Saturday 31 May 2014

Jane Goodall asks politicians: Do you really not care about the future of your great-grandchildren?

Jane Goodall asks politicians: Do you really not care about the future of your great-grandchildren?

Jane Goodall asks politicians: Do you really not care about the future of your great-grandchildren?

Date

Tim Barlass



EXCLUSIVE



Jane Goodall: "Australians need a wake up call"

The conservationist tells Tim
Barlass that many Australians aren't aware just how many species are in
danger of extinction here and urges politicians to think about Climate
Change as an issue beyond the next election.



One of the most eminent conservationists in the world has
condemned Australia for its lack of response to climate change and said
the country ''needs a wake-up call''.




Dame Jane Goodall, regarded as the first lady of conservation
and a UN Messenger of Peace who has made a lifetime study of
chimpanzees, accused politicians of having more concern for their
immediate political careers than for future generations.





''I think my message to the politicians who have within their
power the ability to make change is, 'Do you really, really not care
about the future of your great-grandchildren? Because if we let the
world continue to be destroyed the way we are now, what's the world
going to be like for your great-grandchildren?'






Jane Goodall observes a thinking primate in this undated promotional photo.
Wake-up call: Primatologist Dame Jane Goodall. Photo: Michael Neugebauer/AP






''I am not deeply involved in Australian politics but I know
there are prime ministers, governments around the world who are not
acting responsibly in relation to climate change.''





Advertisement

She said there was a wisdom in the old days when decisions were based on how they would affect future generations.



''Now it is how will this affect me at the next election campaign or the next shareholders' meeting.



''It's when money becomes a god that we see this loss of wisdom.''



Dr Goodall spoke at Taronga Zoo to 300 young people on Friday
and addressed a sell-out audience on Saturday night at Sydney Town
Hall. She is on a lecture tour raising awareness of her Roots &
Shoots program encouraging the world's youth to take community action
to help save the planet.




Prime Minister Tony Abbott has downplayed the role of climate change in relation to droughts and bushfires.



But the Climate Commission, which the government abolished,
reported in February that heatwaves were becoming more frequent and
intense and lasting longer.




''Unfortunately, everything I read about Australia and its
record in caring for the environment is not particularly good right
now,'' Dr Goodall said. ''I know that a lot of animal species are facing
extinction particularly the mammals.''.




''I think Australians need a wake-up call because if action
isn't taken, and taken soon, then these creatures will be gone and they
will be gone forever. Not enough people are aware of the number of
animals that are endangered right now right across Australia.''




Roots & Shoots operates in 136 countries with 150,000
groups and encourages young people to get involved with projects that
help people, animals and the environment.




At 80, Dr Goodall added: ''I can't slow down while I know
that the message I deliver around the world is having an impact and so I
just have to go on because I do care about my
great-great-grandchildren.''




Find out more about Roots & Shoots at janegoodall.org.au.



Friday 30 May 2014

Captain Abbott and his Titanic climate stupidity

Captain Abbott and his Titanic climate stupidity

Captain Abbott and his Titanic climate stupidity



Lyn Bender 31 May 2014, 7:45am 5



Tony Abbott, home wrecker


Tony Abbott is insanely bent on taking us down with the ship if he doesn't address global warming, reports psychologist, Lyn Bender. 



TONY ABBOTT openly declared his war on the environment and our home
the earth from the outset. It was his consistently expressed intent.
Australia has elected a home wrecker.




The story of the sinking of the unsinkable Titanic is an old tale that warns us of the folly of hubris, the danger of disbelief in the possibility of failing, and the foolishness of unfettered commerce.



The fate of people who will live over the next century is in our
hands. What are we bequeathing to them? A trashed planet wracked with
drought, floods, fires, storms, food and water shortages disease and
conflict.




Meanwhile in the lavish opulent first class dining room of the unsinkable Titanic, the Captain reclines, confronting big decisions about the menu. Our Captain Tony Abbott is making captain's calls.



Those who sit at his table are among the world’s wealthiest citizens,
and have paid a hefty price to dine in his company. Any doubts about
icebergs or storms are scoffed at as merely alarmist. In
drunken moments, the Captain calls these fears absolute crap.






His closest cronies are often inebriated and smoking cigars on
deck.The commoners in third class steerage are complaining about cramped
airless cabins and seasickness. They cry that it is unfair and
inequitable on board.


 


The Captain and those who sit at his table, call them a pack of
wingers. They wouldn't be sailing at all if it weren't for the wealthy
paying the bulk of the cost and doing most of the heavy lifting. The
Captain prides himself on not wasting money.




Despite the obvious mathematics of the numbers of passengers and the
numbers of lifeboats, he has not squandered money on too many lifeboats.
He has nevertheless ensured that there are enough life boats for the
important passengers.




It is a pitch-black moonless night. But those dancing inside are
having the time of their lives shimmering beneath dazzling chandeliers.
Except for the plebs in steerage of course. Hubris and a belief in the
superior capacity of humans to overcome nature is to be their undoing.
The ship is going full steam ahead – with coal-fired engines – as the
captain has ordered. The owner insists that they get to their
destination in record time, despite the warnings about ice flows.




They are on a course to catastrophe. How many will survive?



The disaster of the Titanic sinking is over a century old; but what has been learnt? Not much.





The warnings about human induced climate change have reached a
crescendo. The big melt is on. Huge sea level rises are now set in
train. IA reports
that the Western Antarctic glacier shelf melt is now believed to be
unstoppable. Can I repeat that in the way of Captain Abbott? The Western
Antarctic glacier shelf melt is now believed to be unstoppable! Can I be crystal clear? This ominous warning is based on NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States.




In climate science parlance it is a tipping point from which there can be no retreat.





 


The unknowns are how long will it take and how high the sea will
 rise? Estimates are four feet over next centuries. But don’t relax
about that. It’s not something we can fix over time. Coastal cities are
doomed to be inundated. But we have a captain who is doing less than
nothing to try to avert the full catastrophe.




Abbott is turning the clock back decades on climate action. He is
promoting fossil fuels and drowning renewable industries. (The fossil
fuel industry receives over $10 billion
in subsidies.) Tony Abbott is dismissing all warnings and worse than
that, he is ruthlessly undoing any mechanisms already in place to reduce
the rising emissions.






In fact, climate change may be the one thing he almost told the truth
about. He fought the election on the axing of the carbon tax and the
scrapping of the mining tax. These two measures had been heading in the
right direction, to reduce our carbon footprint. They were applauded
internationally.




Al Gore praised the Gillard Government’s carbon price as ‘inspirational.



Jeffrey Sachs US leading economist has also applauded the carbon tax on polluters.



The recent budget cuts have justifiably spawned protests and rage throughout Australia from disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.



But in all this furore, something life shattering has escaped notice.
Yes it’s the planet again. Yawn. I mean who needs a planet when you
have an economy? But that concept is like the value of money on the
Titanic as it sank and is rendered of little worth. With a destroyed
environment there is no viable economy. Yet climate change barely rated a
mention in this budget. The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that




 ‘an analysis of the budget shows that climate change commitments are to be left to the eleventh hour’




When do we start to visibly sink?



But the onslaught of the 2014 budget has voters reeling like punch-drunk boxers in a ring.







Cartoon by John Graham



Thus, the assault on the environment has seemed to go unnoticed.



In quietly received announcements, we learned that renewable energy bodies are to fall under the axe. The following actions are part of Abbott’s war plan on our environment.



  1. Scrapping the carbon price and any progress towards an emissions trading scheme.
  2. No mining tax.
  3. ARENA the Australian Renewable
    Energy Agency is to be abolished. ARENA chairman, Greg Bourne, expressed
    anger at the decision in the budget to rip $1.3 billion out of the
    agency and reduce it to "a  branch of an agency in the Department of Industry with a ‘token amount’ of funds."
  4. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation CEFC which the coalition has vowed to scrap.
  5.  In addition, climate change denier ex Caltex Australia Chairman, Dick Warburton, has been placed in charge of reviewing the renewable energy targets.
  6. Abbott has all but dropped the pretense of Direct Action being a credible answer to climate change with its miserly puny laughable five per cent reduction target.
  7. The CSIRO climate research has also taken cuts in the budget.
  8. Paying polluters to not pollute with no penalties for pollution.
  9. No more than $3.2 million will be spent on Direct Action whether it actually achieves its target or not.
  10. Axing of the Australian Government’s environment ministers’ forum — after 41 years.
  11. Fast tracked environmental approvals to allow increase in mining in Galilee Basin.
  12. Abbot Point to become world’s biggest coal port. News Flash: Deutsche Bank has pulled out of funding due to environmental concerns.
  13. Dumping of three million cubic metres of dredging waste on barrier reef.
  14. Ditched marine parks management plan.
  15. Delisting sought of Tasmanian Forest World Heritage listing.


Environmental groups and activists are fighting back and with some
wins, but climate change has become the great-unnamed humungous elephant
in the room.




 Our planet, mother earth, our only home, supplier of all
infrastructure and life sustaining services, underpinning of all
economies, is facing life threatening danger! Watch 'Years of Living Dangerously':






 


The conversation has been stymied, suppressed and distorted. It has been mocked and science has been denied.



Tony Abbott has at the same time hijacked the lexicon of the actual
emergency: global warming. He repeats the following, but in relation to
his false
(budget) emergency. Yes, it is the great challenge of our time. Doing
nothing and business as usual is not an option. The lives of our
children and grandchildren and the, as yet, unborn, depend on the decisions made today. World-renowned economist, Jeffrey Sachs, has noted the Abbott government’s obdurate recalcitrance regarding climate change action, saying




"It's amateur hour, at a time when we actually need something serious."




 Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State in the Showtime series 'Years of Living Dangerously’:



“We are the first generation to experience climate change and the last generation who can do anything about it.”




Our world and its future are in dire straits and we need to talk seriously about climate change now.



We can’t afford a leader at the helm who criminally denies this. 



............



John Graham's art is available for purchase by emailing editor@independentaustralia.net. See a gallery of John's political art on his Cartoons and Caricatures Facebook page.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Wednesday 28 May 2014

Systems Error for Planet Earth « The Australian Independent Media Network

Systems Error for Planet Earth « The Australian Independent Media Network

Systems Error for Planet Earth



Dan Piraro’s representation of this century’s state of the planet (the Anthropocene).
Dan Piraro’s representation of this century’s state of the planet (the Anthropocene), courtesy of http://www.bizarro.com

“Our planet is subject to stresses, stresses of which are recent to human history” writes Nicole Clark. Is that a coincidence?


When you think about ‘human environmental impact concerns’, what
comes to mind? Perhaps you imagine a flower pushing hippy chained to a
tree. Or, the WWF black and white Panda symbol that flashes before the
beginning of every documentary. Maybe you even envision a sad picture of
Earth with a thermometer dangling out of its mouth. Whatever comes to
mind, you know it is not at all that great. Everybody knows the planet
is not in a good position these days and everyone has noticed, the
emissions reduction schemes tightening the noose on the general public.
However, does anyone really know why?  Why is the planet in such a state?



Putting this whole climate change issue into context is not something
that is achieved over night, and as the ancient Greeks described:  the
planet, ‘Gaia’ (Mother Earth) is something of a complex system. Gaia is
suffering from what scientists are now calling, the dreaded anthropocene
(age of man).  Current statistics show, 7.4 billion human beings
inhabit our earth (1) and everything we touch has an equal and opposite
reaction.



To put this into further perspective let’s look at a recent paper that was published in 2009 by, Nature entitled:
‘A safe operating space for humanity’ (2). Johan Rockstrom, expresses
key ideas for the safe guarding of further environmental change, where
the only solution is to prevent further change. What does it mean to
‘prevent’ further change? Rockstrom proposes a framework for the
‘planetary boundaries’ that must not be crossed in order to maintain
current state.



The earth has lots of complex systems and according to Rockstrom,
there are 9 systems – that if the threshold is crossed, will generate
unacceptable environmental change. They are known as: climate change;
rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with
the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean
acidification; global freshwater use; change inland use; chemical
pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading (2). These systems can be
thought of as a changing interface, a complex network of interlocking
puzzle pieces. So how can we put this puzzle back together?



Our planet is subject to stresses, stresses of which are recent to human history. It’s over run by well . . . us.
Humans have achieved what no other species are close to being capable
of, something the experts like to call ‘niche construction’ (1) we have
designed the perfect world for us, it has everything we need;
clean water, food and shelter as well as other unnecessary comforts like
mobile phones, the internet and televisions. Everything we have done to
manipulate our patch has consequences and these 9 systems
Rockstrom describes, are part of the earth’s environment. They are
complex ‘equilibriums’, which means when they are subject to change,
consequences can be severe.



Rockstrom recognises three of these systems as being already over the
acceptable threshold. And others are heading the same way. Put briefly,
humans have been burning coal and pumping chemicals into the atmosphere
for a good two centuries (3) so now the atmosphere is changing, humans
are taking carbon out of the ground (fossil fuels) and releasing it as a
gas into the atmosphere, that gas is trapping heat in the atmosphere warming up the temperature of Gaia.



These same gases and chemicals are also disrupting the water cycle
and changing the climate, as well as seeping back into the land,
influencing nutrient cycles and seeping into the oceans , making them
acidic and bleaching coral (4). So, that explains all these concepts
(nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, stratospheric
ozone depletion, chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading).
Now for the others: humans are niche constructors (1), so we manipulate
our environment to our liking, during the process to perfect our
environment we forgot to consider (all life other than humans), and this
explains our last key concept: biodiversity loss.



Biodiversity loss means we are losing animal species faster than they
can evolve! We are polluting (land and air) faster than Gaia can
recover and we are affecting coral reefs and fish populations faster
than they can grow. And humans, as a population, are spreading like wild
fire taking too much (100 year old tree crops) and giving too little
(using non-renewable resources).



Scientists are calling this earth stage ‘the anthropocene’ because
never before has one single species impacted their environment in such a
way (4). And why do we need these boundaries? Because we are
affecting all of these 9 systems to a point that everything is changing
for the worse. In fact, Rockstrom proposes, our impact is so severe that
if we don’t mediate now Gaia won’t just be out of balance; she’ll
probably reach a state of no return. But what can we do? Rockstrom
describes that setting a boundary for these 9 systems (as they all
influence each other) and three boundaries have already been crossed.
They are (climate change; rate of biodiversity loss and the nitrogen
cycle) that, it is “essential for the life support properties of the
environment for human well being” (2), that no further boundaries are
exceeded. Or, the prospects for humanities’ future endeavours will truly
hang in the balance.



So now we come back to the first question: ‘When you think about
human environmental impact concerns, what do you think?’ Well, by now
you’re probably going to think: Chemical pollution and atmospheric
pollution, ocean pollution, complex systems which need to be mediated
and humans are out of control affecting every environment they touch.
But you’ll know, there is a solution, if we mediate what is already
reaching the threshold and what is going that way, we can stop
impacting Gaia to a point of no return. Rockstrom’s important message
preceding this idea? We need to stop what we are doing . . . before a
systems error is eminent.



References


(1)   Laland, K., Odling-smee, J. & .Feldman, M. 2001, “Cultural niche construction and human evolution”, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 14, pp. 22-33.


(2)   Rockstrom,J et al (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461,472-475


(3)   Meure, C., Etheridge, D., Trudinger, C., Steele, P.,
Langenfelds, R., vanOmmen, T., Smith, A. & Elkins, J. 2006, “Law
Dome Co2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP”, Geophysical Research, vol. 33.



(4)   Doney, S.C. and D.S. Schimel, 2007: Carbon and climate system
coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene, Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources, 32, 31-66, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.041706.124700.






This article was first published on “Science in Australian Society” and reproduced with permission.

Monday 26 May 2014

No way back for West Antarctic glaciers

No way back for West Antarctic glaciers



No way back for West Antarctic glaciers




Tim Radford 26 May 2014, 8:30am 24





Melting Antarctic glaciers


Satellite data analysis reveals the ominous news that the
melting glaciers of West Antarctica have passed the ‘point of no
return’ as the southern hemisphere gets warmer. Tim Radford from Climate News Network reports.




THE GLACIERS OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC may be in irreversible retreat,
according to the evidence of satellite data analysed by scientists at
the US space agency NASA.




The study of 19 years of data, due to be reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters,
confirms the ominous news that the southern hemisphere is not just
warming  — it is that it is warming in a way that speeds up the melting
of the West Antarctic glaciers.




Long ago, glaciologists began to wonder whether the West Antarctic ice sheet was
inherently unstable. The water locked in the ice sheet in the Amundsen
Sea region – the area the NASA researchers examined – is enough to raise
global sea levels by more than a metre. If the whole West Antarctic ice
sheet turned to water, sea levels would rise by at least five metres.








Steady change



What the latest research has revealed is a steady change in the
glacial grounding line, which is the point in a glacier’s progress
towards the sea where its bottom no longer scrapes on rock but starts to
float on water. It is in the nature of a glacier to flow towards the
sea, and at intervals to calve an iceberg that will then float away and
melt. The puzzle for scientists has been to work out whether this
process has begun to accelerate.




Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, thinks it has. He and his research partners believe that European Space Agency satellite
data has recorded the points at which the grounding lines can be
identified in a series of West Antarctic glaciers monitored between 1992
and 2011, as the glaciers flexed in response to the movement of tides.




All the grounding lines had retreated upstream, away from the sea
— some by more than 30 kilometres. The grounding lines are all buried
under hundreds of metres of ice, and are difficult to identify.




The shift of ice in response to tidal ebb and flow provides an
important clue. It also signals an acceleration of melting, because it
is the glacier’s slowness that keeps the sea levels static. As it inches
towards the sea, there is time for more snow and ice to pile up behind
it.







Speeds up



But if the water gets under the ice sheet, it reduces friction and
accelerates the passage of frozen water downstream. So the whole glacier
speeds up, and the grounding line moves yet further upstream.




Something similar has been reported from the glaciers of Greenland. And
once the process starts, there is no obvious reason why it would stop.
The melting will still be slow, but the latest evidence indicates that
it seems to be inexorable.




Says Prof Rignot:




We’ve passed the point of no return. At current melt rates, these glaciers will be history within a few hundred years.



The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be
unstoppable. The fact that the retreat is happening simultaneously over a
large sector suggests it was triggered by a common cause, such as an
increase in the amount of ocean heat beneath the floating sections of
the glaciers. At this point, the end of this sector appears to be
inevitable.





~ Climate News Network



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Abbot Point (Part 4): Government conceals toxic dredge spoil danger

Abbot Point (Part 4): Government conceals toxic dredge spoil danger

Abbot Point (Part 4): Government conceals toxic dredge spoil danger






(Infographic via greenpeace.org)


Lachlan Barker continues his explosive investigation into Abbot Pt coal port project, this
time showing why – despite official assurances – the dredge spoil is
almost certainly a toxic threat to the Great Barrier Reef National Park.




[Read Part One]



[Read Part Two]



[Read Part Three]



THE REPORT HAS NOW BEEN RELEASED on the dredging at Gladstone harbour,
and it doesn’t auger well for the dredging, and subsequent dumping of
dredge spoil, at Abbot Point, further up the coast at Bowen.




Essentially the problem at Gladstone was a leaking bund wall, built to contain the sediment within the harbour.



However, as Jon Brodie, research scientist with Tropwater, an adjunct of James Cook University described in The Conversation, the problems were vastly more systemic, involving lack of oversight by understaffed government departments.



Wrote Jon Brodie:



'A key part of the Gladstone Harbour dredging program for the
A$35 billion Curtis Island liquefied natural gas export hub has failed
due to bad construction, inadequate monitoring and poor environmental
oversight by state and federal governments.'





And this has ominous overtones for Abbot Point.



What’s more, new concerns – well, actually, old concerns that have
been repeatedly ignored – about the toxics load in the Abbot Point
dredge spoil can now be revealed.




As this paragraph from a GHD study in 2009 shows, contaminant release is listed as possible.







(Source: nqbp.com.au)



So is the sediment and the water surrounding it likely to be toxic?



Almost certainly — and here’s why.



In 2008, John Holland Construction did sandblasting at Abbot Point.



This is involved using abrasive blasting grit – mainly a product called garnet – that they used to clean the surfaces of the terminal before repainting.



However, in the process, they committed environmental offences, for which they were taken to court by the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM).



They were found guilty of two offences and fined $195,000.



I contacted DERM, now restructured and renamed the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the department that handed out the fines and asked:



Question - In 2008 John Holland did sandblasting work at Abbot
Point. In 2011 they were fined for this by QLD EPA(?). The sand blasting
debris fell to the bottom of the ocean, and contains, as far as I can
ascertain, toxic paint residue. Has this debris been removed? Or is it
still at the bottom of the ocean at Abbot Point?





Their response:



In 2011, construction company John Holland was fined $195,000 for
releasing material at two Queensland coal terminals including Abbot
Point, in breach of their development approval.




The court accepted that there was no evidence to suggest that the
material released into waters was contaminated with toxic metal or that
it caused environmental harm. 




There was also no evidence of the amount of material released into waters at Abbot Point Coal Terminal.




I then emailed back and asked:



Well if the stuff wasn’t toxic, why were they fined?




Their response was to stonewall, saying:



The charges were for breaching conditions of a development
approval by releasing material at two coal terminals, including Abbot
Point.







However, if they didn’t want to answer the toxic question, I knew someone who did.



John Broomhead worked for John Holland as environmental co-ordinator at the time of the sandblasting.



The product used in the sandblasting is garnet, or in this case , as John told me: “used garnet”.



Used garnet is cheaper — but dirtier.



Garnet works by abrading the paint, then forming a sticky little ball of paint/garnet residue.



Either product is toxic on its own, but together they form a little
ball of uber-toxics. Indeed, the paint is designed that way to stop
marine invertebrates – such as barnacles – clinging to metal surfaces.




Sandblasting done with environmental concerns uppermost sees that
this abrasive residue is collected and reused, or disposed of properly.




However, John Broomhead told me that the Abbot Point job was hardly that.



Said John:



"They went at it like cowboys.



"You’re supposed to do what’s called encapsulation, 'bagging' the
area that you are sandblasting, so that none of the residue can escape.
But they didn’t encapsulate it till late in the job, when I pointed out
to them that they were facing heavy fines for residue release.”





I asked John:



“How much in fines were they facing?”




Replied John:



“Well, at one point, it was nearly $60 million. However,
something mysterious occurred in the process, and they ended up only
being fined $195,000.”





John put that into context for me by saying:



“There was a caravan park owner on the Sunshine Coast who released sewage into a nearby creek and he got fined $110,000.”




So then I asked:



“So John, if they didn’t encapsulate until late in the process, how much, if any, of the residue got released?”




John replied:



“Well, there was two and a half tonnes of this residue unaccounted for.”




Two and a half tonnes!



I had a mental picture of a few kilograms here and there, maybe a few
parts per thousand over the environmental guidelines, but this seemed
to indicate a serious environmental threat.




So, I took a look at the analysis done up at Abbot Point.



First, water quality.



This graphic shows the sighting of water quality analysis data loggers used by consulting firm GHD in their 2009 study.







(Source: nqbp.com.au)



These data sights seemed a long way from the truth, both literally
and metaphorically, and so I sought an expert opinion from Jon Brodie.




I sent him this graphic and asked:



Jon, I would have thought that contaminant detection would need
data logging sites under the terminal, where the sand blasting offences
occurred?





His response:



I don't know the amount of the contaminated blasting material that was released although this may be in the court case records.



As we (Tropwater not me specifically) were involved in some of
the more recent work on sand blasting there as consultants it's also
difficult for me to access the confidential data (Chinese walls and all
that).




However you are correct - to sample the contaminated (from the
blasting material) sediment you would have to sample in close proximity
to the terminal.




Data loggers will not work - you need to take actual sediment
samples. Alternatively you could use 'passive samplers' for metals which
sit in the water for many days and 'suck' up metals.”





So the water quality report is open to question.



And Jon’s response opened up a new line if query — the sediment itself.



So I took a look at that and it likewise showed more than a taint of inadequacy.



This graphic shows the sediment analysis done by GHD in the same 2009 study.







(Source: nqbp.com.au)



The brown circles are a study done by WorleyParsons in 2007 and the red show where GHD analysed sediment in 2009.



The black indicates the position of the terminal.



The GHD study of 2009 was done (partly) to test for possible
contaminant release from the John Holland incident — but, if that’s so,
then they for some reason avoided analysing in the area most likely:
directly under the terminal.




Also, this graphic shows the study done by CDM in 2011-12.







(Source: nqbp.com.au)



This study analysed the sediment that is to be dredged and then dumped in the marine park.



Once again, it can be seen that no sediment sampling was done under the terminal.



So, again, I sent all of this to Jon Brodie for comment.



Sadly, even possible limitations in the study of toxics in the dredge spoil, were of lesser importance now.



As Jon told me:



"The real problem now is lack of oversight. The process is corrupted."




Jon strongly clarified that he wasn’t saying a person, or persons, were corrupt.



It was that there was simply too few people trying to monitor too many environmental projects.



As he said in his piece in The Conversation:



On paper at least, numerous, stringent conditions
have been set for environmental management at Abbot Point by our
governments and GBRMPA. Those include environmental compliance
monitoring and an offsets program.




But will the Australian or Queensland governments have the
skilled staff to adequately oversee all those conditions? I don’t
believe they will.





On this topic, on the morning of May 12, 2014, ABC Radio National Breakfast quoted a public service report, which stated that in September 2011, there were 800 projects being monitored by only 10 federal environment staff.



And this was before the current federal budget was announced, which is thought to call for the shedding of 16,000 public servants, many in environmental monitoring positions.



All of which highlights Jon Brodie’s reasons for concern.



And as I ended my phone call with Jon about this, he did express how downhearted he was, saying about Abbot Point:



"It’s a lost cause."




I was downhearted before, but if Jon Brodie gets around to saying this, then things are serious.



However, just before we about to publish this article, hope was born again.



Deutsche Bank have pulled out of financing any expansion at Abbot Point.





In an ABC Online story published May 23, 2014, Deutsche Bank announced that



... it would not finance an expansion, without the assurance of
both the Government and UNESCO that it would not damage the Great
Barrier Reef.




"We observe that there is no consensus between UNESCO and the
Australian Government regarding the expansion of Abbot Point," it said.




"Since our guidance requires such a consensus as a minimum, we would not consider a financing request."




The history of this Abbot Point expansion has shown the Federal Environment minister, Greg Hunt, continually denying there are any environmental concerns.



But now Deustche Bank have said, in the only terms that Greg Hunt is likely to listen to: No money for you, because you might damage the Great Barrier Reef.



I wonder if he will listen?



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Tuesday 20 May 2014

Best Budget Ever!



THE WORST BUDGET EVER, DESIGNED TO DESTROY AUSTRALIAN'S LIVES

Abbott out of step on climate change, says Professor Jeffrey Sachs

Abbott out of step on climate change, says Professor Jeffrey Sachs

Abbott out of step on climate change, says Professor Jeffrey Sachs




Date

Tom Arup








Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Photo: Angela Wylie







Australia's reversal on climate change action will ultimately
not stick because the rest of the world will make clear that it is
unacceptable, globally renowned economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs says.




Speaking to Fairfax Media, Professor Sachs said the extreme
shocks and pain of climate change were now being felt across the planet
and governments acting in an ''anti-scientific perspective or an
extraordinarily short-term perspective'' will be surprised by the
response from other countries.





''This government was surprised this week with the reception
to the budget,'' Professor Sachs said. ''And I think it is going to be
surprised by the global reception of its climate policies as well unless
it begins to understand the real situation in the world and what's
really expected of a country like Australia.''




Professor Sachs is perhaps best known for his work on poverty eradication, including his bestselling book The End of Poverty. He is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.




He is in the country to launch work on the Australian section
of a global project for the UN to map paths for 13 countries to make
deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that are consistent with keeping
global warming at relatively safe levels of below 2 degrees.




The first stage of the project - led in Australia by think
tank ClimateWorks and Australian National University economist Professor
Frank Jotzo - will be fed into a September world leaders climate
meeting in New York that has been convened by Mr Ban. The meeting is an
attempt to build momentum towards December 2015 climate negotiations in
Paris, at which countries are due to finalise a new global climate
treaty to take effect from 2020.




Professor Sachs pitched the Paris meeting as the ''last chance'' for the world to keep global warming below 2 degrees.



He said while business as usual on climate change could be
seen as the most likely outcome, it was dangerous and the planet would
be led towards massive climate feedback loops that would carry us well
beyond the 2-degree threshold.




He said ultimately Australia was not a smaller player in
stopping climate change and was among a handful of countries that
mattered because of their fossil fuel use and production, including
China, the US, the European Union, Canada, India and the Gulf states.




Professor Sachs said he had told Foreign Minister Julie
Bishop this week Australia should join other major coal producers to
develop technologies that captured and stored emissions from burning
coal because the world needed to know soon whether it would work.




Along with cuts to renewable energy, the Abbott government
cut $440 million from carbon capture and storage programs in last week's
budget.




Reducing renewable energy target won't lead to cut in power prices, AIG warns

Reducing renewable energy target won't lead to cut in power prices, AIG warns

Reducing renewable energy target won't lead to cut in power prices, AIG warns










Reducing Australia's renewable energy target will not lead to
a fall in power prices, one of the country's leading industry groups
has warned.




In a move that will pressure Prime Minister Tony Abbott to
retain Australia's goal of producing at least 20 per cent of all
electricity from renewable sources by 2020, the Australian Industry
Group has urged the government not to abolish or drastically cut the
target.





AIG, which represents more than 60,000 businesses, said the
RET had lowered wholesale power prices and there would be little benefit
to consumers if the target was lowered.




The comments are in contrast to statements Mr Abbott made
last year that the RET was causing electricity price rises at a time
when Australia ought to be ''an affordable energy superpower''.





There are growing fears that the government plans to scale
back the target after Australia's flagship clean energy development
agency - the Australian Renewable Energy Agency - was axed in last
week's budget.




In a submission to the government's review of the RET, the
AIG said unwinding the target would require major compensation to
businesses that had already made significant investments in renewable
energy. It said this would have to come via the federal budget or ''an
ongoing payment by electricity retailers - and ultimately energy users -
in a closed, grandfathered version of the RET''.




AIG chief executive Innes Willox said on Tuesday that neither
deep cuts in the target nor abolishing the RET altogether would
deliver ''overall benefits to energy users''.




''After consulting with our diverse membership and reviewing
the evidence currently available, we have judged that reducing the RET
is likely to cost energy users as much in higher wholesale prices as it
saves them in direct RET charges,'' Mr Willox said.




''The RET has swings and roundabouts for energy users.



''The cost of building wind farms and solar panels is passed
on to retail customers, but the extra energy generated adds to supply in
the electricity market, depressing wholesale prices somewhat.''




The industry group's submission is critical of the continued
upheaval of Australia's climate and energy policies and the lack of
detail surrounding the implementation of the government's emissions
reduction fund to cut carbon emissions.




It says the current policy parameters and uncertainty had led to concerns it would not be possible to meet the target by 2020.



The comments follow publication of modelling that found axing the RET would mean higher energy bills by decade's end.



In its submission, the Climate Institute argues the RET will
become more important in reducing emissions if the carbon tax is
repealed.