Category Archives: Australian Response

PLEA Network

5 September 2016: THE CLIMATE CHANGE AUTHORITY’S SPECIAL REVIEW ON AUSTRALIA’S CLIMATE GOALS AND POLICIES: TOWARDS A CLIMATE POLICY TOOLKIT MINORITY REPORT Professor Clive Hamilton AM Professor David Karoly 1. Introduction 1. As Members of the Climate Change Authority who have participated fully in the processes of the Special Review, we have reached the conclusion that the majority report does not respond adequately to the Review’s terms of reference and has not followed the principles set out on the Climate Change Authority Act (Section 12). We also disagree with several, but not all, of the major recommendations and conclusions of the majority report. We find the analysis used to defend some of the report’s recommendations inadequate. Overall, we view the majority report as a recipe for further delay in responding to the urgent need to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. 2. We regret that a consensus report has not been possible but feel that in good conscience we cannot lend our names to the majority report. After consideration, we have therefore decided to write a minority report. Access full minority report here Access Climate change Authority’s Special Review here

PLEA Network

29 August 2016, The Guardian, Greg Hunt’s approval of Adani’s Queensland mine upheld by federal court. Former environment minister entitled to find any assessment of resulting carbon pollution on the Great Barrier Reef was ‘speculative’, court says. The federal court has upheld the commonwealth approval of Adani’s Queensland mine, ruling that former environment minister Greg Hunt was entitled to find any assessment of resulting carbon pollution on the Great Barrier Reef was “speculative”. The court on Monday dismissed a challenge by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), which claimed Hunt failed to consider the impacts of the mine’s 4.6bn tonnes of emissions on the world heritage values of the reef. The ruling prompted the ACF to call for tougher national environment laws to tackle carbon pollution from coalmines, while flagging hopes that Hunt’s successor, Josh Frydenberg, would take a “fresh look” at the Carmichael mine. The Queensland resources council accused the ACF of running a “nonsense case” that was akin to holding the Saudi Arabian government responsible for emissions from Australian cars running on their oil. Read more here

PLEA Network

17 August 2016, Renew Economy, First act of Coalition’s “innovation” government: strip funds from ARENA. Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition government has taken a new line of attack against the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and sought to wedge Labor on the issue by adopting the Opposition’s own pre-election policy platform on the future of the agency. As part of its $6.5 billion “omnibus” budget repair package to be put to parliament in its first act of the new government, the Coalition proposes to change tack: instead of stripping all of the remaining $1.3 billion legislated funds in ARENA’s budget, it now proposes to remove $1.023 billion in funds – as proposed by Labor before the election. Labor’s threat to strip ARENA of $1 billion in funds was made in an apparent fit of pique earlier this year over the failure of NGOs to criticise the Turnbull government when it announced the creation of the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, using monies already allocated to the Clean Energy Finance Corp. Labor argued that instead of applauding a move by the Turnbull government to “re-brand” previously allocated monies, it should have been critical of the move to de-fund ARENA. So it decided to abandon its own support of the key agency. While Labor later said it was prepared to review that decision, party sources admitted to the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday that it remained a “grey area for us” because of their pre-election policy. On ABC Radio, treasury spokesman Chris Bowen refused to commit Labor to protecting ARENA. Stripping ARENA of $1 billion of funding would be a huge blow for the emerging technologies in Australia, which usually need grants to test out new business models and applications, as witnessed by ARENA’s support for two key battery storage projects in South Australia, and its support for large scale solar. Read More here

PLEA Network

August 2016, The Monthly, The message was clear. Brexit, Trump and the federal election show how the old categories of left and right are crumbling. Pauline Hanson is back in parliament, the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, Donald Trump wants to build a wall along the United States’ border with Mexico, and the neoliberal agenda is failing badly at ballot boxes around the Western world. The old world order of the Washington Consensus has broken apart more quickly than a new one has been built, but the lack of a clear path forward in no way diminishes the significance of the collapse in public support for free trade, trickle-down economics and the privatisation of essential services. The new “right-wing” populists are hostile to all that the neoliberals held dear. The extent of the shift in public sentiment has been concealed by the chaos of new parties and new paradigms, which are being blamed, or credited, for the tumult. But it is not democracy that is in chaos, but rather the futile attempt to cram rapidly changing political alignments into the centuries-old categories of left and right. Take Brexit, for example. One of the Leave campaign’s most prominent voices, Nigel Farage, best known for his anti-immigrant politics, shamelessly argued that the UK’s financial contribution to the EU should be spent instead on improving publicly funded health care. This “left-wing” priority resonated across the political spectrum, and the political establishment spectacularly underestimated the potency of the issue. It was of symbolic importance, as was Britain’s migration program. The population voted for the promise of a national government that protected its people as well as its borders. Was Brexit a win for the “conservative right” on the issue of sovereignty, or was it a loss for the “libertarian right” on free trade? Read More here