Yearly Archives: 2016

PLEA Network

28 October 2016, Renew Economy, Coal wars: A fact check for the Turnbull government. Since Malcom Turnbull replaced Tony “coal is good for humanity” Abbott, the Adani Carmichael Mine, the Galilee Basin and environmental “Lawfare” had been out of the news. But an increase in the coal price and Turnbull’s apparent change of view means the Coal Wars are BACK. It’s time to re-arm yourselves the facts. 

CLAIM: The Adani mine will create 10,000 jobs.

FACTS: Adani’s own economist contradicted this under oath in the Queensland Land Court, saying: “Over the life of the Project it is projected that on average around 1,464 employee years of full time equivalent direct and indirect jobs will be created”. 

  Adani’s economist, Jerome Fahrer from ACIL Allen, found that Adani’s mine and rail operations would employ around 1,800 people directly and create around 1,000 downstream jobs in “other services”.  But, in building and operating such a big mine, ACIL found that the project would reduce employment in agriculture, manufacturing and other mining projects by around 1,400 jobs.  All this is shown in ACIL’s graph below, with increased jobs at the Carmichael mine in yellow, increases in services in dark purple and reductions in manufacturing, agriculture and other mining below the axis: Read More here

PLEA Network

4 November 2016, The Conversation Company directors can be held legally liable for ignoring the risks from climate change. Company directors who don’t properly consider climate related risks could be liable for breaching their duty of due care and diligence, a new legal opinion has found. Although the alarm for business leaders has been sounding for some time, the release of the opinion by senior barristers and leading solicitors confirms the potential liability for Australian company directors. Australian companies are particularly exposed to the physical, transition and liability risks posed by climate change. The Paris Climate Agreement, which comes into force today, brings the transition risks (and opportunities) forward, given the policy and business changes necessitated by the agreement’s commitment to a sustainable economy. Directors’ liability hinges on the foreseeability of risks or opportunities material to the best interests of the company. Courts have long experience of finding fault for inadequate responses to foreseeable risks, even where there is supposed uncertainty. Examples of this are when health risks associated with HIV and asbestos were improperly understood or managed. A defendant can be liable even though they are ignorant, if a reasonable person would have known about them. Some corporate leaders might want to hit the snooze button again, but today’s challenges to business as usual are acute. The long foreseen economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate are intensifying. Legally, any excuse that prior uncertainty about the science or impacts of climate change may have previously afforded directors has expired. Corporate leadership ignoring interdependent economic, social and environmental risks and drivers of value has never been a sustainable long term strategy. Here are four reasons why there is only upside for business leaders to change course: Read More here

PLEA Network

8 November 2016, The Conversation, Natural disasters are affecting some of Australia’s most disadvantaged communities. Bushfires have been the most common natural disaster in New South Wales over the past decade, according to our study published today in Nature’s Scientific Reports. Our study, the first of its kind, looked at disaster declarations in local government areas (LGAs). We found 207 disasters affected the state between 2004 and 2014. Bushfires were the most common, responsible for 108 disaster declarations, followed by storms (55) and floods (44). By looking at where disasters were declared, we found a “hotspot” in northern New South Wales, which includes some of the state’s most disadvantaged communities. This suggests that to help communities prepare for disasters, we need to address underlying causes of disadvantage. There’s nothing natural about a disaster Disasters are a regular part of life for communities across the globe. So far in 2016, disasters have cost US$71 billion and claimed some 6,000 lives. Globally, the number and cost of disasters is rising. Australia has a long history of natural disasters, from catastrophic bushfires to flooding rains. Many people are asking whether such disasters are becoming more frequent, and what we can do to better prevent and prepare for them. Despite the way we talk about them, fires, floods and storms are not inherently natural disasters. Though they may threaten social systems or the environment, they are more accurately classified as natural hazards. A disaster occurs when a natural hazard overwhelms a social system’s capacity to cope and respond. Instead, disasters require many agencies and a coordinated response. Many factors such as vulnerability, resilience and population density influence a how a community copes with hazards.Read More here

PLEA Network

4 November 2016, BIEN, ONTARIO, CANADA: New Report, Request for Input on Basic Income Guarantee Pilot. The latest step to Ontario’s basic income pilot occurred on Thursday, November 3, 2016, when the Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for public input on the design and objectives of the study and published a new comprehensive report from Project Adviser Hugh Segal. Segal has now released a detailed and comprehensive discussion paper in which he lays out his recommendations for the design and administration of the pilot. The government is soliciting input from the public before it makes its final decision.In February 2016, the provincial government of Ontario, Canada announced a budgetary commitment to finance a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. In June, the government appointed former senator Hugh Segal — who has been promoting basic income in Canada for more than a decade — as the project’s Special Adviser. (For some of Segal’s past writings on basic income, see here.) This release of this proposal for Ontario’s basic income study closely follows the publication of details about the upcoming pilots in Finland and the Netherlands, as well as the charity GiveDirectly’s study in Kenya. A Negative Income Tax Model If the provincial government of Ontario decides to adopt Segal’s newly announced proposal, it will test a basic income guarantee (BIG) — wherein cash payments are disbursed automatically and unconditionally to individuals whose income falls below a certain threshold — as a replacement to its Ontario Works program and Ontario Disability Support Program. Segal recommends that participants in the pilot be guaranteed a monthly income of at least $1320, or 75 percent of the province’s Low Income Measure, with an additional $500 supplement to those with disabilities. In Segal’s proposal, the BIG is to be structured as a negative income tax (NIT), in which the amount of the subsidy is tapered off for higher earners, in contrast to a “demogrant” model wherein all participants would receive a fixed monthly payment regardless of other earnings. That is, the government would “top up” the earnings of pilot participants whose incomes fall beneath $1320 (or other level chosen for the basic income guarantee). Those who earn more than $1320 per month would receive smaller benefits or, depending on earnings, none at all. Read More here