19 September 2016, The Guardian, Adani Carmichael coalmine faces new legal challenge from conservation foundation. Foundation appeals against ruling that endorsed mine’s approval by the commonwealth. The Australian Conservation Foundation has renewed its legal challenge to Adani’s Carmichael mine, appealing against a federal court ruling that endorsed its approval by the commonwealth. The ACF on Monday lodged an appeal against last month’s decision, which found the then federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, was entitled to find the impact on global warming and the Great Barrier Reef from the Queensland mine’s 4.6bn tonnes of carbon emissions “speculative”. The president of the ACF, Geoff Cousins, said Australia’s national environment protection laws were “broken” if the minister could approve “a mega-polluting coalmine – the biggest in Australia’s history – and claim it will have no impact on the global warming and the reef”. “If our environment laws are too weak to actually protect Australia’s unique species and places, they effectively give companies like Adani a licence to kill,” Cousins said. “Be in no doubt, Adani’s Carmichael proposal is massive and will lock in decades of damaging climate pollution if it goes ahead, further wrecking the reef. “The science is clear that we can have coal or the reef – but we can’t have both.” Read More here
Tag Archives: Economy
31 July 2016, Scientific American, The Sticky Truth about Economic Growth and Climate Change. Why we need to talk about the costs of mitigation. That averting climate change will save us money should be a tautology, but for reasons including entrenched interests, it is not. The pre-cautionary principle alone would tell us that we do not want to learn what costs climate change will incur, so better to pay a small premium to avoid the risk at all. Instead, calculated estimates pin the cost of avoiding catastrophic effects from climate change at something like 1% of global GDP. So who will pay for it, and who loses from a more sustainable economy? In recent years, several studies have come out running cost-benefit analysis on a policy switch to a clean energy system. Yet, besides governmental ‘push’ factors, we should not forget market ‘pull’ factors. Even if there was less of a push by the government to clean up our air and water supply, as well as mitigate climate change, the coal industry is for example changing regardless thanks to cheap natural gas as well as self-inflicted wounds. While coal mine employment in the U.S. did drop 91,600 in 2011 to 74,900 in 2014, there are now more workers in the solar sector than in oil and gas. So overall, not counting the benefits of lowered air pollution and avoiding climate change, the overall job situation seems to be moving towards net positive. So, case closed? Not quite. Read More here
28 July 2016, The guardian, World’s largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case. Filipino government body gives 47 ‘carbon majors’ 45 days to respond to allegations of human rights violations resulting from climate change. The world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillippines. In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 “carbon majors” including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people’s fundamental rights to “life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self determination”. The move is the first step in what is expected to be an official investigation of the companies by the CHR, and the first of its kind in the world to be launched by a government body. The complaint argues that the 47 companies should be held accountable for the effects of their greenhouse gas emissions in the Philippines and demands that they explain how human rights violations resulting from climate change will be “eliminated, remedied and prevented”. It calls for an official investigation into the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and whether the investor-owned “carbon majors” are in breach of their responsibilities. Read More here
20 July 2016, The Guardian, Why is the World Bank backing coal power in Europe’s youngest country? In the early days of December 2015, as the Paris climate talks veered off course and off schedule, the US secretary of state John Kerry left his team of negotiators and flew to Kosovo to voice his support for a proposed US-built, World Bank-sponsored coal power station. Speaking alongside the prime minister, Isa Mustafa, Kerry told reporters at Pristina airport that the Kosovo e re (New Kosovo) plant would help the tiny, impoverished country do “its part to contribute to this global effort of nations who are committed to dealing with climate change” by replacing an extremely high-polluting cold war-era power plant. Kerry then returned to Paris and helpedland a deal intended to bring the fossil fuel era to an end. While many countries, including the US, continue to build coal plants at home, the fuel is increasingly a pariah in the world of development finance. Both the USand the World Bank have limited international finance for new coal power to exceptional circumstances – so rare that Kosovo’s is the only coal plant being considered for World Bank support anywhere on Earth. Despite this, Kosovan government officials are confident they will receive final approval from the World Bank when the project goes before its board, likely later this year. Strong advocacy is expected from the US delegation. Read More here