine would be at least $120 million – is how will they raise sufficient funds to clean up? This will present an ever larger and more widespread problem as coal becomes an ever dodgier commodity. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/29/coal-giants-abandon-unprofitable-mines-leaving-rehabilitation-under-threat?CMP=share_btn_tw

* http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/cb14abbb-3a4b-406f-a22d-86f565674c3e/files/nggi-quarterly-update-jun-2015.pdf
**  http://www.afr.com/business/mining/clive-palmers-qld-nickel-cut-287m-set-aside-to-clean-up-toxic-sludge-20160118-gm8pt6
† http://350.org.au/news/majority-of-australians-agree-coal-is-bad-for-climate-reef-and-health/
†† http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/22/turnbulls-popularity-soars-over-summer-as-shortens-suffers-poll-shows

Not in Kevin's Corner

Grazier Bruce Currie talks to the ABC outside the Magistrates Court

Today some old friends and familiar faces reconvened in Brisbane's Land Court as two conservation groups and landowners from Central Queensland began a challenge to GVK Hancock's proposed Kevin's Corner mine in the Galilee Basin. Member Wayne Cochrane presided.

All objections to proposed mega mines in the Galilee, and mines anywhere else for that matter, come down to irreversible groundwater impacts. It was the same in the Alpha case of 2013 and the Carmichael case in April this year, and it is the same in the battle for the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales. Will farmers' bores dry up once the mine is operational; will spring systems cease to be; and will the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), arguably Australia's most crucially important water source, be compromised beyond recovery.

Water is unquestionably the nation's most valuable resource. This continent has an arid climate in more regions than not, and, since climate is changing, drought will become more severe and prolonged. There is currently what has been described as a Godzilla El Niño developing, which will exacerbate the drought already being endured by many farming communities across Queensland and other states.

Other key matters in this case are ecology, economics and cumulative impact assessment.

Appearing in Court are the North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC) and the Coast and Country Association of Queensland (CCAQ), the latter represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), along with Bruce and Annette Currie, beef farmers from near Jericho who are once again bravely representing themselves.

Kevin's Corner mine is projected to produce 30 million tonnes of thermal coal a year for 30 years. It is situated in the south Galilee Basin, 360 kilometres southwest of Mackay. The project will have both open-cut and underground operations.

As Damian Clothier (for GVK Hancock) began his opening statement, familiar names, acronyms and issues cropped up: the Rewan Formation and Dunda Beds; disputes between expert hydrogeologists about folding, faulting and recharge; aquifer parameters and groundwater modelling; monitoring bores and trigger levels; EISs, SEISs and MES; the Co-ordinator General's conditions and the Precautionary Principle.

Member Cochrane has a very different style from the judges in previous cases I've attended in the Land Court. He frequently interjected with questions, or required clarification or elaboration. He shared his thoughts with counsel and other representatives: are cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) beyond his remit? Where is the security for landowners (with regard to unpredicted impacts on water)? Modelling is only as good as the extent to which its assumptions are based on reality. Isn't everything he's going to hear from expert witnesses speculative? (Mr Clothier preferred the word predictive.) Could Mrs Tubman (for NQCC) give him an example of a social cumulative impact?

Before Dr McGrath of the EDO began his opening statement, he raised possibly the most intriguing matter of the day, and a conundrum. References had been made earlier by Mr Clothier to how Hancock's lack of a water licence permitting, for example, any impact on the GAB, would protect landowners against an unpredicted loss of water from their artesian bores, and thus necessitate a halt to mining if it occurred. Dr McGrath pointed out that changes to the Water Act introduced by the Newman government (the contentious Water Reform and Other Legislation Amendment Act) due to take effect by default from 6 December this year unless the current Queensland government repeals them (as promised prior to its election last January), mean that mining companies will no longer be required to obtain water licences in order to extract large quantities of water for their projects. This has huge implications for the handing down of Member Cochrane's recommendations in conclusion to this case.

The day's proceedings culminated with Ms Tubman's opening statement and main concern – the failure of GVK Hancock to provide a CIA as specified in the SEIS for Kevin's Corner.

We start half an hour earlier than usual in the morning…

Spilling over into farce

Five prime ministers in five years is beginning to look like carelessness, Australia. In the UK, there's been just the one Posh Boy PM during that time, which, trust me, is equally foolhardy.

I feel compelled to write about what happened yesterday evening, even though my heart isn't in it. I felt elated and massively schadenfreudery when the result was announced that Abbott had been trounced. But in the warm light of this morning – hey, Turbo, Queensland's headed for a week of unseasonally high temperatures – the reality hit home. Turnbull has declared how much he supports Abbott's policies, especially since he has to placate right-wingers in exchange for their votes. So, it all comes down to power and ambition after all.

Turnbull had obviously done his numbers, and forced a leadership election within the Liberal Party on a day when Canberra least expected it, five days before a by-election in Canning, WA. The Liberal candidate in Canning, Andrew Hastie, an ex-military Cory Bernardi clone and Abbott-supporting creationist, surely didn't need this, with polls yesterday morning predicting a 10 per cent swing away from his party. Let's hope not.

I've never liked Turnbull much myself. In the days when he appeared on Q&A, I always thought he looked smug and superior. Rumour has it he once supported an ETS, but political expediency won out. Today, climate change is by far his biggest challenge, and all the bigger since idiot Abbott wasted the last two years thwarting renewable energy policy. Had Australia grasped the nettle a decade or so before Rudd and Turnbull were tinkering around the edges, Australia would now be a world leader in renewables technology as well as the moral debate about how to deal with serious climate change globally.

Turnbull is undoubtedly a much less objectionable prospect than Abbott, for the country in the immediate future, if not for Labor at the next election. Before you pop the corks and light the fireworks, however, go to this website and see how Turnbull has voted on legislative matters important to you. You might be surprised, especially if you're normally a Labor supporter or 'swinging voter' who was thinking they might just be tempted next time to vote for this not-so-new Liberal leader. https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/
representatives/wentworth/malcolm_turnbull

Some other thoughts…

What has given me enormous pleasure during the last 24 hours is the fact that the Libs have done exactly what they criticised Julian Gillard and Kevin Rudd so harshly for doing, and so earned their hypocrisy badge with flying colours.

You can't blame Australians who are disgruntled that, once again, they don't get to choose their prime minister.

It is hard to imagine Australia being a greater embarrassment internationally under any leader in the foreseeable future than it was under Abbott.

Abbott was supported by Murdoch media outlets to the extent that exacting debate was stifled and democracy compromised. Will Turnbull rise above the megalomaniac's grasp?

Oh, and I nearly forgot, Turnbull is a republican, which hopefully means he can quietly steer Australia towards detaching itself once and for all from the Old Country.

Turnbull can entice voters with the opportunity of what he perceives to be Australia's rapidly globalising economy as opposed to Abbott's old-style austerity measures, but this is not the issue. Climate change is the ultimate challenge, and he has an awful lot of ground to cover. The Australian public is catching on far, far quicker than his party. Let's hope that, since arrogance and ambition are often cited near the top of a list of character traits by detractors, we don't have to rely on his desire to go down in history as the man who woke up this country to its key global responsibility.

With thanks to and enormous admiration for the creator of First Dog on the Moon for 
The Guardian who has eased the pain of Abbott's leadership and whose image I have 
stolen (top)
This post was last edited on 16 September 2015

The Dutch case

A government is expected to protect its citizens from external threat. If a neighbouring country were to invade these shores, Australians would rely on their government to organise a response.

According to climate science, the warming of the planet poses an immense threat to the every nation in one way or another. Unfortunately, here in Australia the level of consensus on the danger presented is low.

In The Netherlands, however, in 2013, 886 citizens, with the support of an organisation that promotes sustainability, Urgenda, brought a case against the Dutch government for failing in their duty of care to protect their people from dangerous climate change. That year, renewable energy supplied only 4.5 per cent of Dutch energy demand, some way off the country's 2020 target, and well behind European leaders such as Germany and Denmark. The Netherlands were supposed to cut their emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels (under international climate treaties), but the government had admitted they were aiming for 16 per cent. Urgenda argued that they should in fact be cutting emissions by 40 per cent, in line with climate science, and in order to ensure that the planet does not warm by more than two degrees. The country was a laggard rather than a leader.

No prizes for guessing which label fits Australia.

Urgenda director Marjan Minnesma came to Brisbane last week to meet with the Environmental Defenders Office* of Queensland and speak to a public meeting about the landmark legal decision that required the government of The Netherlands to tackle climate change adequately.

When governments continually fail in their duty of care to protect the people they represent, then the people will eventually take action to protect themselves. There are increasing numbers of frustrated and alarmed Australians who despair of the feeble attempts of the current Federal government to address even the first stage of preparedness in a climatically challenged continent. It is not surprising that many of them are concluding that only the law can save them now.

'The Dutch Case' was not about environmental law nor human rights issues, but civil law; tort, in fact. Tort is concerned with a breach of duty under Dutch law, and one that affords a right of action for damages. The unlawful act in this case was to not take sufficient action to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

The Dutch lawyers presented the judge with the facts of the matter: they had written evidence, for example, of the government's meagre target of 16 per cent. And they gave him the scientific evidence. The judge applied logic to the facts to address questions of law, not politics. Does the state have discretionary powers? Yes, but not to do the absolute minimum required.

He judged there to be a new precedent – unlawful hazardous negligence. He concluded from the climate science that the chances of dangerous climate change are very high, and that mitigating measures should be taken expeditiously. The current emissions target was insufficient to achieve only a 2-degree warming. Democratic law protects citizens, and in this case the state has a crucial duty of care to reduce emissions to between 25 and 40 per cent.

Tort law in Australia is different, and constitutional law is conservative. Duty of care is based upon groups of individuals being responsible for care rather than the government. Also, it adopts the 'but for' test to determine negligence and neglect. The 'but for' test simply asks, 'but for the existence of A, would B have occurred?' If the action is yes, then A is an actual cause of the result B. But for the Australian government not taking mitigating measures, would the Australian people suffer harm?

Clearly it is not going to be as easy for citizens in Australia to do what the Dutch did. EDOs across the land are busy considering their options under the law, however.

In the meantime, Ms Minnesma had some advice for citizens to take matters into their own hands. Let the government know what you think they should do and how it is possible. Make your presence felt: write them letters; turn up to street protests. Practise crowd pleading: appeal to like minds and those who might take action with you. Be practical: make your house energy-neutral; use an electric car. She stressed that if something is possible, and you want it to happen, then it can happen.

She was like a breath of fresh air blowing through Brisbane. She gave many jaded climate change and environmental activists new hope. It will be a long tough ride to force the laggard government to act in a necessarily responsible way with regard to reducing this nation's emissions. But we left the lecture theatre in the Queensland State Library with smiles on our faces and renewed energy to continue the struggle.

* http://www.edoqld.org.au

An important promise kept

Last Monday lunchtime I went to Speakers' Corner near Parliament House in Brisbane to join a small gathering of people that included the Hon Peter Wellington. He was certainly in the right place, being the Speaker of the Queensland Parliament.

Mr Wellington expressed his support for the People's Common Rights and Provisions Bill 2014, which aims to restore democracy in a state whose last government momentarily forgot – let's give them the benefit of the doubt – that power resides in the people and is exercised by the people through their elected representatives, not by mining industry lobbyists through donations to those representatives.

We listened to the experience of Aileen Harrison, who bought her ideal retirement home in the eastern Darling Downs, little realising the impact New Hope's Acland mine, two kilometres away, would have on her family's health and happiness. When she finally concluded that life was 'unbearable', but couldn't sell the property, New Hope long resisted her request for an independent valuation. They finally agreed, but disputed the figure and refused to pay the going rate. In addition, some of Aileen's family had to sign a confidentiality agreement. She did not, and so we got to hear of her despair and disillusionment with a system that allowed New Hope to drill 24/7, light-out the night sky, immerse her world in orange dust; in other words, trample her dream.

Frank Ashman (above), like Aileen, is a member of Oakey Coal Action Alliance. He runs beef cattle on 270 hectares currently about eight kilometres from the mine. Frank is concerned, however, that if Acland Stage 3 goes ahead, it will impact on his bores and hence his cattle business.

With people like Aileen and Frank in mind, thousands of people signed a petition in support of the Queensland People's Bill*. One of several important aims of the Bill is to restore the rights of farmers, landowners and communities to object to inappropriate development threatening their livelihoods and good health. Peter Wellington accepted the petition from Aileen and promised to pass it on to the Clerk of the Parliament and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.

Aileen hands over the petition

I can imagine the joy of Aileen, Frank and hundreds of thousands of others on Thursday when Dr Anthony Lynham, Minister for State Development and for Natural Resources and Mines introduced the State Development and Public Works Organisation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, honouring the Palaszczuk government's election promise to restore objection rights removed at five minutes to midnight on a particularly dark night during the previous LNP government's administration. Labor was supported by the Katter Party and Independent (formerly Labor) Billy Gordon, and the Bill was passed the following day.

Frank and Aileen listen to the Speaker

Labor has been working away at this piece of legislation since they were elected at the end of January, and were keen to have it in place for the 'New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project'. For many people it represents a key part of the de-Newmanisation of Queensland. It was a great end to the week, despite the cold.

* http://www.queenslandpeoplesbill.org.au

Dear Premier

Dear Premier Palaszczuk                                                           17 May 2015

I was extremely concerned to read in Dr Lynham’s media release of 14 May that the Government is seeking interest from around the world in exploring for oil and gas in southwest Queensland, specifically the Cooper and Eromanga Basins.

I would like to ask first of all if you have visited Queensland’s Channel Country? If you haven’t, I encourage you to do so. It is a unique landscape. There is something fascinating and enchanting about ephemeral waterways and the ecosystems they sustain. In an arid and otherwise stark environment, the presence of water draws birds into the area, often in their hundreds of thousands; encourages the rapid flowering of a variety of low-growing plants; and allows tree-lined water courses to stand like beacons across vast, apparently lifeless plains.

Throughout its history of settlement, Australia has changed beyond restoration much of its natural landscape. Rather than learning from past mistakes, in the 21st century the nation rushes headlong into further resource development. I have been attending the Land Court case against Adani Mining and their plan for the country’s largest coal mine. Some of the findings before the Court are of enormous significance to decision-makers within state and Commonwealth governments.

Additional knowledge revealed by expert witnesses’ research has again highlighted the huge risks to groundwater from mining. In the case of the Carmichael Mine, this includes a unique spring complex that enables the existence of rare flora and fauna. The endangered Black-Throated Finch is being deliberately placed under even greater stress. What is known now about these features was not appreciated when the EIS and SEIS were submitted or when the Co-ordinator General set out his conditions of approval. Adani’s Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy appears woefully inadequate in the light of what we now know about the BTF population on the mine site, to mention just one concern.

Many Queenslanders have grave fears for the state’s extraordinary landscapes and biodiversity. Water issues in the far west are even greater than in the Galilee Basin because of risks posed to the Lake Eyre Catchment by water extraction, the diversion of water courses and pollution.

It is essential for climate change mitigation that all remaining fossil fuels stay in the ground. Weather extremes are already having an impact and much worse is to come. Australia has so far been extremely tardy in both its reaction to this crisis and in taking responsibility for its carbon emissions. In the Land Court we heard the defence that Adani were not compelled to model scope 3 emissions in their cost/benefit analysis, which beggars belief.

I implore you not to proceed with your plans for Queensland’s southwest. This is a fragile environment that needs your utmost protection. The clamour for jobs should not be quelled by further mining development but the expansion of community renewable energy projects and support for agriculture. The ability of Australia’s farmers to produce food in a challenging future is not a subject we hear much about yet, even though it is of far greater import than any mineral extraction in the present.

I was relieved and filled with hope when Labor was elected in January. Environmentally, the Newman government is an easy act to follow, but last week’s announcement shocked me. I do hope you will see fit to reconsider a plan that can only bring degradation and harm to the Channel Country. I have visited this region several times and speak in the heartfelt hope that you will engage with me on this important issue.

With kind regards


Post scripts 
• This letter was also sent to the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, Resources Minister Anthony Lynham, and Environment Minister Steven Miles.
• Today, after this post was written, I received a reply from Steven Miles. I will wait to see if I hear anything from the others before reporting further.

Another green attack out of the blue

Australia's Treasurer, Joe Hockey, presented his second budget on Tuesday evening. I can't tell you what was in it because at the time I was listening to Geoffrey Robertson at QPAC. I relied on First Dog on the Moon* for my analysis the next day. Hockey knew he had to do better than last year. Again he's been criticised, not for harshness, but for providing sweeteners to small business and families in case there's an early election.

I'm pretty sure the budget contained few surprises: a lot of details had already been drip-fed. Most likely it was same old, same old: robbing Peta to pay Pauli. There was a big omission, however: the 'budget emergency' seems to have gone AWOL. And the budget surplus is but a futuristic figment of Joe's imagination. He blamed iron ore prices. I don't know if he banged on some more about inheriting 'Labor mess'.

In politics, surprises are more likely to be created by the electorate. In Queensland at the end of January, voters delivered a result not believed possible prior to polling day – bye-bye Campbell Newman et al.

A much nastier surprise was waiting in the cold early hours of last Friday morning for the people of the UK. Despite pollsters indicating a hung Parliament, much the same as five years ago, they were all wrong, and Posh Boy David Cameron was elected with a majority, dispensing with the need for sad Liberal-Democrats, who had climbed into bed with him previously and were annihilated for it by voters. The United Kingdom now faces a referendum to take it out of Europe; even more punitive austerity measures; and the repeal of the Human Rights Act. A grim day, indeed.

Political surprises are more often than not of the unpleasant variety. One thing the Newman government will be remembered for is the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014. Innocuous as the name may have sounded, late-night fiddling with the legislation just before the vote – more specifically, the removal of an amendment – deprived landowners' right of appeal against big mining projects unless they are directly affected. So, a property abutting a mine lease area cannot object to the potential risk of drawdown impacting on its bores once the Co-ordinator General has decided environmental protection is adequate. The CG's say now prevents investigation of the most high-impact mining proposals (so-called co-ordinated projects) in the Land Court prior to the issue of an Environmental Authority.

The Newman government was furthering its intention to speed up approvals of mining development and hobble the efforts of environmental protectors to improve scrutiny of the most potentially damaging of those projects. This policy was no surprise, but the undermining of Parliamentary process and democracy – there had been many submissions made about the bill – was outrageous.

There is little doubt that the current Federal government's environmental record is deplorable. It has been joked that Enviro Minister Greg Hunt plays solitaire all day. Unexpectedly, however, has come a House of Reps Enquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations. These are groups that have tax-deductable status. If you support organisations such as WWF or the Australian Marine Conservation Society, the idea is you will no longer be able to claim tax relief on your donations, thus potentially depriving the groups of essential funds. It'll be OK if they just work 'on the ground'; but advocacy and lobbying will be prohibited.

I'd love to give you more detail, but I'm just off to the Land Court to hear the final submissions in the case against Adani's Carmichael mine. If one such group of environmental protectors, Coast and Country, had not been able to bring this case, important new research (in the form of expert witness reports) about the ecology of the Desert Uplands would not have come to pass, and, more significantly, huge doubts about the financial viability of this enormous mine would not have been admitted by Adani's own economists or received such exposure.

The Enquiry needs to know what the public wants: for environmental groups to carry on enabling a more rounded discussion about key threats to this nation's landscape and biodiversity, or be restricted to planting trees and litter-picking beaches. You can read a lot more at http://www.edoqld.org.au/eco_charity_tax/ which includes instructions on how to make a submission.

I implore you to let the government know your views. This is an unprecedented attack on people whose motivation is transparent and genuine. I wish the same could be said of the resources industry and their mates in Canberra.

* http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/12/budget-2015-how-to-forget-how-bad-last-years-one-was

We need to talk about syngas

A couple of weeks ago, the ABC's 7 o'clock television news lead with an environmental story, which is rare. An ABC reporter had seen a Department of Environment briefing document detailing the health problems of workers at Linc Energy's 'experimental' syngas plant at Chinchilla, on the western Darling Downs, between 2007 and 2013, when the plant ceased operations. The workers' symptoms were consistent with exposure to the chemical components of syngas, which include carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene and others, some of them potentially toxic or carcinogenic substances.

I find it extraordinary that this is only just making headlines. And that they were so short-lived.

Syngas (synthesis gas) is produced when coal is burnt at depth in a process known as Underground Coal Gasification (UCG). This is a controversial and 'unconventional' method of gas extraction from coal seams that are too deep to mine otherwise. The gas produced by burning is collected via wells. This is different from coal seam gas production, whereby water is extracted in order to release pressure underground and hence methane that occurs naturally in coal seams. 'Advantages' of UCG are that the landscape is relatively unharmed, emissions are low, and the gas can be used to generate power or be condensed to make liquid fuel such as diesel. On the down side, its extraction is expensive to set up, and the technology is 'highly specialised' and not necessarily familiar to regulators.

Linc Energy has also been investigated by the Department in connection with environmental damage at the Chinchilla operation. This allegedly involved the fracturing of the overburden above the coal seam cavity, with its implication for gas escape. And evidence, during monitoring by the Department, of toxic gas and hydrocarbons in soils below the surface has given rise to speculation about an underground fire.

The concerns of local residents, farmers and communities as a whole about the ill-effects on their health and environment of mining – conventional or otherwise – have intensified in the last few years as the extractive industries have expanded and the people affected have become more numerous, knowledgeable and organised. CSG exploration began in Queensland in 1976 in the Bowen Basin, but was not developed commercially until the early 1990s. By contrast, coal was first exported from Newcastle in New South Wales in 1799.

Last week's Q&A, a few days before Saturday's state election in New South Wales, was broadcast from the Sydney Showground following the Royal Easter Show, and the audience was predominantly rural. A question from a farmer, Sarah Ciesiolka, produced the most animated and heartfelt response from an audience that I've seen on the programme. She said:

I live and farm in the shadow of the largest proposed coal seam gas development in New South Wales. My family puts food on the tables of every Australian. Very little has been said about the large-scale costs and risks of CSG in terms of water, health, air quality, and contamination of the food chain. My question is this. What will it take for the major parties to prioritise the nation's food security and water resources for current and future generations of Australians, because CSG is risking the things that are priceless – clean air, clean water and land to grow clean, healthy food?

After a couple of the panellists' views had elicited even more passionate noises from the audience, presenter Tony Jones asked them to raise their hands if CSG was a vote-changing issue for them. He estimated that between a half and three-quarters put their hands up.

Such a degree of concern seemed to have been borne out in certain regions of New South Wales as results came in over the weekend. The Liberal and National shares of the vote were substantially reduced, especially in constituencies where CSG or coal mine expansion is contentious, such as Campbelltown and Upper Hunter. It looks likely, but is not yet confirmed, that the Nationals were booted out by the Greens in Ballina; and the outcome is similarly uncertain down the road in Lismore. This is the Northern Rivers region and beyond, where lush farm land is fiercely protected by objectors. We were there in June last year, and strong feeling was evident in many communities along our route (pictures top and bottom), much more so than in Queensland's Darling Downs, where existing CSG wells and exploration sites for proposals pepper the landscape like a serious rash. In the Queensland state election at the end of January, saving the Great Barrier Reef was the single big environmental issue rather than mining.

During the New South Wales campaign, the Greens called for a statewide ban on CSG, while Labor wants the industry to be kept away from the Northern Rivers, the Pilliga State Forest in the northwest plains of New England, and water catchments. The Baird government has said it will tighten up regulation and monitoring, but a lot of doubt remains about where CSG development will be permitted in the state. Plans for massive expansion of some Hunter Valley coal mines have come to light in the meantime.

Federal Senator Larissa Waters (Greens) has introduced the Landholders' Rights to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015. Submissions close on 29 May – write to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications*.  Such rights were done away with by the previous government (LNP) in Queensland. They are vitally important and will hopefully be restored as soon as possible by the new Palaszczuk government.

Increasingly there are those people, however, who believe that fundamental change will ultimately not come about by means of political lobbying but by the people doing it for themselves.

* http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s996

Queensland has a new Premier

This morning, Queensland's new Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was sworn in. With the announcement yesterday that the counting of votes was finally over, the tally was formally declared by the Electoral Commission, and Palaszczuk was asked by the Governor of Queensland to take the reins. 'Premier Palaszczuk' should at least please lovers of alliteration.

Palaszczuk heads a minority government: Labor have 44 seats, and can only reach the magic 45 with the help of Independent Peter Wellington, an arrangement that is in place. Just as good was the news that the Electoral Commission was not going to refer the result in Ferny Grove to the Court of Disputed Returns, as a result of legal advice it had received in 'regard to the final count in Ferny Grove, the winning margin, the number of votes for the [bankrupt] PUP candidate and the distribution of preferences'*.

With the new government come high hopes… and predictable fears. Few Labor policies were outlined in any detail prior to the election, which means a lot of voters are taking the new leaders on trust. The absence of 'big-ticket promises' will hopefully insure against the usual carping about back-flips and broken promises, but there are enormous questions marks over future infrastructure projects, for example, and their link to the health of the economy, jobs creation and business confidence.

Annastacia Palaszczuk has spoken of being humbled by Queensland's choice. The one big promise she has made is to continue to listen. Consensus and unity and integrity and openness are what the people want, it would appear, from their enormous rejection of an arrogant former government that responded to their donors' needs rather than their electorate's.

I hope for the repeal of much of the Newman government's undemocratic, blinkered, self-interested and environmentally damaging legislation. I know the Great Barrier Reef is temporarily in safer hands. But I would like to hear a debate that I fear few politicians dare even mention, let alone initiate. And that is the one about an alternative economic future, one not focused on growth as inevitably desirable and perpetual. Instead of debating whether or not Queensland should reinstate a second chamber or elect its leaders for fixed four-year terms, maybe we should revive the idea of abolishing state governments altogether, to do away with duplication and save billions of dollars. Maybe we should set think tanks to work on the thorny issue of using less than one planet's resources to furnish our luxurious lifestyles; because, believe me, if you own two cars, two dogs and a leafblower, you are not doing it tough.

Shock, horror, Judith: get back in your box.

* http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/14/annastacia-palaszczuk-sworn-in-as-queensland-premier

The Court of Disputed Returns

A week later, Queensland appears no nearer to knowing who will form a government.

The counting process seems to be interminably slow. Postal votes do not have to be in until next Tuesday. Surely an earlier cut-off would have been helpful? Can more counters not be drafted in temporarily?

The number of seats in doubt continues to change, from five to four to six to three to four: http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/. A couple are predicted to be firmed up over this weekend, but the tail-end Charlies are more likely by the middle to end of next week.

Then there is the enormous spanner of Ferny Grove. During the week this residential suburb in northwest Brisbane looked like a Labor gain, and this morning the website above has it listed as a 'safe Labor gain', with almost 91 per cent of votes counted. But the Palmer United Party candidate, Mark Taverner, is an undischarged bankrupt and was therefore not eligible to be a candidate. Clive Palmer claims Mr Taverner signed a form declaring himself fit to stand, but it's no matter now because the damage has been done and the uncertainty has been prolonged. Who uncovered Taverner is what I'd like to know? The story was first published in News Corps' foremost Queensland dirt rag.

What is the significance of this development? Will the courts overturn the Ferny Grove result and order a by-election, thus leaving Queensland governance floundering for months? According to the ABC's political commentator Antony Green, the answer to that is no. A Court of Disputed Returns case can only be made after the Ferny Grove result is announced. And a case can only be made on the grounds that the votes cast for Mr Taverner had an impact on the result. It is preferences that will be key here. An objector (the LNP candidate?) will have seven days to lodge their case, which may take months to be heard. In the meantime, the declared candidate will have all the rights of an elected Member of Parliament.

It is – as you might expect – much more complicated than this, so I recommend you read Green's blog at (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antony
green/2015/02/the-impact-of-ferny-grove-on-forming-government-in-queensland.html), for more detail, especially about precedents.

I still have questions though. Since we know what we know about Mark Taverner, can the Electoral Commission Queensland conclude after its own investigation that PUP's votes did not influence the result? Is the ECQ bound to take some kind of action, even if no one objects? Is anyone other than the LNP going to take this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns? I'm willing to bet PUP can't be made to pay instead of Queensland taxpayers.

No one seems particularly perturbed about the delay in the resumption of State Government. The only complaint I have heard is from a lady who was 'cranky' at the prospect of a by-election in Ferny Grove. Day-to-day life has continued: no services have ground to a halt; public servants have been paid. I do wonder, however, what those who had been preparing for the 'leasing' of Queensland's public assets have spent their time doing this last week.

The LNP are busy choosing a more electable leader*, and I assume the ALP are deciding who will do what if they are confirmed as the governing party, and what their policies are on a host of subjects not mentioned in the election campaign (infrastructure funding to name but one).

The Independent member for Nicklin (in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland), Peter Wellington, has already decided that he will support Annastacia Palaszczuk. I believe the Katter boys (two Katter's Australian Party MPs already confirmed) are more likely to decide in favour of the LNP, but have deferred their decision until the final tally of seats is known. All in all, only an idiot would try to work their way through all the computations at this stage.

Am I the only person who is fretting about the possibility, if a by-election is called in Ferny Grove, of a most disturbing scenario playing out. With Campbell Newman gone and asset sales a dead issue, the LNP must assume they could win the seat next time around.

So we beat on, boats against the current… (let's hope not) borne back ceaselessly into the past†.

* It was announced at about 2 pm this afternoon that Lawrence Springborg is the new LNP leader, with John-Paul Langbroek as his deputy
† With apologies to F Scott Fitzgerald

Good morning, Queensland!

Two years and ten months ago, the morning following the 2012 Queensland state election, I wrote this: http://heyjudeinbrisbane.
blogspot.com.au/2012/03/queensland-state-election-morning-after.html. The people of Queensland had just swept away Labor and installed an LNP government with so large a majority (78 seats out of 89) that, in the absence of a second chamber, it was going to be able to pass whatever legislation it chose. Labor had just seven seats. I felt despondent, with good cause.

What a contrast with today. This time it's the Liberal National Party's turn to be booted out: and Premier Campbell Newman lost his seat of Ashgrove.

LNP supporters handing out voting cards at Bulimba State School yesterday – where I was distributing leaflets on behalf of Clean Air Queensland – were strangely subdued, I thought. Perhaps they already had an inkling from canvassing. I mean nobody believes the polls, do they? During the week they had been either putting the parties neck and neck or the LNP edging ahead.

I asked the Labor team in Bulimba whether they were cautiously optimistic. They were upbeat, but, like the rest of us, didn't dare hope that there could be anything better than the LNP still in power but with a vastly reduced majority.

As the evening progressed, it became obvious that the LNP were in trouble. They were not going to have enough seats to form a government, but Labor might.  On Sunday, we still don't know. Labor have 43 seats, to the LNP's 40: they need 45 to form a government. There are two Katter's Australian Party MPs and one Independent, and three seats too close to call.

This was an election that offered voters clear choices: assets to be leased or kept in government hands; big-bucks spending promises or a modest, economic plan; politicians mired in controversy or a seemingly honest and genuine alternative; Campbell Newman or a very different leader.

We should know precisely how Queensland will enter its new political era by the middle of the week.

Update: on Monday morning it is looking more likely there will be a hung parliament. Labor have 43 seats and the LNP 40, with three results unclear. Labor is likely to add one more, not two*. The Katter Party and the Independent MP Peter Wellington have indicated their willingness to talk about a deal with Labor.

Update 2: on Tuesday morning the election result is less certain and further off, with six seats in doubt*. Some seats must have been called to one party or another when there was still a sizeable chunk of votes to count. There is even talk today of Pauline Hanson taking Lockyer, which would add interest to a minority government mix. Early/absent/declaration votes are counted after those from the polling booths, and sometimes favour the incumbent MP. Close final numbers may necessitate recounts, which will further delay the final result of the Queensland election 2015.

* http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/
This post was last edited on 4 February 2015

Election '15: the elephant in the room

That a changing climate will affect all aspects of life is not in doubt: precisely when the most serious consequences of our failure to limit carbon emissions will have an impact is still open to debate. We are seeing changes now, all over the planet. Gen Y's children will experience greater challenges, and their children will have good cause to blame their great grandparents for inaction, I suspect.

There is no big issue in the Queensland election that will not be profoundly affected by climate change, but did you hear the words during any debate or phone-in? I have listened to the ABC extensively since 12 January, on both television and radio; I have been busy on Facebook and Twitter; and I have attended an election forum and an election campaign launch. I have read journos' and lobbyists' lists of key election topics. I have, however, heard hardly any serious discussion about how on earth the political parties are going to deal with climate change.

I find that extraordinary.

It was briefly a debating point when Tony Abbott resisted leaders' requests for climate change to be on the G20 agenda in Brisbane last November. President Obama even spoke about its importance the day before the conference. (The nerve of the man; telling Queenslanders what to do.) But it faded from the spotlight just as suddenly, as Australians once again buried their heads in the sands of their glorious beaches and never gave their impending and major lifestyle changes a second thought.

So, back to the election.

If you're concerned about the state's economy and believe that its mineral wealth must be exploited and exported to raise revenue to pay off debt and increase wealth, consider this: there may currently be a huge demand for coal from China, but the Chinese government has ambitious plans for renewable and nuclear energy programmes. The world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China, have overcome the geopolitical gridlock about who is responsible for a warming world and who is going to do most to fix it. China may need to import coal for a while, but it has responded well to the global climate crisis. A carbon trading system is expected by 2016. Australia's Galilee Basin coal mines, should they become a reality, may soon be stranded assets as coal and gas prices fall. Not to mention the vast quantities of water that mines use, which will exacerbate the precarious business of farming the land even more so as the climate becomes more extreme.

When looking at the pros and cons of further resource development – principally coal and coal seam gas – consider the loss of even more strategic cropping land, such as in the Darling Downs west of Brisbane, and what that will mean for food production (for home consumption or for export) as lower yields become more likely in the hotter, drier, stormier conditions on a continent that may experience even higher temperatures than other regions on earth*.

If you are worried about the state of the Great Barrier Reef, consider that, among several problems contributing to the death of corals, a warming ocean is going to require a greater effort than finding an alternative location for dredge spoil or killing off considerable numbers of star fish. In addition, corals don't like silt, and more extreme weather events in a warmer world will not only bring much more sediment down in rivers, but also churn up the shallows.

Precisely how many jobs will eventuate in the resources sector over the next decade is a hotly debated topic. Many jobs have already been lost in the solar industry as a result of the Federal government's reluctance to commit to the existing Renewable Energy Target. In Queensland, the LNP have done their best to thwart the people's desire for solar panels on their roofs. Despite slashing the feed-in tariff and threatening to remove subsidies for installation, half a million Queenslanders have gone and done it anyway. The creation of new jobs in the renewable energy industry would be considerable if it were encouraged. Community energy projects and shared schemes have enormous potential**, as does the establishment of a smart grid to enable alternative energy to be integrated for wider distribution. In farming communities, already struggling with prolonged drought and threats to their water resources, community energy projects provide alternative employment to mines that may never materialise.

Which brings us to privatisation of assets. In LNP world, loadsa money will be made by persuading private business to take on ageing, fossil-fuel-based energy generation and distribution for the duration of 99-year leases. Private companies are motivated by making profit for their stakeholders primarily, not the health of the environment or the future of the planet. How willing will they be to invest in making coal cleaner or capturing carbon? How keen will the network companies be to accommodate renewable energy generated by little people? When necessity of action replaces profit as number one priority in the coming decades, how will they fare? And will you want utility industries in private hands when handling extreme weather events and displaced people becomes commonplace?

When it comes to the cost of living, electricity prices are often close to the top of the list. Politicians of all colours prioritise the lowering, or at least the capping of electricity prices. Renewables are the key to lower prices in the longer term. People's motivation to switch to solar may as yet be mostly economic, but it's a step in the right direction towards the only option in a climatically challenged society.

So, climate change is the silent big issue in this election campaign. Hardly anyone dares speak its name. Because most voters don't want to know, and most pollies don't know what to do. Australia is increasingly out in the cold as big economies commit to climate action programmes. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris at the end of this year will be upon us before we know it. Assuming Abbott survives his unpopular period and is still PM, is he going to rise to the occasion and embrace the reality of this ominously warming planet?

Last April, I went to ask my MP, Aaron Dillaway, the LNP member for Bulimba, why climate change wasn't on a list of topics for discussion distributed throughout the constituency. He assumed I meant 'the environment', and started talking about beautifying Bulimba by planting trees. Back on topic, he struggled with the meaning of anthropogenic. I hope he's done some research since, but I doubt it. Not that it matters much, because I suspect he'll be out a job by Sunday. I hope so.

To be ill-informed about such an important and potentially catastrophic threat is indefensible.

* http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/climate-change-will-hit-australia-harder-than-rest-of-world-study-shows
** http://www.fundcommunityenergy.org/about

Election '15: integrity and trust

Half way through the final week of Queensland's state election campaign, it occurs to me that perhaps I should have tackled this subject before now. After all, it has been a matter of political debate increasingly throughout the LNP's term of office. Honesty, transparency, misuse of power, accountability: such words and phrases have been recycled many times in expressions of complaint and cynicism; disappointment and disillusionment.

Some voters seem to be able to juxtapose a dislike of Campbell Newman with the belief that he is a strong leader – to use his favourite word. The political history of the last three years in Queensland reeks of so many dodgy deals as to be almost suffocating, but a significant number of voters rank apparent economic performance above all else, it would seem.

Although details emerged long after the event, sand-mining company Sibelco funded Newman's campaign in Ashgrove in Brisbane in 2012, to the tune of $90,000. Later they were rewarded with a 16-year extension of their right to dig up Moreton Bay's beautiful North Stradbroke Island, until 2035, and against the wishes of local people.

But worse, much worse than this, in many people's eyes, have been Newman's lies about the third stage of New Hope's Acland coal mine in the Darling Downs. He had promised this would not go ahead. I remember reading about his announcement, in disbelief. I always doubted his weasel words. Principally because New Hope is one of the LNP's biggest donors*, and they must expect to get something for their money. And sure enough, as people hurried off on their christmas holidays, on the evening of 19 December, Jeff Seeney quietly announced that the Co-ordinator General had approved the mine's further expansion.

These deeds make Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk appear almost squeaky clean. The LNP have not managed to dig up any dirt, and I'm sure it's not for want of trying. Newman's childish, straw-clutching throwaway line during last Friday's leaders' debate, that Labor may have been funded by the dreaded bikies, was as laughable as it was outrageous. He went on to place the onus of proof on the Labor leader to show that they had not been. I don't think so. Does he recall the principle of the accused being innocent until proven guilty?

Missing from the election campaign has been any reference to the philosophy of either of the main parties. Fundamental principles or underlying beliefs are never mentioned, or rarely; instead, lightweight policy announcements and incentives are peddled constantly. Four-pillar economy; cutting green tape; anti-association laws; asset leasing… these are slogans or sound bites, not components of a political raison d'être. When was the last time you heard mention of terms such as representative democracy, progressivism, capitalism, fair trade, social justice, labour rights, market economy, state interventionism, social partnership… The devil is in the detail, which you never hear about either. Landowners learn of the erosion of their rights to prevent miners spoiling their land and water once amendments have been passed at five minutes to midnight.

In September last year, Tony Fitzgerald, who was a judge for 30 years and headed up the state's famous corruption enquiry in the 1980s, encouraged Queenslanders to vote for neither of the main parties** in this election.

In practical terms, power has been substantially transferred to a small, cynical, political class, mostly professional politicians who represent, and act as directed by, one of the two major political parties which [sic] have entrenched themselves and their standards in the political system and collectively dominate political discussion and control the political process.

He added that both parties use election wins to reward sectional interests, financial supporters and 'ambitious camp-followers'. And he went on:

Political reform is… a task for the community. If Queenslanders want a free, fair, tolerant society, good governance and honest public administration, a sufficient number of voters must make it clear that they will decline to vote for any party which [sic] does not first satisfy them that it will exercise power only for the public benefit.

About two weeks ago The Australian Institute wrote an open letter to all party leaders, asking for their commitment to Fitzgerald's principles of accountability:

1 Govern for the peace, welfare and good government of the State;
2 Make all decisions and take all actions, including public appointments, in the public interest without regard to personal, party political or other immaterial considerations;
3 Treat all people equally without permitting any person or corporation special access or influence; and
4 Promptly and accurately inform the public of its reasons for all significant or potentially controversial decisions and actions.

The letter was signed by 'prominent Australians'† and sent to Queensland Labor, Bob Katter's Australia Party, the Palmer United Party, the Liberal National Party and the Queensland Greens. All but the LNP responded and agreed to commit to the principles if they are elected.

In the absence of a commitment by the party currently in charge of the State, perhaps you should fall back on an old technique. Ask yourself whether or not you would buy a second-hand car from Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney et al.

* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-09/acland-coal-mine-liberal-party-donations/5440184
** http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/tony-fitzgerald-urges-queenslanders-not-to-vote-for-either-major-party?CMP=share_btn_fb
† see who they were at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/prominent-australians-open-letter-to-political-parties-20150121-12v9z4.html

Election '15: costs of living

Australia is an expensive country; not many people would argue with that. We noticed it from the day we arrived – just over five years ago – and we're still noticing it. Last weekend, two simple, over-the-counter, tickly-cough and sore-throat remedies cost $30.

I have kept two lists since our arrival: one of items that are appreciably less expensive, and the other of those that cost considerably more than I'd been used to. The former is a short list, and includes prawns, light bulbs, accountants' fees and fuel; the latter is extensive and ranges from insurance (car, house contents, you name it) to hotel accommodation, eating out, wine, electricity, mobile phone tariffs, internet, new cars, car registration, bank charges, repairs (shoes, for example), medical costs (dentistry especially), window cleaning, hairdressing and cosmetics, flowers, entrance fees to tourist attractions, books… even tattoos!

In the last week, two items in the press confirmed what we all know. Australia is well up the top ten of most expensive countries.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-15/australian-housing-near-most-expensive-but-forecast-to-rise/6018696?section=business
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/map-expensive-countries_n_6510018.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

In addition to high retail prices, there are hidden service charges everywhere. When we moved into our first rental property, we couldn't pay our rent directly to the rental agency. Instead, we had to pay a middle man who then paid the agency. That privilege was going to cost us $2.50 a month. We refused the 'service', and the agency eventually agreed to let us pay them direct.

And then there's settling the bill up front. You're already paying through the nose for even modest accommodation in a popular destination, and then you have to pay in full as long as a month in advance. If you're renting a holiday house, there'll be a deposit to pay against damage. One condition of a booking I have in a month's time is that I send screenshot of the transaction, and another is that the deposit appear in the owner's bank account before I attempt to pick up the key.

If you have to make a claim on your car insurance, you have to pay hundreds of dollars of excess right at the start, before they'll instigate a claim, and you'll never know the actual costs of the repair.

The biggest item in the cost of living that worries most Australians is the price of electricity. Abbott's abolition of the carbon price didn't bring people's bills down like they'd been promised. In Queensland that's because the network companies over-invested in improving poles and wires. In itself, that was good, but energy companies overestimated their income at a time when power consumption was falling. More people were installing solar (nearly 400,000 homes in QLD now) and cutting their usage because of high prices. The high prices are not because of solar subsidies: this is LNP misinformation.

Electricity could be much cheaper if right-wing governments embraced renewables. There is masses of scope for solar take-up as the technology (including storage batteries) comes down in price. Large-scale solar farm projects have been scrapped rather than encouraged. The LNP is blinded by its love for fossil fuels (and mining donations) to the enormous scope of the Sunshine State.

There are lots of ways that I can see that people could cut their household budget. But I see little evidence yet of lifestyles being modified in order to reduce massive consumption. There has to be a will for there to be a way.