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.

Queensland the archaic state

It's hard to believe but I have lived in Queensland for more than six years and only realised on Monday that abortion is illegal here. I was profoundly shocked: I felt peculiar, as if I'd suddenly been transported to a third-world state.

There was a protracted discussion in the UK decades ago about the viability of a foetus, and the stage of a pregnancy beyond which only a massive risk of death to the mother meant abortion was an option. The private member's bill introduced to the Queensland Parliament this week by Independent MP Rob Pyne still requires those details to be ironed out during debate on the floor of the house. At this stage Mr Pyne seeks simply to update a law from 1899 that criminalises abortion: 'What a woman decides to do with her body, in consultation with her doctor, does not belong in the criminal code.' Quite.

Recently, a 12-year-old girl had to appear in the Supreme Court to gain permission to have a termination. This is bordering on the inhumane.

The ACT, Victoria and Tasmania have all decriminalised abortion, but surely nationwide consistency necessitates federal jurisdiction.

The two main political parties are likely to allow their MPs a conscience vote. There will undoubtedly be a wide spectrum of opinions, from pro-choicers to typical detractors, old white men on the religious far right.

One caller to ABC Brisbane, perhaps belonging to the latter group, expressed concern that young women would use abortion as a form of birth control if the rules were relaxed. This is deeply insulting to countless women who have faced the agonising choice to continue with a pregnancy or abort, and illustrates the fact that some men with an urge to pontificate on the subject should pause for substantial thought before opening their mouths.

A few days later we learned that Brisbane's private members' club Tattersall's, bastion of tradition, 'heritage and unparalleled elegance', has offered honorary memberships to a number of male members of Queensland's government and Opposition. I am proud that Queensland currently boasts a female Premier and Deputy Premier, and 50 per cent of Annastacia Palaszczuk's Cabinet are women, but none are eligible, unless they are the partners of male members or are invited by male members.

Bizarrely, the LNP held their International Women's Day festivities at the Club last year.

I can scarcely believe I am writing about such an anachronistic indulgence. I understand men use clubs such as Tattersall's to network and do business. It is therefore all the more insulting that female members of the state government are exempt. Are they not worthy, membership being 'limited to gentlemen' but not gentle ladies? Tattersall's has a long connection to the racing industry, but Racing Minister Grace Grace was also snubbed.

The calls to talkback radio were predictable. Australian women are expected to 'just get on with it' when it comes to discrimination, otherwise they're accused of that most despised misdemeanour – whingeing. Men and women callers alike made the point that it's OK if women want to belong to all-women fitness clubs for example (for reasons other than the desire for female company, I suspect), and similarly for men to have men-only gatherings. This misses the point, however. Tattersall's didn't have to issue the invitations, drawing attention to their selectivity. As it is, they added arrogance and insensitivity to insult.

By the by, I wonder if Tattersall's issue Partner Cards to same-sex couples?

All in all, not a great week for women's confidence about their rights or equality in Queensland.

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

Courting disaster

The Federal Court of Australia sits in all state capitals. Brisbane's is on North Quay, a step away from the northern access to the Kurilpa Bridge. So, after a morning of brain-bending legal technicalities, you can wander across this striking construction – the largest hybrid tensegrity* bridge in the world – and grab a bite of lunch at one of my favourite riverside attractions, the Gallery of Modern Art.

Over two days, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), represented by the Environmental Defenders Office Queensland (EDO CEO Jo-Anne Bragg and ACF CEO Kelly O'Shanassy met the press outside court, top) made its case for the review of the decision by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, to approve Adani Mining's proposed coal mine in the Galilee Basin of Central Queensland and its associated infrastructure. QCs representing both the Minister and the coal company defended his position.

The Minister's approval of Adani's Carmichael mine had already been challenged last year in the Federal Court of New South Wales and 'set aside'. It was alleged that Hunt had failed to consider global greenhouse gas emissions and Adani's history of environmental negligence, but it was his lack of regard for conservation advice concerning two Federally-listed Vulnerable species – the Yakka Skink and the Ornamental Snake – that was the undoing of his decision in August 2015.

On 15 October, however, Minister Hunt announced his re-approval of the mine with additional compliance conditions.

Round 2 of the Carmichael mine approval battle was staged in Brisbane last week. ACF alleged that the Minister had failed to comply with specific legislative requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC).

The Great Barrier Reef is included in the World Heritage List because of its 'outstanding universal values'. Australia is a signatory to the World Heritage Convention and is therefore obliged 'to ensure that effective and active measures are taken' for its protection, including appropriate legal measures necessary for that purpose – primarily by means of the EPBC Act. The ACF argued that the Minister, when deciding whether or not to approve Adani's mine, should have acted consistently with Australia's obligation under the World Heritage Convention, and attempted to quantify the likely impact of the combustion emissions generated by Adani's coal on the world heritage values of the GBR.

The two greatest threats to the GBR are from the warming and acidification of seawater resulting from the increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with anthropogenic climate change. The Outlook Report 2014 produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority rated these threats as 'almost certain' to occur and to have 'catastrophic' consequences.

After his first decision was set aside in August last year, the Minister received new material about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the GBR. The first few months of 2016 have seen the worst bleaching event ever recorded, with more than 90 per cent of the northernmost reaches of the Reef being effected, eliciting global opprobrium.

Projects that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental import must be appraised by the Australian government under Part 8 (assessment) of the EPBC Act. Minister Hunt, however, took guidance from the Co-ordinator General (CG) of Queensland under a bilateral agreement between the state and federal governments. Adani had produced an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for consideration by the CG, who then prepared an Assessment Report for Minister Hunt.

The problem with an EIS is that it does not require consideration of Scope 3 emissions** arising from the transportation of the coal (during its export, not from mine to port) and combustion of the coal at its destination. Combustion emissions would appear, given the global scientific consensus and the perceived effects on the Reef of increased ocean temperatures, to have a 'relevance impact' in this case.

Much debate over the two days in court centred on Section 527E of the EPBC Act, concerning the 'indirect consequences' of an action. You can read about this in greater detail than I could adequately explain at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f96c4a92-ffb1-4b77-befe-e2fd9130b0d8/files/epbc-act-policy-indirect-consequences.pdf. Justice Griffiths soon realised that the 'unpacking', or interpretation, of 527E was at the heart of the case.

The ACF contended that the Minister had asked himself the wrong questions about the indirect consequences of the action of developing the mine, not based on criteria sourced from the EPBC Act, and therefore had not considered the indirect consequences that pose the greatest threat to the GBR.

The Minister dismissed the relevance of Scope 3 emissions in the context of Australia's national emissions inventory, and determined that any impact attributable to the Carmichael coal's emissions was speculative. He concluded that it was 'difficult to identify the necessary relationship between the taking of the action [of developing the mine] and any possible impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance which might occur as a result of an increase in global temperature'. The Minister's counsel conceded that 'the necessary relationship' was Hunt's 'shorthand' for substantive cause. Justice Griffiths found it curious that the Minister, with Departmental advice (and lists of mandatory considerations and other factors to be taken into account), wasn't more sensitive to the importance of clarity in his deliberations and direct reference to 527E.

In the absence of certainty, the Minister should have applied the precautionary principle: this was the ACF's third ground for bringing the case. Minister Hunt's elimination of the 'impact level' of assessment at an early stage of his considerations meant that an 'active intellectual engagement' failed to occur at a later stage in the process. His inability to establish a substantive cause between the action and the impacts meant he was under no obligation to consider 527E, his counsel concluded, because in his opinion there were no impacts.

I have attended several cases in which environmental protectors sought to compel government to exercise caution in the face of uncertainty, whether concerning the recharge of groundwater, the location of core populations of threatened species, or the global impact of burning massive amounts of Queensland coal, no matter where, on this nation's beloved Barrier Reef. What all these cases have highlighted, without exception, is that old legislation is inadequate at a time when rapid transition to a climatically changing world is imperative.

Justice Griffiths will announce his decision in three to six months. He seemed a reasonable man, so I live in hope.

* defined as 'a stable three-dimensional structure consisting of members under tension that are contiguous and members under compression that are not; the characteristic property of such a structure'
** as defined under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, an internationally recognised accounting system for the measurement, reporting and management of greenhouse gas emissions

Land clearing: seeing red, not green

In Europe, farmers are often considered whingers if they complain about their lot. If they're over-privileged landed gentry, they receive little sympathy, but small producers being screwed by powerful supermarkets are a lot more deserving of attention. Curiously, French farmers are obsessively protected by their government from risk of any kind.

In Australia, dairy farmers, for example, are similarly squeezed, by a supermarket duopoly. Not everyone has the resources of Scenic Rim 4Real Milk who set up their own bottling plant to be free of the system, and many go to the wall. In Queensland's drought-stricken far west, beef producers don't complain enough in my opinion. Successive state governments have been slow to react to an ongoing crisis, necessitating the Buy a Bale campaign supported by those of us back east who have failed to redirect our rainfall inland.

Sometimes farmers push their luck, however, which happened a week ago. Agforce, Queensland's rural lobby group, urged landholders to object to The Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill introduced into Parliament in March and currently before the Agriculture and Environment Parliamentary Committee. (The Bill seeks to overturn damage done by the 'green-tape cutting' LNP government, who made land clearing much more of a free-for-all.)

Agforce misrepresented a key aim of the Bill after the fashion of sensationalist tabloid journalism. '[The Bill] re-introduces the reverse onus of proof and takes away the "mistake of fact" defence, meaning farmers are presumed guilty until proven innocent, relegating them to a level below most criminals.' In fact, the Bill reinstates the onus of proof that applies under any law. Farmers will be obliged to be fully aware of land clearing regulations, and will not be able to plead: 'Oh sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to doze that last stand of remnant woodland for fodder cropping.'

And again: 'These outrageous changes… will restrict supply and drive up food prices, stifle development and cost jobs.' That old chestnut: strike fear of higher prices and fewer jobs in the hearts of those who are not fully aware of what the Bill actually intends, which is to protect high-value regrowth and remove provisions that permit clearing applications for high-value agriculture and irrigated agriculture, in order to reduce Queensland's shockingly high rate of land clearing in recent years. The notorious clearing of large areas of Olive Vale in Far North Queensland last year was supposedly for high-value agriculture, but it is extremely doubtful that would be possible in the soils of the area.

Australia has a history of rampant clearing and burning, an almost inevitable consequence of settlers let loose over a vast, even though largely inhospitable continent. These days, one person's opportunity to raise extra cash from growing fodder crops is many others' loss of biodiversity.

A couple of days later, it was reported that a former LNP branch president (from Atherton in northern Queensland) and 'land-clearing consultant' – whatever that is – had recommended to landowners that they hang up on Federal government employees investigating whether land clearing had breached conservation laws, and that they refuse access to Federal Environment Department officers turning up without a search warrant. This shocking encouragement to flout environmental regulation is consistent with Coalition attitudes to conservation, climate change mitigation and land management generally. They are, of course, beholden to big business donors, so it is hardly surprising.

The clearing of trees destroys habitat and therefore wildlife, and ultimately biodiversity; increases salinity and carbon emissions; and reduces the wild places in which we seek sanctuary and solace (Bimblebox Nature Refuge, in Central Queensland, top). The continued planet-wide loss of woodland and forest is likely to trigger more serious climate change than already threatens. Those who cut down trees must bear a huge responsibility.

Trees, especially large old trees (or LOTs), affect hydrological cycles, nutrient cycles, ecosystem disturbance regimes and the distribution of plant species. In the human psyche, they are massive, both literally and figuratively.

By the way, the cut-off point for submissions concerning the Queensland government's proposed Vegetation Management, or land clearing, amendments has been extended until next Friday, 29 April. You still have time – see Land Clearing Act Now, my blog post from 18 April.

Big Sur, surf and seals

So, which is the world's greatest ocean drive? The road to Hana on Maui, Hawaii; the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, Australia; the Atlantic Ocean Drive in Norway; the Amalfi Drive in Italy? Or is it California's Highway 1? We've all read travel features about the best drive, or the most beautiful beach, made a mental note of those that appealed the most, and then planned trips around them.

I'd had a previous shot at California's State Highway 1, way back. There had been seriously bad weather beforehand, and mud slides blocked my progress beyond Bixby Bridge (above). But still I dreamed of driving from Carmel to Big Sur and beyond. Just as you can't say you've been to Sydney unless you've caught the ferry from Circular Quay to Manly, you can't say you've seen California unless you've turned up the volume and travelled this iconic stretch of road squashed between the Santa Lucia Mountains and the spectacular Pacific coastline.

The Highway runs for more than 1000 kilometres from Mendocino County north of San Francisco to Orange Country south of Los Angeles. It took 18 years to construct, and was completed in 1937. It has since been declared a California Scenic Highway and an American National Scenic Byway, but it's the middle section in particular, through Big Sur, that attracts those of us who will forever worship the cult of California – ever since we heard West Coast folk rock or watched The O.C. Such is Highway 1's beauty and notoriety, it has become a destination in itself.

Incidentally, why are American road numbers so seductive? Later on in our trip, I became disproportionately excited about driving an extremely short stretch of Route 66.

We left Carmel-by-the-Sea – headed for Cayucos on Morro Bay – on an April-showery morning, but soon the weather was glorious. It would be easy to sail past Point Lobos State Natural Reserve: you've barely left Carmel when there's a turn-off to the right. It's well worth detouring for the rocks, the surf and the seals.

Harbor Seals resting

It was Tasmanian watercolourist Francis McComas who described Point Lobos as 'the greatest meeting of land and water in the world'. It juts out into the ocean, affording stunning coastal views, and boasts more than 250 bird and animal species, including those beneath the waves. There are hiking trails for visitors with more time than we had.

From then on the coastal scenery just gets better and better as you head south. Even the bridges are photogenic. First up was Rocky Creek Bridge, and then the more renowned Bixby (Creek) Bridge, both completed in 1932. Before these bridges were constructed, the route south from Carmel was hazardous, especially in winter, and, at Bixby Creek, necessitated an 18-kilometre inland loop. Upon its completion, Bixby was the longest single-span concrete bridge in the world.

I had to keep an eye on the time. We were booked for lunch at Nepenthe restaurant. We had to forego detours to Point Sur Lighthouse or the Henry Miller Library, where apparently you can still get free tea or coffee and wifi as you relax among the redwoods and pay homage to formative writers – including Kerouac – and artists who made their home in Big Sur. 

Nepenthe has been run by the same family since 1949. It is hard to imagine a nicer outlook while eating your lunch. I would advise booking to make sure of this view. It was almost hot on the terrace. We took a chance on warm sunshiny weather in February for the whole of a 17-day trip, but that's what we got. Sunny is how one imagines California: it has to be.

After lunch we backtracked a couple of miles to Pfeiffer Beach. Access down to the sea along the Big Sur coastline is for the most part restricted by either private property or steep cliffs. The road to Pfeiffer isn't easy to find. Sycamore Canyon Road is not signposted, so you need to know the turn is beyond the entrance to Pfeiffer Big Sure State Park, to the right if you're travelling south. If you reach Big Sur post office, you've gone too far. It's sealed (and ungated) at the top by the Highway, but over the couple of miles to the beach the road is narrow and winding, potholed and rough-going in places, so isn't suitable for trailers. 

Taking good photographs of waves crashing through a curious hole was as challenging as finding the road to Pfeiffer. 

We continued on down this glorious highway. We observed Gray Whales off shore: they migrate south in the northern hemisphere autumn from their summer feeding grounds off Alaska to the waters around Baja California where they breed. When we were there, they were heading back up north with their calves. There were piles of brown seals on remote beaches. And we witnessed a disturbing road-rage incident as I took the picture below. I imagined there was a Kathy Bates-style crazy woman behind the wheel of a car honking its horn and tailgating another far too fast and close around the z-bends.

 

In theory, Cayucos is only 180 kilometres from Carmel, supposedly a three-hour drive. On departure from Pfeiffer Beach, we were aware we had to step on the gas to reach our beach house before sundown. The landscape became far less dramatic towards San Simeon, where you turn off to visit Hearst Castle. Absolutely everyone had told us we must see this place, but the artefacts of opulence are not really our bag: we preferred the Elephant Seals of Piedras Blancas.

The colony numbers some 23,000 seals, spread along ten kilometres of beach, but they are never all in residence at the same time. From January to May there may be many thousands, however, and as many as 100 alphas fighting for their patch. They weigh up to 2300 kg (females weigh 800 kg) and measure up to 5 metres in length (females are 4 metres). Pups are born in January and breeding follows a month later. An elderly couple (of humans) alongside us were watching the goings-on. The woman observed matter-of-factly to her husband: 'There's a lot of rape going on down there.'

Alpha plus hareem and pups

The boss

The babes

A neighbour

We spent two nights in a large, light and airey house right on Cayucos Beach, with views to Morro Bay and its extraordinary Rock, part of a chain of extinct volcanoes. Morro Bay is a fishing town, with wetlands and other interesting features to explore for those with time; Cayucos is smaller and sleepier, with a great pier. We chilled, ate fish, and ran along the beach in comfortable temperatures for once. The shorebirds were numerous and long-beaked.

Surfin USA

Next morning we turned inland and back to San Francisco. Beyond lay California's best vineyards.