28 August 2015, The Guardian, Extreme Arctic sea ice melt forces thousands of walruses ashore in Alaska. Survival of walruses threatened as they wash ashore on a remote barrier island just before Obama is due to visit region to draw attention to climate change. The extreme loss of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is forcing thousands of walruses to crowd ashore on a remote barrier island off Alaska, and threatening their survival. Barack Obama will be the first US president to visit the Alaskan Arctic on 31 August on a three-day tour to draw attention to the drastic consequences of climate change for the Arctic, such as warming winters and the rapid retreat of sea ice. The first reported sighting of animals forced to come ashore in the Chukchi Sea was by a photographer on 23 August, and confirmed by villagers in the remote hamlet of Point Lay late on Thursday, the US Fish and Wildlife Service said. Such landings, forced by the absence of sea ice on which to rest and feed, put the animals at risk of stampede in the limited space of the barrier island. The animals are easily spooked by aircraft or onlookers, government scientists warned. Trampling deaths are one of the biggest natural risks. Sea ice cover in the winter months fell to a new low this year because of climate change and abnormal weather patterns. Read More here
Monthly Archives: August 2015
August 2015, The Australia Institute, Key administration statistics – 3rd Party Appeals and the EPBC Act. Details from a forthcoming Australia Institute Report
- Since the EPBC Act commenced in July 2000, there have been approximately 5500 projects referred to the Minister under the environmental impact assessment provisions.
- Of the 5500 referred, around 1500 have been assessed as requiring formal assessment and approval.
- 12 projects have been refused approval.
- 9 projects have been deemed to be ‘clearly unacceptable’ (i.e. rejected prior to proceeding to formal assessment and approval).
Key 3rd party litigation statistics. Read More here
28 August 2015, The Conversation, Newcastle’s ‘divestment’ is a chance for the world’s largest coal port to consider its future. The City of Newcastle council’s Tuesday night endorsement of an “environmentally and socially responsible” investment policy threw more mud than a pig wrestling competition at the country show. The controversy thickened this morning as stories emerged that the council also recently accepted an A$12-million offer to expand coal terminals at its port, the world’s largest in terms of coal exports. Amid jeers of hypocrisy and cheers of climate leadership, what can we really say about this policy move in one of New South Wales’ historic coal towns? Investment, not divestment. The council’s unprecedented move to adopt an investment policy which applies traditional investment criteria but also adds a “preference for environmentally and socially responsible investment (if criteria are met)” might rate a media mention, given the recent fossil fuel divestment move by certain universities and governments. But Newcastle’s historical dependence on coal means that the council’s decision sparked a media frenzy and councillors have been in overdrive explaining the policy and their position towards the region’s major industry. Defending both the nuance and intention of the Investment Policy, Newcastle Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes explained to ABC Newcastle that “it is not at all and never will be about undermining the coal industry”. Similar statements have been made by the councillor who moved the climate-friendly policy motion, 23-year-old Declan Clausen. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has come out against the policy. Read More here
27 August 2015, The Conversation, Teens sue Obama over climate, asking why future generations’ rights are not respected. This month’s decision by 21 young American citizens, mostly teenagers, to sue President Barack Obama and various branches of the US government over climate change has highlighted a crucial issue that is all too often overlooked: the tendency to value current generations’ well-being much more highly than that of future generations. The “youth plaintiffs”, aged between 8 and 19, argue that the US government has known for more than 50 years that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is causing dangerous climate change, and yet has not prevented emissions from rising. Their lawsuit – filed in an Oregon district court and directed at Obama, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Authority and others – argues that future US generations will disproportionately bear the cost of a destabilized climate, despite having the same constitutional right to freedom from harm as current generations. They are aiming to obtain a federal court order that would require the government to develop a plan to protect the atmosphere and climate system. Lead counsel Julia Olson said that the US federal government: “has a constitutional responsibility to leave a viable climate system for future generations. The Government has consciously chosen to endanger young people’s right to a stable climate system for the short-term economic interests of a few… This administration must no longer consign future generations to an uninhabitable planet.” Read More here