02/02/2021

(AU) Net Zero, Saving Koalas And Forest Wars: The Crucial Environment Battles Looming In Australia

The Guardian -   |

With the Morrison government looking increasingly isolated on climate policy and under pressure to fix conservation laws, will 2021 bring change?

Forest burned by bushfire in Wingello. Major government reports have outlined the extent to which Australia’s unique environment was in decline long before the fires hit. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock

The trainwreck of 2020 was not limited to a global community hit by the worst pandemic in a century. The Australian environment fared no better.

The year started amid the continent’s most widespread bushfires on record. As the Guardian revealed, an estimated 3bn animals were killed or affected. Subsequent major government reports outlined the extent to which the country’s unique environment was in decline long before the fires hit.

The damage from the fires could not be divorced from the climate crisis, which also triggered a third mass bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef in five years.

But political debate on these pressing environmental issues – specifically, the need to transform conservation laws or introduce a climate plan to live up to the Paris climate agreement – remained stuck as the Morrison government resisted meaningful action on both fronts.

Will 2021 bring a change? Adam Morton and Lisa Cox look at some of the major climate and environmental questions the country will face this year.

Rising pressure to act on climate

Scott Morrison ended 2020 notably isolated on climate change, having been embarrassed when the British and French governments rejected his push to be given a speaking slot at a global leaders’ climate ambition summit.

The prime minister appeared surprised by the snub, which left him in climate pariah territory with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia.

If he was surprised, he shouldn’t have been: the invitation to the summit made clear only leaders offering substantial new commitments would be given a slot, and Morrison had merely flagged that Australia may not follow through on a widely condemned plan to use a carbon accounting sleight of hand to meet national emissions targets.

A major political and diplomatic question will be how the government responds to what is certain to be escalating pressure. The US will be key. The Biden administration has no shortage of problems needing its attention, but has made clear climate is near the top of its priorities.

The new president has pledged to use “every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world” to do more. His climate envoy, John Kerry, set out the scale of the challenge for business leaders at a G20 forum, including that coal needed to be phased out five times faster than it is now.

More than 120 countries, including the major powers of America, Asia and Europe, have mid-century net zero emissions or carbon neutrality goals, but Morrison – despite calls and rising action from business leaders, investors and state governments – continues to resist, and deny that Australia is out of step.

The expectation is this can only last so long, but the message from the incoming US leadership and the climate ambition summit is that moving on the 2050 target alone will not be enough.

The focus ahead of the November climate conference in Glasgow will increasingly be on what Australia – with no meaningful policies to reduce emissions from transport or major industry and which is still promising a “gas-led recovery” and approving new coal projects – will do before 2030 to live up to the commitment it made in Paris five years ago.

Relying on the states to increase support for renewable energy, as many did last year, will not be enough.

Fixing failing environmental protection

In the wake of the fires, last year’s official assessment of the state of Australia’s natural environment by Graeme Samuel, the former competition watchdog chief, could hardly have been more dire.

An interim report in July found Australia’s environment was in an unsustainable state of decline, and that the national conservation laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – were ineffective and needed substantial change.

Meanwhile, the auditor general’s office found the government and federal environment department were failing in their duty to protect nature.

Conservation groups were not surprised on either front. Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammal extinction due to what is widely agreed to be the failure of successive governments to protect the wildlife for which the country is renowned.

Funding for environment programs was cut by more than a third after the Coalition was elected in 2013. Some was restored last year, much of it directed to “congestion busting” – increasing the pace at which industry and business development proposals were assessed.

The government’s response was to try and fail to ram through legislation to transfer responsibility for approving major developments that affect the environment to the states and territories, barely giving lip service to the need to strengthen environmental protection.

It is still yet to release Samuel’s final report, which it has been sitting on since October. That will have to change when parliament returns next month if the government lives up to its legislative requirements. It is also expected to release the national environmental standards that Samuel said were needed to accompany the devolution in assessment powers to the states.

Several questions will follow. Will the standards be designed to not just maintain but improve the state of the Australian environment? Will they be specific enough that they can be meaningfully and legally tested?

And, given the government has rejected the push for an independent environment regulator, can the public be confident the new standards will be enforced?

Attention will also turn to whether the Senate crossbenchers will continue to oppose the government’s legislation if there are not steps to improve the monitoring and health of the country’s growing list of threatened species – at least 170 of which still have no plan for their recovery.

Will the Great Barrier Reef bleach again?

Australia’s most globally recognisable natural landmark suffered through its third major coral bleaching event since 2016 last year. Most of the damage was near the southern end around Mackay – an area that was mostly left untouched in 2016 and 2017. It means reefs along the full length of the 2,300km wonder have been severely affected over the past five years.

There are still healthy and vibrant areas and some damaged coral will recover, but a significant amount of shallow water coral died.

As recently as a few weeks ago, there were concerns this summer might be a fourth year of severe bleaching out of six. But Prof Terry Hughes, from James Cook University, says the risk has reduced since Christmas thanks to cooler, cloudier and wetter weather, in part due to the cooling La Nina over the Pacific.

An assessment by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests the risk of bleaching is greatest north of Cairns, and a warmer than expected February could still change projections, but Hughes says the chance of a non-bleaching year is “pretty good”.

It is a less positive story in the west. The CSIRO has forecast a marine heatwave for the Western Australian coastline early this year, with temperatures expected to hit the highest level in a decade.

The Ningaloo Coast and Shark Bay, both world heritage listed areas, are threatened by warming ocean temperatures that could affect ecosystems and fisheries that have not recovered since a marine heatwave in 2011.

A koala affected by 2019-20 bushfires is released back into native bushland following treatment at the Kangaroo Island Wildlife Park. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

Saving the Koala

The capriciousness of New South Wales politics was on full display last year when the deputy premier, John Barilaro, threatened, but failed to resign ostensibly over a policy designed to protect koalas, just months after the iconic species was devastated by the summer bushfires.

A compromise deal between the governing Liberal and National parties over the koala state environmental planning policy failed. Instead, NSW reverted to an old koala policy, from 1995, with a promise to develop a new one this year.

It meant that, despite a state inquiry finding the species was on track for extinction in NSW by 2050, nothing new has been done to improve its protection.

Whether that can be addressed will be a test for both state and federal governments. It is linked to the broader issue of ongoing habitat destruction, one of the main threats to not just the koala, but Australian wildlife generally.

Sussan Ley, the federal environment minister, has set an October deadline for the threatened species scientific committee to assess whether east coast koala populations have been affected enough to warrant a national endangered listing – a step that should trigger greater protection.

Meanwhile, the government continues to sanction clearing of the forests that koalas rely on. Late last year Ley approved a quarry proposal that would clear 50 hectares of koala habitat near Port Stephens in NSW.

It is a similar story at state level. The NSW environment minister, Matt Kean, has set a target to double the state’s koala population by 2050, but forestry operations and mining proposals in koala and other threatened species’ habitat continue, and the state government has continued to weaken land-clearing laws.

Stalling on electric vehicles

Analysts say the shift to EVs is inevitable, with new models forecast to match fossil fuel vehicles on price by as early as 2025, but Australia trails other countries in their uptake, with fewer affordable models available.

A long-delayed Morrison government electric vehicle policy – now rebadged as a broader “future fuels” strategy – was due late last year, but has yet to be released. A leaked draft suggests it will not include direct incentives for consumers to switch to battery-powered cars.

Other countries have seen a climate and economic advantage in moving now. Britain and Japan – major countries that, like Australia, use right-hand-side drive cars – announced late last year they would ban the sale of new petrol cars by 2030 and 2035 respectively and introduce incentives to drive the change.

Australia appears headed in the other direction with no significant incentives, and with some states planning to introduce road-user charges on EVs and hybrids. Victoria and South Australia are heading down this path, and NSW is considering it.

Academic analysis has suggested this would further deter uptake of the technology unless offset by other support. Meanwhile, national transport emissions continue to rise.

The forest wars (redux)

Court decisions loom large over native forest logging in two Australian states this year, and an industry that spent much of last year under siege.

A judgment is due next month in a case brought by the Bob Brown Foundation against Tasmania’s state-owned forestry agency, arguing its native forest logging is inconsistent with federal laws. Conservationists argue the forest agreement in the state is not valid as it lacks a legally enforceable requirement that the state protect threatened species.

It follows a similar case in Victoria last year, when a federal court judgment banned logging in 67 coupes in Victoria’s central highlands on the basis that the state’s agency, VicForests, had breached a regional forestry agreement between the state government and Canberra.

In basic terms, the ruling challenged a controversial effective exemption from environmental laws granted to logging under the agreement. The agency is appealing.

Major retailers are increasingly refusing to sell paper logged by agencies without forest stewardship council, or FSC, certification - and both the Tasmanian and the Victorian agencies have failed to get it.

It means the court decisions could have significant ramifications for plans to continue native forest logging at current levels until 2030, in Victoria’s case, or indefinitely in Tasmania. And they could have major ramifications for threatened species protection.

Links

(AU) As Heatwaves Become More Extreme, Which Jobs Are Riskiest?

The Conversation -  |  | 

Shutterstock

Authors
  •  is Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
  •  is Thermal Physiologist, National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre; University Fellow, Charles Darwin University
  •  is Senior Staff Specialist, Alice Springs Hospital. Honorary, Australian National University
Heat is more dangerous than the cold in most Australian regions.

 About 2% of deaths in Australia between 2006 and 2017 were associated with the heat, and the estimate increases to more than 4% in the northern and central parts of the country.

In fact, Australian death records underestimate the association between heat and mortality at least 50-fold and chronic heat stress is also under-reported.

The risk is higher in some regions but where you live is not the only factor that matters. When it comes to heat, some jobs are much more dangerous, and put workers at higher risk of injury.

Who is most at risk?

One study compared workers’ compensation claims in Adelaide from 2003 to 2013. It found workers at higher risk during extremely hot temperatures included:
  • animal and horticultural workers
  • cleaners
  • food service workers
  • metal workers
  • warehouse workers.
The authors noted hot weather “poses a greater problem than cold weather. This is of particular concern as the number of hot days is projected to increase”.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Conversation Australia (@theconversationau)

Another study involving many of the same researchers looked at the impact of heatwaves on work-related injuries and illnesses in Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. It found vulnerable groups included:
  • males
  • workers aged under 34 years
  • apprentice/trainee workers
  • labour hire workers
  • those employed in medium and heavy strength occupations, and
  • workers from outdoor and indoor industrial sectors.

When it comes to heat, some jobs are much more dangerous than others, and put workers at higher risk of injury. Shutterstock
A study of work-related injuries in Melbourne between 2002 and 2012 found:
Young workers, male workers and workers engaged in heavy physical work are at increased risk of injury on hot days, and a wider range of worker subgroups are vulnerable to injury following a warm night. In light of climate change projections, this information is important for informing injury prevention strategies.
A study using data for Adelaide between 2001 and 2010 concluded male workers and young workers aged under 24 were at high risk of work-related injuries in hot environments.

The link between temperature and daily injury claims was strong for labourers, tradespeople and intermediate production and transport workers (who do jobs such as operating plant, machinery, vehicles and other equipment to transport passengers and goods).

Industries with greater risk were agriculture, forestry and fishing, construction, as well as electricity, gas and water.

Animal and horticultural workers are at risk during heatwaves. Shutterstock

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies on the links between heat exposure and occupational injuries found:
Young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and workers in agriculture, forestry or fishing, construction and manufacturing industries were at high risk of occupational injuries during hot temperatures. Further young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and those working in electricity, gas and water and manufacturing industries were found to be at high risk of occupational injuries during heatwaves.
The fact that apprentices or trainees had greater heat-related injuries in the workplace may surprise many, as heat tolerance deteriorates with age.

Exposure to labour intensive work, less experience in managing heat stress, and a propensity to avoid acknowledging they’re affected by heat may contribute to the higher risk for younger workers.

Other factors that increase risk

A growing body of international research shows extreme heat can cause severe health issues.

Other factors that increase vulnerability to heat include age (especially being older or very young), low-socioeconomic status, and homelessness. Regions also matter; there are differences between climate zones and increased heat-related morbidity in rural settings.

Underlying health conditions increase the risk of heat-related illness and death. These health conditions include
  • diabetes
  • high blood pressure
  • chronic kidney disease
  • heart conditions and
  • respiratory conditions.
Chronic heat exposure is dangerous and has been linked to serious health problems, including chronic and irreversible kidney injury.

A range of studies have linked higher temperatures with increases in suicide rates, emergency department visits for mental illness, and poor mental health.

Younger workers and apprentices may be at greater risk of heat-related injuries in the workplace. Shutterstock

We need to better understand the problem

Most of the studies mentioned here focused on worker’s compensation claims. That data includes only those injuries for which compensation claims were actually made. In reality, the problem is likely more widespread.

The Australian studies primarily focused on the milder climatic regions of Australia, but the rate of injuries and ill health is greater in hot and humid regions. And the dangers may be worse in regional and remote areas, particularly when and where workforces are transient.

We also need more research on the relationship between the length of exposure to higher temperatures (in hours or days) and worker health.

National studies or studies in other regions should assess whether rates of injury differ by occupation, climate zone and remoteness. Capturing data on all types and severity of workplace injuries (not just those that led to a compensation claim) is crucial to understanding the true extent of the problem.

As the climate changes and heatwaves become more frequent and severe, it’s vital we do more to understand who is most vulnerable and how we can reduce their risk.

Links

(AU) A Major Report Excoriated Australia’s Environment Laws. Sussan Ley’s Response Is Confused And Risky

The Conversation

Shutterstock

Author
 is Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University     
It’s official: Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in deep trouble. They can’t withstand current and future threats, including climate change. And the national laws protecting them are flawed and badly outdated.

You could hardly imagine a worse report on the state of Australia’s environment, and the law’s capacity to protect it, than that released yesterday.

The review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act, by former competition watchdog chair Professor Graeme Samuel, did not mince words. Without urgent changes, most of Australia’s threatened plants, animals and ecosystems will become extinct.

Federal environment minister Sussan Ley released the report yesterday after sitting on it for three months. And she showed little sign of being spurred into action by Samuel’s scathing assessment.

Her response was confusing and contradictory. And the Morrison government seems hellbent on pushing through its preferred reforms without safeguards that Samuel says are crucial.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley appears hellbent on pushing through the government’s agenda. Mick Tsikas/AAP

A bleak assessment

I was a federal environment official for 13 years, and from 2007 to 2012 was responsible for administering and reforming the EPBC Act. I believe Samuel’s report is a very good one.

Samuel has maintained the course laid out in his interim report last July. He found the state of Australia’s natural environment and iconic places is declining and under increasing threat.

Moreover, he says, the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform. The current approach results in piecemeal decisions rather than holistic environmental management, which he sees as essential for success. He went on:
The resounding message that I heard throughout the review is that Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community.
Australians feel the EPBC Act is failing the environment. Shutterstock

A proposed way forward

Samuel recommended a suite of reforms, many of which were foreshadowed in his interim report. They include:
  • national environmental standards, legally binding on the states and others, to guide development decisions and provide the ability to measure outcomes

  • applying the new standards to existing Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs). Such a move could open up the forest debate in a way not seen since the 1990s

  • accrediting the regulatory processes and environmental policies of the states and territories, to ensure they can meet the new standards. Accredited regimes would be audited by an Environment Assurance Commissioner

  • a “quantum shift” in the availability of environmental information, such as accurate mapping of habitat for threatened species

  • an overhaul of environmental offsets, which compensate for environmental destruction by improving nature elsewhere. Offsets have become a routine development cost applied to proponents, rather than last-resort compensation invested in environmental restoration.
Under-resourcing is a major problem with the EPBC Act, and Samuel’s report reiterates this. For example, as I’ve noted previously, “bioregional plans” of land areas – intended to define the environmental values and objectives of a region – have never been funded.

The system of environmental offsets, which compensates for damage to nature, should be overhauled. Shutterstock

Respecting Indigenous knowledge

One long-overdue reform would require decision-makers to respectfully consider Indigenous views and knowledge. Samuel found the law was failing in this regard.

He recommended national standards for Indigenous engagement and participation in decision-making. This would be developed through an Indigenous-led process and complemented by a comprehensive review of national cultural heritage protections.

The recommendations follow an international outcry last year over mining giant Rio Tinto’s destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. In Samuel’s words:
National-level protection of the cultural heritage of Indigenous Australians is a long way out of step with community expectations. As a nation, we must do better.
Indigenous knowledge should be heard and respected. Richard WainwrightT/AAP

Confusing signals

The government’s position on Samuel’s reforms is confusing. Ley yesterday welcomed the review and said the government was “committed to working through the full detail of the recommendations with stakeholders”.

But she last year ruled out Samuel’s call for an independent regulator to oversee federal environment laws. And her government is still prepared to devolve federal approvals to the states before Samuel’s new national standards are in place.

In July last year, Ley seized on interim reforms proposed by Samuel that suited her government’s agenda – streamlining the environmental approvals process – and started working towards them.

In September, the government pushed the change through parliament’s lower house, denying independent MP Zali Steggall the chance to move amendments to allow national environment standards.

Ley yesterday reiterated the government’s commitment to the standards – yet indicated the government would soon seek to progress the legislation through the Senate, then develop the new standards later.

Samuel did include devolution to the states in his first of three tranches of reform – the first to start by early 2021. But his first tranche also includes important safeguards. These include the new national environmental standards, the Environment Assurance Commissioner, various statutory committees, Indigenous reforms and more.

The government’s proposed unbundling of the reforms doesn’t pass the pub test. It would tempt the states to take accreditation under the existing, discredited rules and resist later attempts to hold them to higher standards. In this, they’d be supported by developers who don’t like the prospect of a higher approvals bar.

Australia’s iconic places and species are headed for extinction. Shutterstock

A big year ahead

Samuel noted “governments should avoid the temptation to cherry pick from a highly interconnected suite of recommendations”. But this is exactly what the Morrison government is doing.

I hope the Senate will force the government to work through the full detail of the recommendations with stakeholders, as Ley says she’d like to.

But at this stage there’s little sign the government plans to embrace the reforms in full, or indeed that it has any vision for Australia’s environment.

All this plays out against still-raw memories of last summer’s bushfires, and expected pressure from the United States, under President Joe Biden, for developed economies such as Australia to lift their climate game.

With the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow in November, it seems certain the environment will be high on Australia’s national agenda in 2021.

Links