24/10/2020

(AU) Queensland Teenagers Lodge Legal Action Against Adani Coal Mine To Save Great Barrier Reef

ABC NewsStephen Long
Claire Galvin wants the environmental approvals given to Adani's Carmichael mine revoked. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)



Claire Galvin grew up in Cairns and fell in love with the Great Barrier Reef.

"I spent my life snorkelling the reef," the 19-year-old says.

"Every time we go out to the reef it's absolutely stunning."

She's worried that burning coal from Adani's Carmichael mine, and the new coal region it's opening up in Queensland, will threaten the reef's survival.

"The impacts of the carbon emissions will devastate the reef and we don't want that to happen," she said.

Today, Ms Galvin and north Queensland year 12 student Brooklyn O'Hearn are launching a last-ditch attempt to challenge the approval of Adani's Carmichael mine and railway project.

Claire Galvin (left) and Brooklyn O'Hearn want the Great Barrier Reef to remain a wonder for generations to come. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)

A law firm acting for them has written to Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley calling for a revocation of the environmental approvals given to Adani's venture.

A spokesperson for Ms Ley confirmed the minister's office had received the correspondence and said the minister would consider it in due course.

The letter has argued the previous minister, Greg Hunt, failed to properly assess the implications for climate change and the reef when he approved the venture in 2015 — relying on reports from experts working under strict court rules that require them to give impartial evidence.

"The robust independent scientific evidence" being presented to Ms Ley shows the project "will have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef that was not identified in the assessment" according to Ariane Wilkinson of the law firm Environmental Justice Australia.

When he gave it the go-ahead back in 2015, Mr Hunt said he could not form a "robust conclusion" about whether the Adani mine would contribute to global warming and further endanger the Great Barrier Reef, partly because it could not be known whether its output would merely replace coal currently provided by other suppliers.

Claire Galvin wants other children to have the chance to snorkel on the reef like she did growing up. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)


This argument is plain wrong, according to Paul Burke, an economist at the Crawford School at Australian National University.

"The 'substitution effect' assumption that a large new coal mine will have no implications for emissions is highly implausible," he said.

"A new coal mine puts additional coal into the market, brings the price down and encourages coal use across the world."

In his export report, Associate Professor Burke concludes up to half of the coal from the Adani mine would add to, rather than supplant, supply from other mines and that it would also displace lower emissions energy sources such as gas and renewables.

Although Adani's initial mine will be much smaller, it has approval to extract up to 60 million tonnes of coal a year, which would make it one of the largest mines in the world.

Analysts also believe the railway Adani is building to shift coal to the port will facilitate the development of the proposed China Stone and Hyde Corner projects nearby, with their substantial output further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate scientist Bill Hare, who has provided an export report for the challenge, said he was "increasingly outraged at the failure of governments everywhere to consider the overall climate consequences of these kinds of actions".

The Great Barrier Reef is at risk of being destroyed by coral bleaching caused by climate change. (Supplied: Queensland Museum, Gary Cranitch)

A spokesperson for Adani said the company's Carmichael coal mine was "one of the most rigorously assessed projects in Australian history, as it was subject to eight years of comprehensive assessment, review and legal challenges".

"Over the past decade activists have unsuccessfully tried to use the Australian legal system to argue that Adani's Carmichael mine should not be approved because of the emissions created when coal is used to generate electricity overseas and the impact that would have on the Great Barrier Reef," the spokesperson said.

Since Adani's venture was given environmental approval, the Great Barrier Reef has suffered a series of mass coral bleaching events caused by rising sea temperatures linked to global warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if the world achieves its goal under the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the world will still suffer a loss of 70 to 90 per cent of reef-building corals.

If temperatures rise by 2 per cent or more above pre-industrial levels, the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed with 99 per cent of corals being lost.

Professor Hare said burning all the coal approved for mining at Adani's Queensland site would alone use up 3.3 per cent of the world's remaining 'carbon budget' for limiting warming to 1.5C.

If the two nearby mines also go ahead, this would rise to almost 6 per cent.

Brooklyn (left) and Claire argue former environment minister Greg Hunt failed to properly assess the implications for the reef when he approved the mine in 2015. (Supplied: Claire Galvin)


"I think the only responsible thing for the Australian Government to do is to review the licenses for these projects and to stop them," he said.

In central Queensland communities that rely on coal mining jobs, there is extensive support for the Adani mine, but Ms Galvin points out that in the community she grew up on the reef, a World Heritage-listed natural wonder, drives the tourism and underpins the economy.

"Minister Ley has a choice," she says.

The reality is it's a long shot — but a teenager can dare to dream.

Links

(AU) While The World Races To Net-Zero Carbon, Australia Is A Non-Starter

Sydney Morning HeraldNick O'Malley

Author
Nick O’Malley is National Environment and Climate Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
The horror of the Fukushima disaster prompted Japan to turn its back on nuclear power and re-embrace coal almost a decade ago, leading the world’s third largest economy to become its greatest importer of coal and a key customer of Australian carbon. This is about to change.

The Mount Piper power plant, near Lithgow, is scheduled to close in 2043. Credit: Janie Barrett

On Wednesday it was reported that Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga will announce next week that Japan will pursue a net-zero emissions target by 2050, building on the nation’s earlier goal of an 80 per cent reduction.

It brings Japan into line with the United Kingdom and the European Union. And earlier this month, China's President Xi Jinping shocked the United Nations general assembly by declaring a 2060 net-zero target.

Joe Biden, too, has vowed the United States will pursue a 2050 net-zero target should he win the November 3 election.

The International Energy Agency, not a body known for climate hysteria, has for the first time included in its annual energy outlook document a net-zero model.

Even before Japan’s, the IEA judged that 125 countries had adopted or were seriously considering various net-zero targets. Uruguay leads the charge with a goal to hit the goal by 2030.

There is more than empty sloganeering going on here. As the IEA notes, we must reach net-zero by 2050 to have even a 50 per cent chance of meeting Paris climate goals. To do that, we either learn how to cheaply suck carbon out of the sky or dramatically cut emissions.

While all Australian state and territory governments have set net-zero targets, the federal government still opposes the notion.

To be clear, the government says it will meet its Paris obligation to reach net zero in the second half of the century, but Energy and Emissions Minister Angus Taylor says the government will not commit to a 2050 goal without a roadmap for how to achieve it.

“Our approach is not to have a target without a plan,” Taylor told the ABC earlier this year. The problem with this approach is that even without a plan, net-zero goals serve a very real purpose.

To start with, says Anna Skarbek, chief executive of the ClimateWorks policy advisory body with Monash University, goals allow for “backcasting” rather than “forecasting”. That is, they allow the leaders of major institutions or nations to look back – from the imagined point of a realised policy outcome – and work out what steps are most crucial to achieve it.

Second, she says, they catalyse the efforts of the various individuals and bodies that will need to act in concert to achieve these goals.

Third, they spontaneously draw out of the woodwork contributions to reach those goals from actors who might otherwise have remained silent.

Fourth, they allow for careful long-term planning, which in the context of climate change is crucial as governments must put energy policy in place that will play out over decades.

For these reasons, says Skarbek, net-zero goals rapidly change the entire policy and political environment around them. They are intrinsically important.

In the IEA’s view, the path to net zero is difficult but possible. According to its 2020 energy outlook document there is so little time left to achieve the goal that “if any sub-sector or industry were to prove a laggard, no other sector would be likely to be able to move any faster to make up the difference”.

Setting a course to net zero by 2050 would require the world to reduce emissions by 40 per cent over the next decade. It would demand that governments keep voters onside as they introduced potentially unpopular new regulations to alter ingrained behaviour, and it would require new technologies to be developed and distributed at an unprecedented rate.

Australia might better contribute to this effort if it had a goal, even without a plan.

David Attenborough: Climate Change Must Not Be Ignored Even During A Pandemic

 Huffington Post - Jeremy Blum

Environmental activists Attenborough and Greta Thunberg spoke together during a recent panel and had much in common, despite being 77 years apart.

In a frank panel discussion alongside teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg, legendary nature broadcaster David Attenborough said that he hoped the countries of the world would continue to keep the imminent threat of climate change in mind despite the pandemic that has dominated 2020. 

“I am worried that people will take their eyes off the environmental issue because of the immediate problems they have on COVID,” Attenborough said on the panel, which was titled “David and Greta in Conversation: The Planetary Crisis” and part of Wildscreen Festival, a celebration of wildlife on film. “And of course it’s put off a series of conferences in which all the nations get together and talk.”

Attenborough, who called the COVID-19 pandemic a “disaster for all of us” in a podcast appearance earlier this month, was referring to conferences like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was originally scheduled for November 2020 in Glasgow but shifted to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thunberg also stressed the importance of keeping climate change in mind, and despite their 77-year age difference, the pair had nothing but mutual respect for each other, with the elder statesmen of nature documentaries calling Thunberg’s activism efforts “absolutely astonishing.”

“You have activated young people around the world, all over the place, who are up in arms about whats happening,” Attenborough said to Thunberg. “And if there is any sign of hope, and there is, to be truthful compared to what there was 25 years ago, it’s because of what you’ve done and what you’ve done for young people.”

Thunberg, for her part, heaped praise on “A Life on Our Planet,” Attenborough’s latest film that is part biopic, part cautionary tale on the future of Earth. 

“When I saw your newest film, I was positively surprised on how well it connected all of these different issues, like the climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, loss of fertile soil, overfishing and all these different problems piling up on each other,” Thunberg said. “We fail today so bad to connect these issues.”

Thunberg said that her own upcoming film — “I Am Greta,” which will premiere on Hulu on Nov. 13 — was in comparison more focused on her personal journey as an activist, which she saw as emblematic of the world’s “absurd reality that we are focusing on the individual, on activists ... rather than actually seeing the problem.”

This brought Attenborough back to his point on COVID-19, international conferences and the tendency for nations to treat discussions of climate change like a bargaining table, with every politician looking out for their respective country’s priorities first and foremost.

“The world has to unite. It’s an era of internationalism, not nationalism,” Attenborough said. “ ... If you’re faced with a crisis of the proportion of the epidemic they’re facing, it’s difficult to lift your eyes from immediate problems ... But we have to do that, we really, really have to do that and I just think the future of the world depends on it.”

Links