Government approves Santos Barossa pipeline and sea dumping

The Australia Institute Media Release Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s Department has approved a…

If The Jackboots Actually Fit …

By Jane Salmon If The Jackboots Actually Fit … Why Does Labor Keep…

Distinctions Without Difference: The Security Council on Gaza…

The UN Security Council presents one of the great contradictions of power…

How the supermarkets lost their way in Oz

By Callen Sorensen Karklis Many Australians are heard saying that they’re feeling the…

Purgatorial Torments: Assange and the UK High Court

What is it about British justice that has a certain rankness to…

Why A Punch In The Face May Be…

Now I'm not one who believes in violence as a solution to…

Does God condone genocide?

By Bert Hetebry Stan Grant points out in his book The Queen is…

As Yemen enters tenth year of war, militarisation…

Oxfam Australia Media Release As Yemen enters its tenth year of war, its…

«
»
Facebook

Category Archives: Environment

Cutting Climate Change Research: Cuts at the Australian Antarctic Division

Australia’s funding priorities have been utterly muddled of late. At the Commonwealth level, there is cash to be found in every conceivable place to support every absurd military venture, as long as it targets those hideous authoritarians in Beijing. It seemed utterly absurd that, even as the Australian federal government announced its purchase of over 200 tomahawk cruise missiles – because that is exactly what the country needs – there are moves afoot to prune and cut projects conducted by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD).

On July 10, an email sent to all staff by the head of division, Emma Campbell, claimed that the AAD “won’t be able to afford” all current positions. Since then, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) has given a flimsy assurance that no jobs will be lost. “The focus will be on finding areas where work performed by those on fixed-term contracts can be incorporated into the work of ongoing staff,” stated a spokesperson for the department.

This all seemed an odd state of affairs, given the promise by the previous Morrison government that an additional AUD$804.4 million would be spent over a decade for scientific capabilities and research specific to Antarctic interests.

Unfortunately for those concerned with the bits and bobs at the AAD, the undertaking was not entirely scientific in nature. Part of the package included AUD$3.4 million to “enhance Australia’s international engagement to support the rules and norms of the Antarctic Treaty system and promote Australia’s leadership in Antarctic affairs.”

Australia’s long-standing obsession with claiming 42 per cent of the Antarctic, one that continues to remain unrecognised by other states, has meant that any exploration or claims by others are bound to be seen as threats. In 2021, the People’s Republic of China built its fifth research station base in Australia’s Antarctic environs, sparking concerns that Beijing may be less interested in the science than other potential rich offerings. They are hardly the only ones.

The AAD, however, has shifted its focus to identifying necessary savings amounting to 16% of the annual budget, a crude, spreadsheet exercise that can only harm the research element of the organisation. As Campbell’s staff-wide email goes on to declare, a review of the future season plan is also being pursued, along with the concern about a “budget situation [that] has made the three-year plan process harder than expected.”

A spokesperson for DCCEEW claimed that the resulting AUD$25 million difference in funding could be put down to the planning difficulties around the commissioned Antarctic icebreaker, the Nuyina. Few could have been surprised that the process resulted in delays, leading to the AAD to seek alternative shipping options.

What proved surprising to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (when will they ever change such excruciating names?) was that there had been “no cuts to the [AAD] at all”. As Federal Minister Catherine King went on to say, the Australian government had not altered administering “the $804 million budget that is there for the Antarctic Division. There are no cuts, we’re a bit perplexed as to where this story has come from.”

The difference between Canberra’s automatic assumption of reliable finance and delivery has not, it would seem, translated into the individual funding choices made in the ice-crusted bliss of Australia’s southern research stations. According to Nature, two of Australia’s permanent research stations – Mawson and Davis – will not be staffed to their full capacity over the summer period.

The implication for such a budget trim will have one logical consequence. As Jan Zika, a climate scientist working at the University of New South Wales reasons, “When someone says there’s a cut to the AAD, it basically means less science, less understanding of what’s going on.” Zika is unsparing in suggesting that this was “catastrophic” (the word comes easily) given the changes to the sea ice under study. “We’re seeing so little sea ice relative to what we normally see at this time of the year.”

To have such gaps in data collection was also “catastrophic” to scientific and ecological understanding. “If we have data up to a certain date, and then we have a gap for three years, five years, and then we start to get the data again, it doesn’t make it useless. But it makes it really hard for us to get that understanding that we need.”

Zika is certainly correct about the sea ice findings. On June 27, data gathered by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that the sea ice enveloping Antarctica was a record winter low of 11.7 million square kilometres, namely, more than 2.5 million square kilometres below the average for the time between 1981 and 2010.

Other researchers, notably those who collaborate with the AAD, fear the impeding effects of budget cuts. Christian Haas, a sea-ice specialist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany sees this as inevitable. Nathan Bindoff of the University of Tasmania, who specialises in physical oceanography, has also suggested that such funding cuts would delay investigative procedures with irreversible effect. “We’re probably going to be too late to address some of these questions.”

This hideous disjuncture says it all: climate change research, trimmed and stripped, thereby disrupting the gathering of data; military purchases and procurement, all the rage and adding to insecurity. While such foolish, exorbitant projects as the nuclear submarine plan under AUKUS is seen as an industry, country-wide enterprise that will produce jobs across the economy, the study of catastrophic climate change is being seen as a problem of secondary relevance, ever vulnerable to the financial razor gang.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

Transition to Net Zero not one size fits all

Media Release

New research from Victoria University’s Mitchell Institute has painted a clear picture of how Australia’s Net Zero by 2050 transition will impact regions and industries and recommended how to harness and mitigate the human cost.

Dr Melinda Hildebrandt used modelling completed by VU’s Centre of Policy Studies in 2021 to examine features of the most affected regions and industries, and some of the current transition initiatives already underway.

“We interviewed people engaged in work on local transition programs, mostly in the Hunter and LaTrobe valleys – this presented an accurate picture of the human cost and the significant need for urgent and targeted responses,” Dr Hildebrandt said.

In early May 2023, the Federal Government established a National Net Zero Authority to support Australia’s transition by supporting workers, coordinate programs and policies and help investors and companies.

“The National Net Zero Authority is welcomed but to ensure the authority is effective, we recommend a nuanced approach taking into account the unique features of each region and industry – it can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach,” she said.

Recommendations:

  1. Coordinate resources across different levels of government and organisation so that the support is provided where and when it is needed.
  2. Identify best practice and fund support to affected regions/employees so that regions can learn from each other.
  3. Conduct further research so that policy makers are informed about the changing impacts of the transition to net zero economy at an industry and regional level.

The 2021 modelling focused on two labour market scenarios:

  1. ‘Business-as-usual’ where Australia continues to rely on fossil fuels and does not reduce its emissions.
  2. Where Australia commits to net zero emissions by 2050.

VU’s Centre of Policy Studies’ Professor Philip Adams said the work provided the evidence needed to challenge perceptions of transitioning to net zero would be an economic disaster. The team also identified the nine regions and ten industries most affected by a transition to net zero.

“The modelling shows all regions in Australia will continue to grow in a post-fossil fuel era – in fact, industries you’d think would suffer like coal mining, will continue to be sizable employers,” Professor Adams said.

The research team has submitted their final report to Jobs and Skills Australia for consideration.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

Court orders a halt to logging in Newry State Forest

Bellingen Activist Network Media Release

Gumbaynggirr Elders are claiming a small but important victory over the NSW Forestry Corporation (FCNSW) in the battle over protection of cultural areas in Newry State Forest.

This morning, in the Land and Environment Court, Forestry Corp NSW have entered into an undertaking that restrains them from logging operations in Newry State Forest until this Friday 4pm.

The undertaking is to provide time for Gumbaynggirr elders to enter the forest and assess cultural heritage damage and to file legal proceedings against the Forestry Corporation.

“We are relieved to have our first win in court this morning – a temporary reprieve from the destruction of our sacred homelands. I can now go up to our Nunguu mountain and do cultural business again,” shares Uncle Bud.

The injunction proceedings are being filed in response to active logging taking place within the Newry State Forest over sites that hold significant cultural value to the local Gumbaynggirr people.

Forestry Corporation would be held in serious contempt of court if they breach the terms of the undertaking. This is in place until the next hearing, where matters will be reassessed. The community is then hoping a formal injunction will be put in place.

“There have been concerns about the lack of transparency from Forestry Corporation who have avoided Gumbaynggirr community consultation processes and ignored contact and questions from the community” said Sandy Greenwood, Gumbaynggirr custodian and spokesperson.

“This has been the first positive response from the Forestry Corporation since the protest camp was set up and the forest blockaded three weeks ago. Forestry Corporation has made it nearly impossible to take them to court, so we are seeing this as a promising opportunity to hold them accountable and protect cultural areas,” added Sandy Greenwood.

The camp is being supported by Gumbaynggirr custodians, and is made up of locals and various environmental groups. Hundreds of people have visited over the last few weeks, with events and actions making national news.

More information on upcoming local actions and events can be found at facebook.com/bellingenactivistnetwork

 

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Climate Change Litigation: The Montana Precedent

Climate change litigation is falling into pressing fashion. In Australia, the 2021 case of Sharma, despite eventually failing before three judges in the Federal Court in 2022, suggested that ministers had been put on notice regarding a potential duty of care regarding the consequences of approving fossil fuel projects.

The lower court decision had shaken the fossil fuel industry with its finding in favour of the eight children and their litigation guardian, an octogenarian nun. Justice Bromberg found that considering the potential harm arising from carbon dioxide emissions was a mandatory consideration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Minister for the Environment also had a duty of care given that it was reasonably foreseeable that the Australian children would face a risk of harm in extending the mine project. Furthermore, the Minister had control over that risk, given that she could approve the extension, and that the children were vulnerable to a real risk of harm arising from climatic threats.

While the three Federal Court justices disagreed with Justice Bromberg’s reasoning, rejecting his finding that the minister needed to consider the potential harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions to the children under the EPBC, one of the justices did leave room for a future consideration about finding a duty of care.

In Montana, a court has found in favour of 16 individuals aged from 5 to 22 who argued that their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment was violated by permitting fossil fuel projects. Only a smattering of states in the US, including Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, have enshrined environmental protections in their constitutions. The Montana constitution specifically enumerates that “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment … for present and future generations.”

In her August 14 decision, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley specifically held that the policy of evaluating fossil fuel permits, a process that did not permit agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions, was unconstitutional. “Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates the plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.” As it stood, the policy had already contributed, unlawfully, to “depletion and degradation” of the state’s environment.

The judge refused to accept the state’s contention that Montana’s environmental role was miniscule and insignificant in the scheme of such emissions, and that stopping carbon dioxide emissions would have no effect in any tangible way given the global contributions of other countries.

Talking heads have expressed a range of views about the significance of the decision. Michael Gerrard of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change called the Held decision “the strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court.”

Richard Lazarus, Harvard Law School professor, suggests that the impact of the decision should not be exaggerated, though nonetheless accepted its singular nature. (The decision is the first of its kind in the US.) “To be sure, it is a state court not a federal court and the ruling is based on a state constitution and not the US Constitution,” he stated to the Associated Press, “but it is still clearly a major, pathbreaking win for climate plaintiffs.”

James Huffman of the Portland-based Lewis & Clark Law School was even less impressed. “The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or federal constitutional right.”

Indeed, the judge’s finding is also hampered by a failure to enforce the remedial right. The plaintiffs can only expect the Montana legislature to implement policies that do not violate entitlements to a clean environment, suggesting that the right is negative in nature. It involves no imposition of any duty to adopt a GHG mitigation strategy.

That said, the state regulator now faces the prospect of having to consider climate effects and greenhouse gas emissions regarding current projects, including the $283 million, 175 MW gas-fired powerplant under construction on the Yellowstone River south of Billings. As Seeley noted, construction on the project was initially paused as a consequence of an April court ruling that the Department of Environment Quality had erred in not considering the effects of an estimated 23 million tons of GHG emissions. Work had resumed, however, after the legislature’s amendment to the state energy law explicitly preventing state agencies from considering “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Such a resumption of construction had taken place in the absence of any review about the “cumulative impacts of the permits [the regulator] issues on GHG emissions or climate change.”

Seeley also noted that four private coal power plants have been authorised to produce 30% of Montana’s energy needs “without considering how the added GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the standards the Constitution imposes” on the state’s entities “to protect people’s rights.”

The Montana legislature, which remains the least impressed of all, promises to appeal the decision, and they, as with the Australian Commonwealth in the Sharma case, might well succeed. Emily Flower, spokesperson for the state’s attorney general, Austin Knudsen, restated the government position that those in Montana “can’t be blamed for changing the climate.” The legal theory being tested “has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well.”

Despite such consternation and opposition from legislatures, a judicial clearing is being made for plaintiffs keen to drag lawmakers and decisionmakers away from blithe complacency and comfortable accommodation with the fossil fuel lobby. Ecological sustainability, in time, promises to become a matter, not merely of express rights as solemnly implied ones.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

How will they explain themselves to their grandchildren?

It is hard to understand the stupidity of Australia’s political leaders when it comes to the climate catastrophe. It is a given that the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott will ignore the facts as they unfold, but even they must have noticed what’s going on.

Maybe the political class don’t watch television, or read newspapers, or have relatives living overseas, but the rest of us do.

Two years ago there were horrific floods in Germany and Belgium, in mid-July 2021, which killed more than 220 people. Damage was widespread and was seen as far away as the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. In Europe, in summer.

In Australia we know the lasting devastation of floods, and the impossibility of future proofing. The only solution is to re-build, if re-build you must, on higher ground.

Is a flood more real if it happens in Germany rather than in Lismore, or Shepparton? Are wildfires more devastating when they happen in Canada or Greece? Does total destruction of a town in Hawaii mean more than if it happens in Mallacoota?

Ask Matt Canavan why he chooses to ignore the facts of climate destruction in Australia. What does he think of the lack of sea ice in the Antarctic this year? Some scientists think the rise in sea levels, caused by the undermining of the ice in Antarctica, could range from between 2 metres to 10 metres.

Imagine the harm to our coastal cities if it comes in closer to 10 metres. Well, they won’t be there anymore, so it’s not difficult to imagine the damage. It won’t make it hard to get onto the West Gate Bridge, because the West Gate Bridge will be an abandoned arc of empty roadway, and what would be the use of driving to Geelong, because Geelong won’t be there anymore.

Kardinia Park will be an empty reservoir. But enough imagining, already. For our intellectually challenged leaders, the plight of our civilisation is at stake.

Droughts and bushfires will alternate with flooding rains, as the seasons change. Mass starvation will lead to mass migrations, from those lands most affected, to those less affected.

If you think living in the mountains, far away from the mass populations of cities, will make you safe from the changes in the climate, think again.

Towns in the Andes mountains in Peru have reached 38°C or more, while in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, temperatures above 30°C have been recorded; this month. It is winter there now.

Peter Dutton wants to fix the climate crisis with nuclear power. Does he know how long it takes to arrange for a nuclear power station to be approved, planned and built? Does he not own a clock, or a calendar?

On the government’s side of the ledger, more than 2,000 medical professionals have demanded that the Albanese government withdraw $1.5bn funding for the Middle Arm industrial development, in the Northern Territory.

The funding is a handout to assist the development of the huge Beetaloo Basin gas field. Labor is struggling to disguise the funding. Are votes in the short-term worth wrecking the climate?

We have been told that the earth is reaching, and in some cases, passing through “tipping points” for the climate.

It doesn’t take much imagination to recognise the utter failure of almost every government on earth to react to the crisis.

See the piss-ant state governments as they legislate to criminalise the actions of climate activists. Jailing them won’t achieve anything. It is as effective and as ridiculous as trying to stop the tide.

See how the so-called leaders of governments world-wide baulk at the difficult conversations they need to have with their citizens, to convince them that time has almost run out.

Believe it or not, but the scientists need to change their language, from calm reason to barely suppressed terror. We are facing Armageddon, and politicians are worried that people will either panic, or vote them out of power.

They need to get to the front. Show some leadership. Make change. Don’t worry about plans for fifty years in the future, your rubbish plans for nuclear subs and inland rail.

Worry about the end of civilisation as we know it. Worry about our children and their children. I don’t want my grandchildren starving because we had a leadership which valued the chance of a directorship with a gas company over the survival of humanity.

And the leaders of today need to know there is nowhere to hide if it all turns to manure. They were warned, and there is not a mountain high enough to escape to.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Water Wars: Cooling the Data Centres

Water. Data centres. The continuous, pressing need to cool the latter, which houses servers to store and process data, with the former, which is becoming ever more precious in the climate crisis. Hardly a good comingling of factors.

Like planting cotton in drought-stricken areas, decisions to place data hubs in various locations across the globe are becoming increasingly contentious from an environmental perspective, and not merely because of their carbon emitting propensities. In the United States, which houses 33% of the globe’s data centres, the problem of water usage is becoming acute.

As the Washington Post reported in April this year, residents in Mesa, Arizona were concerned that Meta’s decision to build another data centre was bound to cause more trouble than it was worth. “My first reaction was concern for our water,” claimed city council member Jenn Duff. (The state already has approximately 49 data centres.)

The move to liquid cooling from air cooling for increasingly complex IT processes has been relentless. As the authors of a piece in the ASHRAE Journal from July 2019 explain, “Air cooling has worked well for systems that deploy processors up to 150 W, but IT equipment is now being manufactured with processors well above 150 W where air cooling is no longer practical.” The use of liquid cooling was not only more efficient than air cooling regarding heat transfer, but “more energy efficient, reducing electrical energy costs significantly.” The authors, however, show little concern about the water supplies needed in such ventures.

The same cannot be said about a co-authored study on the environmental footprint of US-located data centres published two years later. During their investigations, the authors identified a telling tendency: “Our bottom-up approach reveals one-fifth of data center servers’ direct water footprint comes from moderately to highly stressed watersheds, while nearly half of servers are fully or partially powered by power plants located within water stressed reasons.” And to make things just that bit less appealing, it was also found that roughly 0.5% of total US greenhouse gas emissions could also be attributed to such centres.

Google has proven to be particularly thirsty in this regard, not to mention secretive in the amount of water it uses at its data hubs. In 2022, The Oregonian/Oregon Live reported that the company’s water use in The Dalles had almost tripled over five years. The increased usage was enabled, in no small part, because of increased access to the municipal water supply in return for an upgrade to the water supply and a transfer of certain water rights. Since establishing the first data centre in The Dalles in 2005, Google has also received tax breaks worth $260 million.

The city officials responsible for the arrangement were in no mood to answer questions posed by the inquisitive paper on Google’s water consumption. A prolonged 13-month legal battle ensued, with the city arguing that the company’s water use constituted a “trade secret”, thereby exempting them from Oregon’s disclosure rules. To have disclosed such details would have, argued Google, revealed information on how the company cooled their servers to eager competitors.

In the eventual settlement, The Dalles agreed to provide public access to 10 years of historical data on Google’s water consumption. The city also agreed to pay $53,000 to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which had agreed to represent The Oregonian/Oregon Live. The city’s own costs had run into $106,000. But most troubling in the affair, leaving aside the lamentable conduct of public officials, was the willingness of a private company to bankroll a state entity in preventing access to public records. Tim Gleason, former dean of the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication, saw this distortion as more than just a touch troubling. “To allow a private entity to essentially fund public advocacy of keeping something out of the public domain is just contrary to the basic intent of the law.”

Instead of conceding that the whole enterprise had been a shabby affront to local residents concerned about the use of a precious communal resource, compromising both the public utility and Google, the company’s global head of infrastructure and water strategy, Ben Townsend, proved benevolent. “What we thought was really important was that we partner with the local utility and actually transfer those water rights over to the utility in a way that benefits the entire community.” That’s right, dear public, they’re doing it for you.

John Devoe, executive director of the WaterWatch advocacy group, also issued a grim warning in the face of Google’s ever increasing water use, which will burgeon further with two more data centres promised along the Columbia River. “If the data center water use doubles or triples over the next decade, it’s going to have serious effects on fish and wildlife on source water streams, and it’s potentially going to have serious effects for other water users in the area of The Dalles.”

Much of the policy making in this area is proving to be increasingly shoddy. With a global demand for ever more complex information systems, including AI, the Earth’s environment promises to be stripped further. Information hunger risks becoming a form of ecological license.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Black & Veatch to Advance Carbon-Neutral Aviation in Australia, New Zealand

Media Release

The company joins Bioenergy Australia’s alliance as a $30 million fund is announced for sustainable aviation fuel development.

MELBOURNE: Black & Veatch, a global leader in critical infrastructure solutions, has joined Bioenergy Australia’s (BA) Sustainable Aviation Fuel Alliance of Australia and New Zealand (SAFAANZ).

BA is a national industry association, with over 150 members, committed to accelerating Australia’s bio-economy. BA founded the SAFAANZ to create a collaborative environment to advance SAF production, policy, education and marketing in Australia and New Zealand.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is produced by processing renewable sources such as waste cooking oil, plant oils and agricultural residues for use in commercial airplanes. The fuel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 per cent compared to traditional jet fuel.

“Electrification is essential for many pillars of the energy system. Yet, it is only part of the solution to reducing emissions. Australia’s heavy industries, aviation, marine, agriculture and mining need affordable and immediate decarbonisation options, such as renewable fuel. We are excited to work with industry leaders, like Black & Veatch, to identify pathways to produce the fuel affordably and at scale,’’ Bioenergy Australia CEO Shahana McKenzie said.

“As well as decarbonising the aviation sector, sustainable fuels will decarbonise all transportation forms – people and goods. Joining SAFAANZ means Black & Veatch can meaningfully contribute to the advancement of sustainable fuels in Australia and New Zealand, given our extensive global engineering and construction experience across aviation fuel, methanol to gasoline, biogas and renewable natural gas,” said Mick Scrivens, Vice President, Director, Australia Pacific, Black & Veatch.

About 2.5 per cent of the world’s total carbon emissions are generated by the global aviation sector. In Australia, the industry accounts for about 1 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that SAF could contribute around 65 per cent of the reduction in emissions needed by aviation to reach net zero in 2050.

Presently, demand for SAF exceeds its supply. Australia, with abundant residue resources, agriculture and waste, has strong potential to meet both domestic and global SAF supply needs.

To realize its potential, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) set aside $30 million (US$20 million) in July to facilitate the development of a SAF industry with production from renewable feedstocks available locally. The Sustainable Aviation Fuels Funding Initiative will assess opportunities across the supply chain from renewable feedstock supply to final fuel production, identifying their requirements to enable and scale a domestic SAF industry.

The wider deployment of SAF will be supported by overcoming barriers, including affordability, competition for feedstocks, sustainability, airport infrastructure and cost-effective scaling of production.

About Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch is a 100% employee-owned global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company with a more than 100-year track record of innovation in sustainable infrastructure. Since 1915, we have helped our clients improve the lives of people around the world by addressing the resilience and reliability of our most important infrastructure assets. Our revenues in 2022 were US$4.3 billion. Follow us on www.bv.com and on social media.

About Bioenergy Australia

Bioenergy Australia (BA) is the national industry association, with over 150 members, committed to accelerating Australia’s bio-economy. Our mission is to foster the bioenergy sector to generate jobs, secure investment, maximise the value of local resources, minimise waste and environmental impact, and develop and promote national bioenergy expertise into international markets.

Bioenergy Australia works with the Renewable Gas Alliance (RGA), Sustainable Aviation Fuel Alliance of Australia and New Zealand (SAFAANZ) and the Cleaner Fuels Alliance (CFA). These alliances were founded to accelerate the development and deployment of Renewable Liquid Fuels and Biomethane for deployment in Australia.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Dumping Doubts: Releasing Fukushima’s Waste Water

Nothing said from the nuclear industry can or should be taken for face value. Be it in terms of safety, or correcting defects or righting mistakes; be it in terms of construction integrity, there is something chilling about reassurances that have been shown, time and again, to be hollow.

The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) disaster has forever stained the Japanese nuclear industry. Since then, the site has been marked by over 1,000 tanks filled with contaminated water that arises from reactor cooling. The attempts by the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc (TEPCO) to decommission and clean the plant has also seen a daily complement of 150 tons arising from groundwater leakage into the buildings and systems involved in the cooling process.

According to Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority, the gradual 1.3 million or so tons kept in those tanks into the Pacific over three decades is something that can be executed without serious environmental consequences. This was a view that was already entertained in 2021, expressing confidence that the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) being used in cleaning the contaminated water would be effective. Of primary concern here is the presence of a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium, the presence of which is a challenge to remove.

There are various questions arising from this, not least the assumption that the levels of radioactivity arising from tritium will be significantly reduced by 1/40th of regulatory standards through the use of seawater. But as has been pointed out by such scientists as Ken Buesseler, Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress and Antony M. Hooker, there are also nontritium radionuclides that “are generally of greater health concern as evidenced by their much higher dose coefficient – a measure of the dose, or potential human health impacts associated with a given radioactive element, relative to its measured concentration, or radioactivity level.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency neither recommends nor endorses the plans – a curious formulation that does little for confidence. Its safety review of the plan to release treated water does, however, conform, in the view of the IAEA General Rafael Mariano Grossi, to the body’s safety standards. “The IAEA notes the controlled, gradual discharges of the treated water into the sea, as currently planned and assessed by TEPCO, would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.”

A number of countries have expressed consternation at the planned move, including concern that the IAEA may have been lent upon to reach its conclusions on the Japanese release program. Tokyo is, after all, a generous donor to the organisation. For his part, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno huffed at the claim that “Japanese funding and staffing at the IAEA [could be used] to question the neutrality of the IAEA final report.” Not only did such criticism “completely miss the target but also shakes the significance of the existence of international organisations.”

Members of Japan’s fishing and agricultural industry, China, South Korea and the Pacific Island nations concerned about the fate of the Blue Pacific, have been vocal opponents. China’s Foreign Ministry opined that the report had been released in “haste”, failing “to fully reflect the views from experts that participated in the review.”

But some in the nuclear and environmental science fraternity are wondering what the fuss is all about, though their rebuttals hardly inspire optimism. University of Portsmouth’s Jim Smith, an academic of environmental science, considered all such concerns “just propaganda. The politicians don’t have any evidence in saying this.” More to the point, other sites had also been responsible for releasing tritiated water, including a nuclear site in China and the Cap de La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site, which already “releases 450 times more tritiated water into the English Channel Fukushima ha planned for release into the Pacific.” What examples to emulate.

Nigel Marks, Brendan Kennedy and Tony Irwin also tell us, based on their “collective professional experience in nuclear science and nuclear power,” that the release will be safe. Their primary focus, however, is solely on the treatment of tritium, based on an almost heroic assumption that 62 other relevant radionuclides higher than regulatory standards have been effectively removed by the ALPS approach.

They dismiss those old phobias of radiation, underlining it as a common feature of the environment. “Almost everything is radioactive to some degree, including air, water, plants, basements and granite benchtops. Even a long-haul airline flight supplies a few chest X-rays worth of radiation to everyone on board.” Continuing their focus on tritium, the wise trio find that the Pacific Ocean already has 8.4 kg (3,000 petabecquerels, or PBq) of the substance, compared to 3g (1PBq) of the total tritium present in the Fukushima wastewater.

Such views serve to soften and conceal the broader problems of institutional malfeasance and past secrecy, citing the argument of sound science to conceal error and good old incompetence. The discharge plans have also been sold in technical, jargon-laden terms, notably to such audiences as the Pacific Islands Forum.

Adding to this the inherent clandestine air that has surrounded TEPCO, scepticism should not only be mandatory but instinctive. Why not, ask such voices as Hooker and Buesseler, consider other disposal methodologies, such as solidifying the ALPS treated wastewater within concrete? No, counter the Japanese authorities, citing insuperable technical and legal problems.

That remains the troubling question. As Dalnoki-Veress writes, Japan’s claims to have investigated and rejected that encasement option in any comprehensive, systematic way should be dismissed out of hand. “One way it is different is that it suggested using diluted water rather than ALPS treated water which will be 2 orders of magnitude less in volume.” How awfully cheeky of them.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The Fossil Fuel Proliferation Threat

Climate change negotiations and debates are characterised by some curious features. For one, there are interminable stretches of discussion that never seem to feature the agents of cause. Chatter about horrendous fires, toxic smoke, and environmental degradation often skirts around the culprit of anthropogenic change, so ably aided by fossil fuels.

With the fossil fuel industries of so many countries buried in the treaty back cover and the subtext, their existence continues to thrive. Oil, coal and gas projects are being approved in an almost schizoid manner even as the trendily minded cosy up to the message of renewable energy. As the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative notes, “While the Paris Agreement set a crucial global climate target, many governments – including self-proclaimed climate leaders – have continued to approve new coal, oil, and gas projects even though burning the world’s current fossil fuel reserves would result in seven times more emissions than what is compatible with keeping warming below 1.5°C.”

Emblematic of this are such projects as the expansion of Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, which has seen government money poured into a project private investment simply would not back. In 2018, when the private company Kinder Morgan sought to cancel the initiative due to prohibitive costs, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acquired the pipeline for C$4.5 billion.

Continued opposition from the indigenous Secwepemc and environmental activists has been rebuffed, even as Trudeau boasts of his green credentials on the world stage. To quote Angela V. Carter, a political scientist based at the University of Waterloo, “There’s two versions of reality here, and they’re not aligned.” In her view, “one of two things is going to happen. We’re either blowing well past 1.5 degrees or we’re aligning actions to meet [climate targets]. We can’t have it both ways.”

In a peculiar twist of policy, one deservedly seen as ironic, moronic and ghoulish, governments are aiding – dare one even say cuddling? – the fossil fuel industry through massive subsidies and funding. In this exercise of offering a pillow and tea-party for the environmental assassin, The Economist, not exactly a leftwing bomb thrower, came to a staggering figure: the industry, according to 2019 figures, was receiving annual subsidies to the tune of to $427 billion. In Australia alone, both state and federal governments underwrote fossil fuels to the value of A$11.6 billion in 2021/22.

Much like Canada, Australia faces the expansive power of a fossil fuel lobby which sees no interest in surrendering its influence. It is no exaggeration to say that this lobby has destroyed the careers of several prime ministers, with the hope of doing away with a few more.

The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources 2022 report from the Office of the Chief Economist avoids mentioning climate change altogether. Emissions are only mentioned from the perspective of projected reductions, be they in terms of steel production or the iron ore supply chain. And in a curious twist, “new energy metals” such as nickel, cobalt and lithium are praised in the reduction effort, focused as they are on the production of battery cathode precursors and such conserving devices.

Despite the Albanese government being, on paper, a more ecologically sound one than its predecessor, little seems to have changed in the stunted Federal Environment portfolio. From that office, coal mine approvals or expansions have been issued like the enthusiastic emissions they will cause. The Australia Institute has found, much to its horror, that there are 26 additional proposals for new or expanded coal mines on the books pending federal government approval. To these can already be added two approvals since May 2022. “Approving 28 new coal mines,” warns the thinktank, “and the 12.6 billion tonnes of emissions they would cause, is incompatible with limiting dangerous climate change.”

In March, the Australia Institute’s chief economist, Richard Denniss, noted no fewer than 116 new coal, oil and gas projects awaiting in the approvals pipeline. Were these to go ahead, an extra 1.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases would make their way into the atmosphere on an annual basis by 2030. This would be almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions in 2021-2, which came to 490 million tonnes. “That’s the equivalent,” writes Denniss, “of starting up 215 new coal power stations, based on the average emissions of Australia’s current existing coal power stations.”

This is further complicated by the accounting regime for such production. The emissions framework as it stands tends to consider onshore emissions, not what happens at the export destination. Most of Australia’s oil, coal and gas will find their way into foreign markets, making something of a nonsense of the containment thesis on fossil fuels.

Any number of wise words issuing from such bodies as Australia’s Climate Change Council only serve to highlight the chasm between sagacious warnings and the ruthless continuation of the status quo. Initiatives such as free rooftop solar, pumped hydro, storage batteries and electric vehicle charging stations will mean little till the deep-seated influence of the fossil fuel lobby is wound back in the corridors of government power.

For any genuine change to take place, such initiatives as nailing down a non-proliferating fossil fuels regime, would have to take place. Till that happens, hope will have to rest in the hands of eager child litigants, the legal instincts of First Nations peoples, and an assortment of brief-wielding allies concerned about the genuine risks of harm that will arise from catastrophic climate change. To the courts they have gone, as many others will go. But as this takes place, fossil fuel proliferation continues.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Alarming discovery by citizen scientists sparks concerns illegal logging will continue

Wildlife of the Central Highlands (WOTCH), Victorian Forest Alliance (VFA) and Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) Media Release

Citizen scientists from Wildlife of the Central Highlands (WOTCH) and the Victorian Forest Alliance (VFA) have discovered state-owned logging company VicForests has continued to illegally destroy numerous endangered Tree Geebungs while doing ‘regeneration’ works. The area is within the Immediate Protection Areas announced by the Daniel Andrews government back in 2019. One tree knocked over is estimated to be hundreds of years old.

The groups have reported the illegal logging of the endangered plant, calling for VicForests to be charged for violating state environment laws. The Environment Department’s regulator has responded saying they don’t have the power to act on the breach because the protection areas haven’t been formalised.

“State-owned VicForests have once again been caught red-handed. The agency repeatedly flouts the law, while the regulator does nothing to stop them. Despite the government’s plan to bring an earlier end to native forest logging, we hold grave concerns for forests and endangered species like the Tree Geebung, that are still under threat from VicForests destructive logging. VicForests needs to be wound up,” said Chris Schuringa, Victorian Forest Alliance Campaign Coordinator.

While the government has said they are phasing out native forest logging on Jan 1, they have not made a decision about the future of failed state-owned logging agency VicForests.

Tree Geebung (Persoonia arborea) is a mid-story tree found only in the tall wet forests of Victoria’s Central Highlands. Research shows trees over 20 cm in diameter can be hundreds of years old[1]. On 26 October 2022, Warburton Environment Inc. won a landmark Supreme Court case against VicForests over the agency’s failure to protect Tree Geebung from logging. In his judgement, Hon. Justice Garde stated;

“…no attempt was made by VicForests to show that it was not reasonably practicable to protect the significant number of Tree Geebungs… Given the evidence as to the past harvesting and burning practices of VicForests, it is highly likely that significant numbers of mature Tree Geebungs have been lost in the Central Highlands in the past through harvesting and regeneration burning. The precise extent of the loss will never be known, but on the basis of recent records it is likely to amount to many hundreds or even thousands of mature trees.”

“Citizen scientists and volunteer groups have been shouldering the responsibility of finding and reporting countless breaches of the laws for years. Yet the state government recently brought in laws to further criminalise citizen scientists and peaceful protestors, who now face thousands of dollars worth of fines and potential jail time, instead of cracking down on rampant illegal logging,” said Wildlife of the Central Highlands (WOTCH) President Hayley Forster.

“The government must enact proper protections for forests, particularly after Jan 1 when logging is slated to end. Logging has had terrible impacts on forests over the last 50 years, and there’s a lot of important ecological restoration work that needs to be done. But VicForests have shown that it cannot be trusted in that role,” said Hayley Forster.

“These areas were promised to have been protected since 2019, but the government has been slow to formalise, now threatened species are being smashed up in the name of restoration. The forests need real restoration, not further destruction,” said VNPA Executive Director, Matt Ruchel.

“The community has lost faith in VicForests and they need to go sooner rather than later,” said VNPA Executive Director, Matt Ruchel.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

First Nations leaders join Rainbow Warrior in solidarity for climate justice

Grata Fund and Greenpeace Media Release

Muru kalma sipa – ‘All together we stand’: Torres Strait and Pacific communities on board for climate justice

First Nations leaders and plaintiffs of the Australian Climate Case, Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, join Greenpeace’s iconic Rainbow Warrior as it sails from Cairns to Vanuatu in support of the historic campaign to take climate harm to the world’s highest court.

Greenpeace’s iconic Rainbow Warrior will arrive in Cairns this week to join with First Nations leaders from the Guda Maluyligal in the Torres Strait, Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, plaintiffs in the Australian Climate Case who have taken the Australian government to court for failing to protect their island homes from climate change.

Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, alongside other inspiring climate litigants like Anjali Sharma, will join the ship as it sails to Vanuatu in solidarity with Pasifika communities who, like those in the Torres Strait, are holding governments and corporations to account after decades of inaction.

Cairns is the launchpad for the Rainbow Warrior’s tour, which sees the ship return to the Pacific as part of a global campaign to take climate harm to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court. After passing the United Nations General Assembly by consensus earlier this year, the historic campaign for an advisory opinion on climate now heads to The Hague where, if successful, could change the destiny of millions of people bearing the brunt of climate impacts, from rising seas, to cyclones and extreme weather events, and usher in a new wave of climate litigation globally.

Uncle Pabai Pabai says:

“We come in friendship and solidarity to meet with Pacific communities and leaders. The most important part is that we engage together in sharing our experience of climate change and our cultural ways of connecting together, and that gives us strength.”

After years of inaction, the Australian Government has indicated a renewed focus on rebuilding relationships in the Pacific. Last year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said “the entry fee for credibility in international relations [in the Pacific] in this century is action on climate change.” The Australian government says that it will reduce emissions by 43% in 2030, but this is not enough to save our island homes in the Torres Strait and low lying communities in the Pacific. Leading climate scientists on the Climate Targets Panel calculate that Australia’s greenhouse emissions need to be reduced by 74% by 2030.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific Senior Campaigner Steph Hodgins-May said:

“Australia’s relationship with the Pacific is contingent on real climate action, but at a time when we should be moving rapidly away from coal, oil and gas, the government is green lighting new fossil fuel mega projects.”

“The Australian Government must act in line with the best available science to protect everyone’s island homes – a strong submission to the ICJ is a statement in support of communities in Australia and the Pacific who need urgent action to protect them from climate harm.”

Through this voyage, Uncle Pabai and Uncle Paul want to build a bridge between Boigu and Saibai in the Torres Strait to Vanuatu strengthening the mutual support between communities. They hope that by working together they can help each other to increase the pressure on the Australian Government, and other countries to take climate action that will protect our communities.

About Grata Fund and Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Grata Fund advocates for a strong and functioning democracy by using circuit breaking litigation to hold the powerful to account. Grata is Australia’s first specialist non-profit strategic litigation incubator and funder. Grata develops, funds, and builds sophisticated campaign architecture around high impact, strategic litigation brought by people and communities in Australia. We focus on communities, cases and campaigns that have the potential to break systemic gridlocks across human rights, climate action and democratic freedoms.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is the leading independent campaigning organisation that uses peaceful direct action to fight for a green and peaceful future. Independent, global and powerful, we create the hope, opportunities and means to win a just and healthy planet together: greenpeace.org.au

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

National Museum of Australia launches environmental sustainability action plan

National Museum of Australia Media Release

The National Museum of Australia has launched its inaugural environmental sustainability action plan, which commits it to reducing its carbon emissions to net zero by 2030.

The Museum has embraced both Federal and Australian Capital Territory government legislation and guidelines to achieve certified carbonneutral status of its building and business practices by or before 2030.

Among the first steps the Museum has taken to reach its targets is acquiring electric vehicles, installing solar panels and reducing the use of utilities.

ACT Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Mr Shane Rattenbury said, The launch of the National Museum of Australia’s environmental and sustainability action plan is a significant step towards addressing climate change at the community level. By committing to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, the Museum demonstrates its dedication to taking action on climate change.

“By setting targets and taking action to reduce emissions, the Museum sets an example for other institutions to follow. This is the kind of leadership we need as we work together to create a zero emissions, environmentally conscious future,” Mr Rattenbury said.

National Museum Director, Dr Mathew Trinca, said, “The Museum takes great pride in setting out its vision of building audience capacity to sustain Australia’s rich natural environment and cultural heritage.

Through this action plan, the Museum commits to achieving its goals of carbonneutral certification, reducing its impact on the environment, and engaging audiences with knowledge to promote a sustainable future,” Dr Trinca said.

“We are particularly proud of our new gallery Great Southern Land, which explores Australia’s unique landscapes and biodiversity and asks visitors to consider how the land can help guide us through the environmental challenges of the future,” Dr Trinca said.

This year, electric vehicles will replace two of the Museum’s fleet of six internal combustion engine vehicles, with others to follow as the leases expire.

A 192kW solar panel system has recently been installed on the Museum building’s roof, which provides approximately 4.5% of the building’s electricity requirement.

The Museum’s action plan aligns with the Powering Australia plan’s emissions reduction program, APS Net Zero 2030, which requires the Australian Public Service to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2030.

The Museum’s plan also aligns with the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals, which seek internationally agreed outcomes in relation to sustainability.

While the Museum is subject to Federal legislation, its location within the ACT allows it to benefit from the ACT Government’s Waste Management Strategy, and electricity derived from 100% renewable sources.

Background

The Museum has developed four streams of activity, which reflect key areas of the Museum’s endeavours that impact on environmental sustainability.

Audience and community collecting, developing and delivering content that inspires and encourages audiences to join our sustainability ambition and take individual action.

Staff engagement championing an inclusive approach to improving business practices, knowledge, skills and delivery of sustainability activities.

Energy and materials improving levels of energy efficiency and the use of ethically sourced and renewable materials in our buildings, services, project outcomes and consumables.

Governance and partnerships embedding environmental sustainability, implementing best practice and developing mutually beneficial partnerships.

The National Museum’s Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 20232030 is available here.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Research shows young people want to contribute to natural disaster planning and recovery

Victoria University Media Release

Victoria University research in partnership with the Youth Affairs Council Victoria (YACVic) shows young people are keen to get involved during times of natural disaster preparation and recovery, yet they have few opportunities to help or have their needs heard.

Associate Professor Fiona MacDonald and YACVic colleagues drew on the experiences and views of young people in regional areas affected by the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20 for the study, and found many felt overlooked during times of crisis.

She called for natural disaster decision-makers and strategies to “change the narrative about young people, and regard them as capable and constructive ‘agents of change’ in their communities, instead of vulnerable and passive victims when preparing for, and recovering from natural disasters.”

Associate Professor MacDonald said this approach echoes an international disaster risk reduction strategy in the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.

“When young people are included in disaster management, there are benefits for themselves, their peers, community, and the environment. Yet as they increasingly seek opportunities to engage with issues that will impact them and their futures, they often find they are sidelined,” Associate Professor MacDonald said.

Young people in the study reported they heard adults talking to them instead of with them, and not seeking their perspectives about what they needed to rebuild their own resilience for future events.

She recommended government, community organisations, and educational institutions establish formal structures to provide opportunities and recognised training for young people to get involved across all levels of natural disaster planning and management.

The research examined the success of Rural Young Activators, a youth empowerment pilot program that was developed in regional Victoria with YACVic following the 2019-20 bushfires to support, upskill, and build the confidence of young people through local advocacy projects.

In 2020, YACVic partnered with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Victoria (RSPCA Victoria) for young people to co-create animal welfare projects following the bushfires.

Research from this program about ways young people could be better engaged and empowered during natural disasters recommends:

  • providing opportunities for young people to assist with rebuilding and clean-up, so they develop local skills and a sense of community contribution
  • ensuring government-funded youth workers and youth-safe spaces are established in areas prone to natural disasters in advance of disasters to help young people build prior resilience and connections
  • ensuring young people are meaningfully included in governance committees that make decisions about disaster preparedness and recovery.

Agents of change in bushfire recovery: Young people’s acts of citizenship in a youth-focused, animal-welfare and environmental program was recently published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Management.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Conservationists celebrate reports that state government will end native forest logging by the end of the year

Victorian Forest Alliance (VFA) Media Release

This morning the ABC has reported that the Daniel Andrews government has made a decision to bring forward the transition out of native forest logging, from 2030 to January 2024.

Conservationists and forest campaigners from across the state are celebrating the news, after long, and hard-fought campaigns, some spanning nearly four decades. Only months after the announcement in 2019 that native forest logging would be phased out through a decade-long transition, one of the largest and most devastating bushfires in human memory wiped out more than two thirds of the forest in the far east of the state, decimating forests and wildlife. Despite the catastrophic impacts of the fires, native forest logging continued.

Before the announcement in 2019, and to this day, state owned logging company VicForests has been involved in countless controversies and scandals, from serious breaches to environment laws, to using public funds to spy on conservationists and scientists. Last year VicForests reported a record annual loss of $54 million, subsidised by taxpayers.

Community legal cases and forms of direct action like citizen science have long been used to hold the state-owned logging agency accountable to the law, and to try and protect forests under threat from logging. Most recently a landmark case halted logging where endangered greater gliders and yellow-bellied gliders are found. The case was instrumental in upholding VicForests’ legal requirements to survey for wildlife prior to logging, a law they had been ignoring for years.

Spokesperson and Campaign Coordinator for the Victorian Forest Alliance, Chris Schuringa stated, “This is a monumental win; for forests, for wildlife, for climate, and for the hard-working people who have spent countless hours surveying for endangered species, preparing evidence for court cases, lobbying, and campaigning. Some have been fighting for this for over three decades.”

“There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure these forests are permanently protected from all kinds of destructive practices – not just conventional logging. The next priority is to focus on supporting workers through a just transition and restoring Victoria’s native forests, which will provide real, lasting, sustainable employment for regional communities.”

“But for now, we are overjoyed by this historic announcement, and acknowledge the hard work, passion and perseverance of all the people who have been fighting for this for so long.” said Chris Schuringa, VFA Campaign Coordinator.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Critically endangered turtles discovered in the Baffle Creek

Burnett Mary Regional Group Media Release

Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG) scientists have discovered critically endangered white-throated snapping turtles in the Baffle Creek for the first time.

Researchers made the important discovery recently while assessing the waterway as part of the Australian Government’s Emergency Flood Recovery project for wildlife and habitat.

Until now, the white-throated snapping turtle’s natural distribution had been documented as the Fitzroy, Burnett and Mary Rivers.

BMRG research director, Tom Espinoza, said the breakthrough was made on a freshwater section of the creek near Lowmead with landholder assistance.

Nets were used to safely trap, record and release fish and turtle species.

“It’s the Baffle by name and baffle by nature,” Mr Espinoza said.

“The catchment has a lot of value because it’s one of the only rivers on the east coast of Australia that doesn’t have any major water infrastructure on it.”

Mr Espinoza said three turtles were found, one female and two males.

“The significance of finding three of the turtles is there’s potentially a self-sustaining population of a critically endangered species,” he said.

“It extends the area we now know the species inhabits and genetically it could be very important.

“Historically, this catchment has been rarely sampled for freshwater threatened species, and it’s free of any dams or weirs.

“It’s a largely untouched, natural watercourse.”

Mr Espinoza said next steps included more comprehensive sampling, genetic analysis and risk assessment.

“It’s potentially an important research population to look at how a species behaves in its natural environment,” he said.

“Turtles are extremely important in rivers. They’re the vacuum cleaner of a watercourse; they clean up decomposing organic material and help to maintain good water quality.

“They’re also a totem for local First Nations people.”

The white-throated snapping turtle (Elseya albagula) grows to about 45cm long and is Australia’s largest freshwater turtle. It can live for up to 100 years.

It’s known colloquially as a “bum-breathing turtle” because it can absorb oxygen through its anus while submerged.

Researcher Quotes

Tom Espinoza, BMRG research director
It’s a very important discovery for my team because they’re young, up-and-coming scientists. It really ignites their passion. It’s a significant find for the scientific community and for anybody who’s interested in conservation of an endangered species.

Benjamin Hoekstra, BMRG project officer
Pulling in the first net and seeing the size of the large female turtle we had caught was exhilarating. It wasn’t until we started to process all the turtles, identifying the species and taking measurements did we start to realise the magnitude of catching three in this stretch of creek. It’s a highlight of my professional career and a moment that will resonate with me for quite some time.

Sydney Collett, BMRG project officer
It certainly was a highlight to see not only one white-throated snapping turtle, but three! Males and females, all looking incredibly healthy. It gives me hope that they are recovering, increasing distribution and are doing well. Often you don’t hear the success stories in conservation, particularly with critically endangered species, but it’s great to be a part of this good news.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button