Media Release

USA breakthrough genetic engineering and de-extinction company Colossal Biosciences is lending its support to the recovery of the recently rediscovered Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon. An interim insurance and conservation breeding program is being established at Melbourne Zoo for the Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla), a critically endangered reptile many considered likely extinct, and not seen since 1969 until a chance rediscovery earlier this year. 

Media Release

Living on the Edge project launches at the National Museum of Australia with a vibrant community day

Experience a stimulating array of art, performance, story-telling and conversations exploring Australia’s remarkable river and wetland communities at the River Country Community Day on Sunday 15 October at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra.

The River Country Community Day will be a free event exploring the Murray–Darling’s unique river and wetland communities, why these places matter and how we can act to protect and regenerate them. The day will feature thought-provoking talks, inspirational walks, performances and creative activities suited to all ages.

The day will also act as the official launch of Living on the Edge: Caring for Australia’s Threatened Places – a multi-year project sharing the stories of eight ecological communities from across Australia, each a vibrant but also deeply threatened network of land, water, plants, animals and people.

The project will ask how Australians can come together to better appreciate and care for these precious places at a time of devastating environmental decline.

Dr Mathew Trinca, Director of the National Museum of Australia said the Museum is thrilled to be highlighting some of Australia’s most stunning waterways.

“The Museum is looking forward to celebrating Australia’s distinct and beautiful river communities during the day of festivities. We have been working with diverse communities to create a day of lively performances, thought-provoking conversations and hands-on activities for the whole family,” said Dr Trinca.

The National Museum’s James O Fairfax Senior Fellow in Culture and Environment, Dr Kirsten Wehner, said that the Museum is delighted to be partnering with the Sydney Environment Institute on the Living on the Edge project and the River Country Community Day.

“River Country Community Day is a wonderful opportunity for people to explore and celebrate all the different ways that our lives are intertwined with the beautiful and threatened Murray–Darling rivers and wetlands.

Barkindji custodian David Doyle smokes the Barka (Darling River)
during the Pangala: Returning Home performance, Menindee,
NSW, June 2023.
Image © Jaqueline Cooper, National Museum of Australia

We often hear how the Murray–Darling system enables Australia’s agriculture, energy production and other industries. But it is also about river flows, shaded banks and wetlands, places that are home to hundreds of unique plants and animals and that are important culturally, socially and spiritually to the people who live with them.

Living on the Edge and the River Country Community Day bring people together to share how these places matter to them and why we need to make sure they flourish into the future. We all have a river story to share,” Dr Wehner said.

Living on the Edge is developed by the National Museum of Australia, through the James O Fairfax Senior Fellow in Culture and Environment Program, and the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney.

Bringing together the Institute and the Museum, with the support of the James Fairfax Foundation, combines scholarly research and public engagement to create a new kind of conversation about what it means for so many of our Australian plants and animals to be on the edge of extinction.

Associate Professor Thom Van Dooren, Deputy Director of the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney, said that Living on the Edge is an effort to foster a rich public dialogue about our growing biodiversity crisis.

“Through this partnership between the National Museum of Australia and the Sydney Environment Institute, we are working to gather stories from around the country about threatened species and places, what they mean to communities and why they matter so much. And then to share those stories with diverse audiences, from school children and families to scientists and policy makers, so that we might enrich and energise much-needed possibilities for change,” said Assoc Prof Van Dooren.

Visitors will have opportunities to learn about Molonglo Country while walking the Acton Peninsula, meet First Nations custodians protecting the ancient Gwydir wetlands, or enjoy poetry performances in the Great Southern Land gallery.

The National Museum’s Gandel Atrium will be transformed by a specially commissioned River Country art installation created by Canberra artist SA Adair in collaboration with Kirsten Wehner and artists from across the Murray–Darling system. Visitors will be invited to grow this ‘wetland’ by contributing their own river stories, memories and hopes.

During the day, visitors will be able to hear from artists responding to the sounds of swamps, join a drawing workshop, create a cyanotype platypus world, enjoy music and dance performances or simply relax with a picnic and great lakeside views in the Museum’s Amphitheatre.

The day will conclude with the premiere screening of an important new film, More than a Fish Kill, followed by a provocative Q&A session. This documentary explores how a collective of artists, fishery managers and First Nations custodians helped their communities respond to the devastating Menindee fish kills along the Baaka (Darling River), encouraging ecological and cultural renewal.

Silver perch await release into the Barka (Darling River) during
the Pangala: Returning Home performance, Menindee, NSW, June
2023
Image © Jaqueline Cooper, National Museum of Australia.

The Museum’s Tim and Gina Fairfax Discovery Centre, an immersive play and learn space for children of all abilities from birth to 6 years will also be free for the day, offering stories and activities for young children.

Living on the Edge brings together cultural researchers, writers, curators, traditional custodians and artists, as well as policymakers, scientists and community conservationists, to share knowledge and explore ideas about how to understand, protect and regenerate threatened ecological communities. The multi-year project will produce an online exhibition, events, creative commissions and education resources.

The event will be held across the Museum site on Sunday 15 October 2023 from 11am – 4:30pm.

This is both optimistic and troubling.

Fairfax media reports that “China has put the world’s oil cartel into a death spiral“.

On the one hand we need oil to die. Like, yesterday. Anyone who’s paying any attention to the state of the world’s climate must understand this by now. We’re not just talking about sea level rise and the possible loss of some beachfront property. Climate change isn’t just about bushfires and floods and cyclones, although all of these things are important and traumatic for the people who live through them, the insurance companies that end up paying for them, and everyone else when the insurance companies stop covering them. More important than all of this is the loss of biodiversity, the loss of a predictable climate, the loss of regular seasons and thus the loss of a large proportion of our global food supply. Not to mention the collapse of the logistics channels that takes that rice, should we happen to be successful in growing it, from its paddies in Indonesia to the kitchen table in Melbourne. Climate change isn’t just going to make life uncomfortable for us all. Unchecked, it will lead to the deaths of a large percentage of the current eight billion humans on the planet.

The burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor to the imbalance in the planet’s energy equation. It just is. If you’re going to comment that the climate has always changed or that humans are inconsequential or something something sunspots, please go elsewhere. This blog respects the science.

It follows that a big part of stopping climate change – if that’s still even possible – is the immediate and complete cessation of the burning of fossil fuels. So you would think that any news of a “death spiral” in oil extraction would be a good thing. But it’s not. Because oil is vital for a lot more than just turning into petrol (gas).

Obviously the biggest use of oil is turning it into petrol and other refined fuels. “We’re still reliant on fossil fuels for about 80 per cent of all of our total primary energy.” The world is working on reducing this. Too slowly, of course, but we’re building solar farms and hydroelectric generators and fleets of electric cars. And now, apparently, a burgeoning electric car industry in China is going to put OPEC and oil producers into a “death spiral”.

To understand this we need to understand the concept of EROEI.

Energy Returned on Energy Invested

"It takes energy to get energy, and the ratio of energy returned versus energy spent (energy return on investment, or EROI) has historically been extremely high for fossil fuels, as compared to previous energy sources." (resilience.org)

Or, to put it another way, it’s becoming harder, and thus more expensive, to pump a barrel of oil. For countries and companies whose existence relies on selling that oil for more than they spend to extract it, and in fact who require that excess to be continually growing, this means oil prices need to be kept high. Any forces that might reduce the demand for oil, and thus lower its price, run counter to that requirement. This is why we see OPEC (and, separately, both Russia and Saudi Arabia) deliberately reducing their oil output to force the price to remain higher.

"US industry executives are now openly acknowledging that US oil production is likely to peak within the next five or six years, or perhaps in 2030. But there is mounting evidence that the peak will come much earlier, with some industry observers pinpointing its arrival as early as within the next one or two years." (resilience.org)

OPEC and the oil-producing nations need oil to be expensive if they’re going to continue to make profit on extracting and refining it. Expensive oil means people look for alternatives. For a time, those alternatives included fracking in the US, but that bolster to oil supply is drying up.

“Many observers of the past 15 years of fracking frenzy have pointed out that the industry’s ability to increase levels of oil production has depended on low interest rates, which enabled companies to produce oil now and pay the bills later. Now central banks are raising interest rates in an effort to fight inflation, which is largely the result of higher oil and gas prices. But hiking interest rates will only discourage oil companies from drilling. This could potentially trigger a self-reinforcing feedback loop of crashing production, soaring energy prices, higher interest rates, and debt defaults, which would likely cease only with a major economic crash.” (resilience.org)

As the demand for oil goes down the price to generate a barrel of oil goes up, due to peak oil and the exhaustion of good/easy sources. Decreasing demand and increasing price can only lead to the collapse of the market. As oil prices rise, the profitability of renewable alternatives continues to improve. This will only hasten the transition to solar power and renewables across all of society. As the cost of petrol inexorably increases, consumers will prefer to buy the ever-cheaper and ever improving electric cars. This will further reduce the demand for oil and require oil producers to lift the per-barrel cost even higher to preserve their profits.

"In the late 2020s, then, we will likely see oil demand begin to peak. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the global oil industry is going to become economically unsustainable by around 2030, when it will begin consuming a quarter of its own energy just to keep pumping out more oil." (resilience.org)

Sooner or later this system has to break.

What about everything else?

Because of a combination of greed and circumstances, we’ve brought ourselves to a situation where oil is no longer profitable to extract. But we still need it for things other than burning for electricity and for powering our vehicles.

"Major sectors like agriculture could see a steep decline, due to the scarcity of oil-based fertilizers and fuel. The ripple effect could continue to shipping, transportation, and even the food and manufacturing industries. In a worst-case scenario, large areas of the world could experience famine because of higher food prices." (investopedia.org)

We use oil and its derivatives to create building materials. Large scale fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides that support our industrialised food industry. Plastics, which are the foundation of modern society. Medicines. Soap. A larger proportion of our oil, coal and gas is used in energy generation and fuels, but our society as we know it can’t work without oil.

So. Oil is hard and expensive to extract and refine. The only reason we continue to do so is that the world demand for petrol is so high. But that demand is going to collapse. We have alternatives to fossil fuels for energy generation, and these alternatives are increasingly cheaper and better than oil.

What happens to our plastics industry, our medicines, our agriculture sector, our soap, when it’s no longer economically viable to pump oil? We don’t have alternatives for plastic.

We’re not prepared for this transition. Governments continue to support the fossil fuel industries as if they can never be allowed to collapse. But economic forces are going to overwhelm such efforts – probably soon.

There will still be a market for oil. Even when we’re not burning it for energy, we will continue to need it. It’s just going to cost an enormous amount more than it does now.

What it likely means is that the cost of everything will skyrocket. When our cheapest sources of oil include high-cost investments such as mining landfill to reclaim billions of plastic bags to convert them back into oil, plastic will no longer be cheap and ubiquitous. Food won’t be plentiful. Millions will starve – not because we can’t practically feed them, but because we won’t be able to afford the fertiliser.

The longer the burning of fossil fuels goes on, the worse the problem will become. The cost of extracting oil will continue to increase as accessible reserves decrease. When we stop burning oil, all that will be left in the oilfields will be the expensive dregs to extract for making our soap. The sensible approach now would be to encourage the death spiral as quickly as possible. Force the end of fossil fuels for power and preserve as much of our reserves for the rest of society to use. But governments are generally not in the business of forcing huge industries to collapse.

University of South Australia Media Release

The sun and the sea – both abundant and free – are being harnessed in a unique project to create vertical sea farms floating on the ocean that can produce fresh water for drinking and agriculture.

In what is believed to be a world first, University of South Australia researchers have designed a self-sustaining solar-driven system that evaporates seawater and recycles it into freshwater, growing crops without any human involvement.

It could help address looming global shortages of freshwater and food in the decades ahead, with the world’s population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050.

Professor Haolan Xu and Dr Gary Owens from UniSA’s Future Industries Institute have developed the vertical floating sea farm which is made up of two chambers: an upper layer similar to a glasshouse and a lower water harvest chamber.

“The system works much like a wicking bed that household gardeners might be familiar with,” Dr Owen says.

“However, in this case, clean water is supplied by an array of solar evaporators that soak up the seawater, trap the salts in the evaporator body and, under the sun’s rays, release clean water vapour into the air which is then condensed on water belts and transferred to the upper plant growth chamber.”

In a field test, the researchers grew three common vegetable crops – broccoli, lettuce, and pak choi – on seawater surfaces without maintenance or additional clean water irrigation.

The system, which is powered only by solar light, has several advantages over other solar sea farm designs currently being trialled, according to Professor Xu.

“Other designs have installed evaporators inside the growth chamber which takes up valuable space that could otherwise be used for plant growth. Also, these systems are prone to overheating and crop death,” Professor Xu says.

Floating farms, where traditional photovoltaic panels harvest electricity to power conventional desalination units, have also been proposed but these are energy intensive and costly to maintain.

“In our design, the vertical distribution of evaporator and growth chambers decreases the device’s overall footprint, maximising the area for food production. It is fully automated, low cost, and extremely easy to operate, using only solar energy and seawater to produce clean water and grow crops.”

Dr Owens says their design is only proof-of-concept at this stage, but the next step is to scale it up, using a small array of individual devices to increase plant production. Meeting larger food supply needs will mean increasing both the size and number of devices.

“It is not inconceivable that sometime in the future, you might see huge farm biodomes floating on the ocean, or multiple smaller devices deployed over a large sea area.”

Their existing prototype is likely to be modified to produce a greater biomass output, including using low-cost substrate materials such as waste rice straw fibre, to make the device even cheaper to run.

The researchers have shown that the recycled water produced in this way is pure enough to drink and has less salinity than the World Health Guidelines for drinking water.

The United Nations estimates that by 2050, approximately 2.4 billion people are likely to experience water shortages. In the same period, global supply of water for agricultural irrigation is expected to decline by around 19%.

“Freshwater accounts for just 2.5% of the world’s water and most of this is not accessible because it’s trapped in glaciers, ice caps or is deep underground,” Dr Owens says. “It’s not that freshwater is dwindling either, but the small amount that exists is in ever increasing demand due to population growth and climate change.

“The fact that 97.5% of the world’s water is in our oceans – and freely available – it is an obvious solution to harness the sea and sun to address growing global shortages of water, food, and agricultural land. Adopting this technology could improve the health and welfare of billions of people globally.”

The design experiment is published in the Chemical Engineering Journal.

Victorian Forest Alliance Media Release

State owned logging company VicForests has been deregistered as a government business according to a government gazette, as of August 5 2023. Conservation groups understand this signals the first step to winding up the state owned business, but it’s unclear what the next steps are to abolish the agency in light of the state government’s plans to end native forest logging by the end of 2023. 

“For years VicForests has been a total environmental and economic liability. It’s good news that the state government is taking the first step to wind up the rogue agency,” said Chris Schuringa, Campaign Coordinator for the Victorian Forest Alliance.

VicForests is responsible for two decades of mismanagement of forests, causing destruction of critical habitat for threatened wildlife, and important carbon stores. VicForests has received millions of dollars in subsidies and reported over $50 million in losses just in the last financial year.

“We now need assurance from the government that they will abolish VicForests, and scrap dodgy laws that lock in the pulping of forests, and remove the exemption from complying with federal environment laws. Forests won’t be safe while those laws are in place, even if VicForests is disbanded,” said Chris Schuringa.

“The Government needs to articulate a clear plan about what’s coming next and how these unique forests will be managed into the future.”

In June, lawyers from Environment Justice Australia filed an ACCC complaint on behalf of the Victorian Forest Alliance for false claims of environmental sustainability on VicForests’ website. The complaint alleges VicForests failed to regenerate forests after logging, make spurious claims regarding climate credentials, and falsely assert that they conduct adequate surveys for threatened and endangered species prior to logging, and protect natural values.

In August, following reports VicForests’ used public funds to spy on conservationists speaking out against logging, a damning IBAC investigation concluded that “VicForests conducted unlawful surveillance on several members of the public.” Court cases against the state company have shown VicForests have breached countless environment laws, and have failed to meet their legal obligations to survey for and protect endangered wildlife.

Despite the Victorian state government announcement in May to bring forward the end of native forest logging from 2030, to January 1 2024, logging in Western Victoria under ‘community forestry licences’ could continue beyond the proposed end date until June 2024.

(Ref: Inquiry into the 2023–24 Budget Estimates, p.14)

Bellingen Activist Newtwork Media Release

Logging has been stopped in Newry State Forest, with 6 logging machines leaving the forest this morning. Over half the native forest has been left untouched, signalling a huge win for the community. 

Community members suspect that a month of community pressure, media and a recently lodged court case against Forestry Corp has all contributed to the machines leaving the forest early. This is a rare occurrence, with huge costs associated with FCNSW leaving a forest before the final dates. 

Sandy Greenwood, Gumbaynggirr custodian, shares:

“This is a historic moment for us on Gumbaynggirr country. While indigenous culture is routinely destroyed, it’s rare to get a win along the way. Our grassroots community resistance has worked and we will continue to fight until all Gumbaynggirr lands are protected from Forestry’s operations. We are relieved that the forest will breathe quiet tonight and that my elders can walk back on our country.”

A court case against FCNSW has also been lodged, with an adjournment being sought in the NSW Land & Environment Court today. Al Oshlack, Researcher/Advocate with the Indigenous Justice Advocacy Network, who is the acting lawyer shares:

“Forestry have built an edifice based on fabrication and regulation which has allowed them to carry on forestry operations including alleged criminal and civil breaches of environmental, species and Aboriginal heritage legislation with impunity. This has resulted in a wholesale destruction of threatened animals which in some cases, to the point of extinction particularly Gliders and Koalas.”

“The Newry Court case in particular is highlighting the routine destruction of significant heritage whereas Forestry’s operation plan itself says that
there are no cultural heritage sites in the forest. In fact Newry has become forestry’s own Juukun Gorge. We are celebrating the machines leaving but are hoping to use the court case to get a more permanent outcome for Newry State Forest.”

The community is celebrating today and committed to following FCNSW to the next forest to take action and aim for the same outcome. Bellingen Activist Network is using non-violent direct action and community pressure to push for an end to native forest logging across NSW. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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 1/40^th 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.

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.