May 26, 2008
Exxon Pulls Funding to Skeptics
NEW YORK - Exxon Mobil Corp is pulling contributions to several groups that have downplayed the risks that greenhouse gas-emissions could lead to global warming, continuing a policy started in 2006 by Chief Executive Rex Tillerson.
Exxon will not contribute to some nine groups in 2008 that it funded in 2007. It said in its corporate citizenship report that the groups' "position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
The groups Exxon has stopped funding include the Capital Research Centre, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research, according to Exxon spokesman Gantt Walton.
Read more here: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48489/story.htm
Posted by jennifer at 01:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 22, 2008
Cost of Rudd's Kyoto Team Trip to Bali
KEVIN RUDD'S post-election visit to the Bali climate change conference to announce that Australia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol cost taxpayers more than $530,000.
The cost of taking the Prime Minister, five ministers and dozens of advisers and officials to the conference in December has been revealed in response to questions asked by the Opposition Senate leader, Nick Minchin.
The Sydney Morning Herald: Rudd's Kyoto team trip to Bali cost $500,000
Posted by Paul at 06:20 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
May 21, 2008
Federal Budget Cuts Mean CSIRO Shake - Up
Up to 100 jobs will be axed at the nation's science research agency as a result of Federal Budget cuts.
Dozens of jobs will be lost and CSIRO laboratories will close in Mildura in Victoria and Rockhampton in Queensland.
Mike Whelan from the CSIRO says Government funding has been cut by more than $60 million over four years.
ABC News: Jobs to be axed, labs will close in CSIRO shake-up
CSIRO Media Release: CSIRO continues to set science directions for future
Posted by Paul at 11:34 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
May 13, 2008
Australian Labor Government to Fund Desalinated Water
The Honourable Wayne Swan MP, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, delivered the first budget for the new Labor government tonight.
The listed major new iniatives in the environmental area include:
$14 million for the 'National Urban Water and Desalination Plan';
$ 108 million for a 'Solar Australia Program'; and
$ 34.8 million for a national clean coal fund.
In the lead up to the federal election last year, Labor promised $1 billion for the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan to help secure the water supplies of Australia’s major cities with centres of excellence in desalination in Perth and a centre of excellence in water recycling in Brisbane—acknowledging these cities as leaders in these respective fields.
Given the election promise, the allocation for desalination for next year is very modest.
I wrote about Labor's proposed water policy in the March IPA Review:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=801
Posted by jennifer at 09:59 PM | Comments (44) | TrackBack
May 03, 2008
Follow The Money
TEN years ago, scientists specialising in climate change counted themselves lucky to find a job.
Now employers are beating paths to their doors. From the federal Government down, Australia's corporations and institutions, public and private, are falling over themselves to appoint people with the knowledge and skills to advise on what is becoming a central public policy debate.
Read more in The Australian: Rush to climate science
Posted by Paul at 06:11 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
May 01, 2008
Guess Who Just Closed a $683 Million Fund
The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing.
The Climate Solutions Fund will be one of the biggest in the growing market for investment funds with an environmental slant.
The fund will be focused on equity investments in small companies in four sectors: renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and biomass; and the carbon trading markets.
The Financial Times: Gore investment body closes $683m fund
Free registration required to view the full article.
Posted by Paul at 01:32 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
March 29, 2008
Carbon Offsets to Expand National Parks or Selling Ice to Eskimos
In the cross-hairs of Queensland Government Acquisition?
“The Queensland Government will channel more than $10 million a year into a new ‘Eco Fund' to expand the state's National Parks.”
So said the Hon. Premier, Anna Bligh and Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, the Hon. Andrew McNamara, in a joint statement last Friday.
“… we’re going to expand our National Parks by 50% … reaching a target of 12 million hectares by 2020 …”
Developers and other entities will pay for this doubling of protected area, by offsetting their environmental impacts and greenhouse emissions. The Eco Fund will provide a facility for these offset payments to be retained within Queensland and re-invested into conservation land acquisition, giving the illusion of ecological neutrality or better.
However, there are some glaring problems with the concept. First of all, protected area management is very inefficient and a major contributor to emissions in its own right, particularly when burning.
In 1999, it was revealed that in the six years preceding the ‘LGAQ Public inquiry into the Management of National Parks’ Queensland’s protected area estate had doubled whilst its budgetary allocation had increased by only 9% . The inquiry found that QPWS was neither staffed nor resourced to manage its reserves, which were being increasingly overrun with feral weeds and animals. Doubling the estate, yet again, would surely double these identified inefficiencies.
The LGAQ Inquiry also revealed the convention that lands acquired for addition to protected area estate, invariably had existing conservation values. In effect, the only real change was the name on the land title. Whilst there was usually an acquisition cost, it could hardly be described as a carbon offset, when nothing had been done to change the ecological nature of the environment.
By contrast, if productive land were to be acquired and re-vegetated for inclusion into the protected area, then the public would be able to see the ecological gain and know that it had paid for the change of land-use, including compensation and loss of income-earning capacity.
Then there are the recreational and tourism entitlements of the public-at-large, with all known and associated impacts and emissions. The Queensland government currently opposes cost-recovery through user-fees on National Parks, so all costs associated with management and impact mitigation are met by the taxpayer. This further disadvantages conservation management on private lands, through the exclusionary provisions of subsidisation on a tenure-exclusive basis.
Posted by neil at 09:35 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack
March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
I arrived in New York this morning for the first ever international meeting of ‘global warming skeptics’.
It’s actually called ‘The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change’ but many of the speakers and delegates are well known AGW skeptics and they have never gathered before in one place and time. At least certainly not the 500 or so said to be here today. [And of course none of them are skeptical of climate change – but rather the extent to which carbon dioxide drives warming.]
Perhaps appropriately for a first meeting of AGW skeptics it has been a chilly day. It has been probably close to zero outside with a blustery wind.
Indeed when I ventured out onto Broadway for brunch this morning in a warm coat I thought my ears were going to freeze off. Then I found a shop full of hats and bought something lined with fake fur – and I was slightly warmer.
Jennifer in her new hat, Manhattan, March 2, 2008
After a long nap – I hadn’t really slept for 36 hours having missed my connecting flight from Sydney to New York in San Francisco – I registered for the conference at 5pm.
The conference is at the New York Marriott Marquis right on Broadway. I am also staying at the hotel and I think you can get everything here except a pot of tea.
Anyway, it was good to see some Australians here including my colleague Alan Moran, Bob Carter and his wife Ann, Viv Forbes, Ian McClintock, Tom Quirk – and that was just who I met this evening.
I was asked to mind a table for the Australians for dinner at the request of Viv Forbes, anyway, next thing a couple of Italians asked if they could join me and I thought what the heck, then three New Zealanders turned up and sat down, and Viv returned to find his dinner table full of ‘others’ and me – but I think he had a good night anyway.
My colleague Alan Moran (the good looking one) with a fellow from Sweden and another from Holland at the conference reception. Manhattan, March 2, 2008.
The conference dinner was opened by Joseph Bast, President of The Heartland Institute. He began by saying that Jim Martin, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, recently told the Denver Post, “You could have a convention of scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth” and went on to say that we finally hope this conference will put this misinformation to rest for good. He mentioned some of the 101 speakers from around the world joining the 400 or so delegates including skeptics from Russian, France, Canada and Australia.
Mr Bast also mentioned that Al Gore had been invited to the conference and to speak and that The Heartland Institute was prepared to pay his US$200,000 speaking fee – but he declined the invitation.
There were few formalities, no head table or pledges of allegiances. We were asked to respect diversity of opinion and the freedom to disagree.
The first speaker was a comedian Tim Slagle who was absolutely hilarious. He began by complaining that he had looked many of the delegates up at Sourcewatch before coming and was disappointed to find he was the only one not getting a million dollars from an oil company. [It was a joke, which the dinner crowd enjoyed, and by-the-way The Heartland Institute organised the conference without any money from oil or gas companies]. Most of Slagle’s jokes were so politically incorrect I shall not repeat them here and he included a plea for the legalization of cannabis and a comment that “global warming would be a God sent for Canadian citrus growers”.
The keynote speaker was Dr Patrick Michaels. He gave a really interesting address focusing on whether global temperature is still on a warming trend and what is happening at the Arctic and Antarctica concluding that the temperature trend is still one of increase – when ENSO, volcanoes, solar variability and carbon dioxide are taken into account – but that the warming is not much of a global threat. [The presentation also included a couple of good Al Gore impersonations.]
Much of the discussion that followed the key note address was around the subject of warming trends right back to the so-called Medieval Warm period and Ross McKitrick was invited to the stage to comment on the extent to which there is now a consensus regarding the last 1,000 or so years of the temperature record. For those who have read ‘Taken by Storm’ you may not be surprised to know that his answered was long and interesting.
All in all it was a great day and dinner and I would like to thank The Heartland Institute, The International Policy Network and The IPA for the opportunity to be here.
More tomorrow.
The view from my room. Even at midday Broadway was lite up.
-------
From today's New York Times:
Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: March 2, 2008
"The Heartland Institute, a public policy research group in Chicago opposed to regulatory approaches to environmental problems, is holding a conference in Times Square on Monday and Tuesday aimed at exploring questions about the cause and dangers of climate change.
"The event will convene an array of scientists, economists, statisticians and libertarian commentators holding a dizzying range of views on the changing climate — from those who see a human influence but think it is not dangerous, to others who say global warming is a hoax, the sun’s fault or beneficial. Many attendees say it is the dawn of a new paradigm. But many climate scientists and environmental campaigners say it is the skeptics’ last stand.
Read more in the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
But of course don't believe everything you read.
Posted by jennifer at 01:16 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack
September 25, 2007
Greenpeace Rumbled
I rather liked this letter in yesterday's UK Daily Mail, so I thought I would share it:
Red alert on Greenpeace
IS GREENPEACE more powerful than UK voters? Its lawyers are demanding a judicial review of the Government's decision to reconsider its attitude towards nuclear power.
Would that we could do the same about Greenpeace's undemocratic decision to cover the world with useless and damaging windfarms, a course of action which almost all governments are following.
I know why we can't: it would take too much money. How democratic is a democracy which allows rich lobby groups to influence its policy? Greenpeace seems to be awash with money: how much of it comes from the wind industry (i.e. taxpayers' money)?
Greenpeace's co-founder Patrick Moore was right: 'They (Greenpeace' s new management) have become far more extreme, their politics little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.'
As he points out, much of the environmental movement today tends to be strongly anti-human, anti-science, anti-business and anti-civilisation - as well as highly misleading. Greenpeace isn't green and doesn't want peace. It's red and it wants power.
I don't particularly care for nuclear power myself, but I don't like an organisation that pretends to be green while destroying our natural surroundings for its own gain - financial and political.
MARK DUCHAMP,
Pedreguer, Spain.
Posted by Paul at 04:54 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack
April 04, 2007
How Much Money for Climate Change Research in Australia?
According to science writer, Julian Cribb, “climate change has unleashed the biggest academic gold rush in recent history, with state and federal governments splashing tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars around almost weekly on new projects and research centres - a classic Australian response to decades of indolence, neglect and bad planning.”
In the article entitled ‘When drought spells cash’ he lists the following recent projects
• the Federal and Victorian governments have poured $100 million into a clean brown coal project;
• the New South Wales Government announced it would spend $22 million on two pilot clean coal projects;
• Victoria has begun work on a $30 million underground carbon storage project;
• SA is spending $800,000 on a wind tunnel to improve wind turbine performance and a further $200,000 on various clean energy projects;
• Queensland has put $9 million into a Climate Centre of Excellence;
• the University of NSW has announced a new $6 million national climate change research centre;
• the Australian National University has created the Fenner School for Environment & Society for research into areas including climate change and water;
• Adelaide University has launched a Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability;
• Griffith University has signed an agreement with the Government of Indonesia to study the regional impact of climate change; and
• the University of Ballarat has launched a project in community-owned renewable energy.
The article goes on to suggest that agriculture has missed out, “In all the excitement the area most affected by climate change - agriculture, and the science that backs it - has largely remained like Cinderella.”
I’m not so sure. Isn’t there a pile of money for agriculture in the $10 billion plan for water security, including money for research?
And I image the above list for Australia is incomplete?
And how much is spent worldwide on climate change research?
Posted by jennifer at 12:58 PM | Comments (61) | TrackBack
January 11, 2007
Market-based conservation for privately-owned Tasmanian forests
In a joint media release yesterday, Federal Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell and Member for Braddon, Mr Mark Baker, launched the Forest Conservation Fund (FCF), under the $250 million Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement.
The stated objective of the FCF is to protect up to 45,600 hectares of forested private land, targeting old growth forest and under-reserved forest communities, of which there will be a minimum of 25,000 hectares of old growth forest and up to 2,400 hectares of forest in the Mole Creek area.
Private landholders have been invited to tender for support for the long term protection of old-growth and under-reserved (under-represented on publicly-owned) forests on their lands, through mechanisms that include covenants and conservation management plans.
An additional $3 million boost for Tasmania’s ecotourism industry was also announced, with $1million earmarked to develop bushwalking and related infrastructure in the Tarkine area and $2 million for forest-based tourism infrastructure, including for forest reserves created under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.
Tourism grants in the range from $100,000 to $500,000, are open to application from groups including tourism operators, local councils, land managers and conservation groups, as well as from private individuals.
Tasmanian conservationists have congratulated the Federal Government for its funding of eco-tourism in the Tarkine forest but are also urging the Government to consider the Tarkine for World Heritage listing.
The Minister agreed that the area is of high conservation value and advised that it is being assessed for National Heritage listing, with the assessment verdict due in another six to 12 months. World Heritage listing would be considered once the Tarkine is on the national heritage list.
Cinders, a regular contributor to this weblog, offers the following local perspective:
The Federal Minister for the Environment, Ian Campbell visited north west Tasmania on Wednesday 10 January to make two announcements that confirmed promises made in the 2004 Federal Election to provide a ‘final balance between reservation and production of Tasmania’s native forest.This is yet another chapter in a long running dispute created by the green movement with the help of successive Federal Governments. A story started by a grant to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust by the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) in the 1980s to document the National Estate Values of Tasmania’s north west Forests. Peg Putt, now parliamentary leader of the Tasmanian Greens was the TCT Director that received the grant. Many other prominent greens were associated with the project, including Sean Cadman who was a co author of the chapter Botany, in Harries, D.N., (Ed.), 1992; Forgotten Wilderness: North West Tasmania. Sean who is now with the Wilderness Society, was also the consultant engaged by the AHC to assess the merits of the application for listing of the area as worthy of the National Estate.
Sean was also the one who advised the AHC to rename the area the Tarkine. A word which was a truncation of the English word Tarkinener that approximated for the name of the Aboriginal Group that lived near Sandy Cape. The AHC many months later sought the concurrence of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.
As part of the Liberal Federal Election promise massive reserves were added to the substantial existing reserves that surround the Savage River open cut mine. The most contentious was the pipeline corridor for the iron ore slurry running northwards from the mine to the North West Coast. This area had been planned for long rotation selective harvesting for deep red myrtle a highly priced specialty timber used for craft and furniture making.
The area is numbered 25 on the above map.For the last 25 years the green movement has claimed that tourism not forestry is the answer, the Federal Government by allocating up to three million dollars for the bush walk and other tourism infrastructure, has challenged the advocates of forest reservation to now “put up or shut up”
The challenge is can the ‘Tarkine’ be a wilderness tourist haven, can the green movement build on the tourist business that already exists based upon the Arthur and Pieman rivers, the Savage River Mine and the many old mining and timber towns that are scattered through the area. Can it be integrated with the Dismal Swamp that is already a draw card? Will we see log truck drivers re-employed as tourist bus drivers, harvesting crews as tour guides etc?
In the WWF plan for tourism presented to the Federal Government prior to the 2004 election, the WWF planned to use the “road to nowhere” a coastal road running between the Arthur and Pieman rivers to drop off and collect tourists. It would be ironical if this road was used as it was the scene of protest where both Greens leader Bob Brown and the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation were arrested trying to stop its construction.
It is interesting how the green movement has reacted to the challenge of creating a viable tourism business; it seems their first reaction is to demand more reservation (450,000 ha in lieu of about 350,000 ha) and National Heritage listing followed by World Heritage Listing. Perhaps this is part of the marketing plan. However getting “bums on seats” business planning might be just as beneficial, rather than a detailed administrative process that may take a couple of years.
Something needs to be done as the Savage River National park created by the 1997 Regional Forest Agreement due to it “being the single largest area of unburnt and unfragmented rainforest remaining in Tasmania” has visitor numbers so low that they are not even recorded.
A detailed baseline and monitoring system as well as a management plan for the area needs to be established before public money is handed over in the hope that “we will all have jobs in Tourism”
Cinders
Posted by neil at 02:53 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
January 09, 2007
Indigenous funding for conservation
ABC News Online reports that the Federal Government has doubled the funding under its Indigenous Protected Area program, from three to six million-dollars a year.
Twenty-two initiatives are currently funded to help indigenous communities run conservation programs on land covering 15 million hectares, or 6 per cent of Australia's land mass.
At $5 per hectare, I wonder how this investment in public monies compares with the cost per hectare, within the publicly-owned protected area estate?
Federal parliamentary secretary for the environment, Greg Hunt, says "We weren't expecting social impact but what we're finding is when people are doing meaningful work in remote Indigenous communities, there's been a decrease in domestic violence, a decrease in drug and alcohol and other substance abuse and an increase in social cohesion."
No doubt the economic beneficiaries of recurrent funding on the public estate also enjoy the social benefits of employment in the name of conservation, but surely the greater challenge for Australia is the development of sustainable economies on indigenous communities that meaningfully revitalise traditional care for country.
The major difficulty, as I see it, is the environmental functions and mandates of government land management agencies are not regarded as business activities; therefore, they are not required to maintain competitive neutrality. The supply of environmental goods and services on public estate is heavily subsidised to provide the illusion of free or nominal-fee entry, excluding fair trade upon non-government tenures.
Australian Government’s Tourism White Paper states:
The tourism industry is only meeting half the market demand for Indigenous tourism experiences. International visitors are clearly interested in experiencing these cultures but, at this stage, our tourism industry has not been able to develop sufficient Indigenous tourism product to meet that demand. Visitors are particularly interested in learning, experiencing and interacting with Aboriginal people, with authenticity an important aspect of the experience. Germany, the United Kingdom, other European countries and North America show the strongest potential demand for Indigenous tourism experiences in Australia.
Tourism offers particular opportunities for Indigenous Australians. In many areas of regional and remote Australia it offers the prospect of a pathway to economic independence. A significant proportion of the Indigenous population resides in regional and remote Australia. Developing Indigenous tourism can provide much needed opportunities for employment, social stability and preservation of culture and traditions.
Posted by neil at 04:59 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack
August 19, 2006
WWF Activist Appointed by NSW Government to Review His Own Woody Weed Mess
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) spearheaded a campaign to end broadscale tree clearing in western NSW. The resulting legislation has proven difficult for government to administer and a nightmare for landholders wanting to clear woody weeds including species of acacia and pine.
In response, the NSW government appointed a committee to “independently” review the Invasive Native Species (INS) regulations that sit under the legislation.
The NSW government appointed a director of the WWF, Dr Denis Saunders, to head the committee.
Farmers have cried foul asking how the board member of a lobby group totally opposed to land clearing can head an independent review of the legislation.*
But it gets worst.
Dr Saunders is not only a director of WWF, he was a member of The Wentworth Group. This groups is described at the Australian Museum website as not only driving the media campaign against broadscale tree clearing in NSW, but also producing the “model for landscape conservation” that was subsequently adopted by the state government.
The Wentworth Group was funded by Robert Purves, a businessman and also President of WWF Australia, through a $1.5 million donation. The campaign was coordinated by Peter Cosier, a former senior environmental policy advisor to Senator Robert Hill.
So Denis Saunders was actively involved in the campaign which resulted in the new legislation. Furthermore he was part of the team that proposed the model for the legislation that was subsequently adopted by government. Incredibly government has now made him head of a committee to "independently" review the mess his team helped create.
So "Caesar is judging Caesar”!
Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the NSW legislation and the environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled 'The great land-clearing myth'.
-------------------------------
* Veg Review Compromised? By Lucy Skuthorp, The Land, pg. 11, 17th August 2006.
NSW Regional Community Survival Group has issued the following media release:
"Media Release Thursday, 17 August 2006 Farmers outraged over woody weed recommendationsFarmers have rejected the recommendations of a NSW Government review into the management of woody weeds, claiming a conflict of interest by the Chair of the review committee, Dr Denis Saunders, who is also a Board Member of Australia’s most powerful green group.
“How can farmers have any faith in the recommendations of the so-called Invasive Native Scrub Working Group when its Chair is on the Board of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Australia, which campaigns against land clearing?” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.
The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers from western NSW who are fed up with bureaucratic, nonsensical laws that prevent farmers from controlling infestations of woody weeds that have invaded up to 20 million hectares (an area three times the size of Tasmania) of western NSW.
Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) invade native grasslands and pastures, leaving the landscape like a desert with no natural groundcover – making the countryside prone to massive wind and water erosion.
NSW Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Macdonald, gave Dr Saunders the task of ‘refining’ the rules and regulations associated with the management of woody weeds in March 2006.
“Given the WWF has an axe to grind on land clearing issues, how can farmers have any confidence in the integrity of the review recommendations? It is painfully obvious that Dr Saunders has a massive conflict of interest on this issue and I’m surprised that such a senior scientist would place himself in such a conflicted position,” Mr Menzies said.
The Regional Community Survival Group has called upon Premier Iemma to immediately remove Dr Saunders from any further direct involvement in the process of drafting new rules for controlling the spread of infestations of woody weeds in western NSW.
Mr Menzies said that not a single farmer was a member of the Working Group – a group made up of nine bureaucrats – and this was reflected in the absurdity of some of the final recommendations.
A key recommendation of the Working Group was for farmers to leave 20 per cent of the area of their farm infested with woody weeds. This leaves one-fifth of your farm being degraded by woody weeds that smother out native grasslands and pastures. Areas infested with woody weeds also harbour feral pigs and goats.
“Farmers are more than happy to preserve areas of native bushland, but leaving 20 per cent of a farm infested with woody weeds is like a surgeon only removing 80 per cent of a tumour.”
Mr Menzies said farmers who wish to rehabilitate their land are also prevented from clearing more than 20 per cent of the area of woody weeds on their property at any one time. If a farmer wants to clear woody weeds above 20 per cent, this can only be done in 20 per cent increments and only after each increment consists of more than 75 per cent of native grasses.
“Depending on weather conditions (e.g. drought), it could take years for a grassland to consist of more than 75 per cent of native species. Hence, this provision in the regulation is a ‘handbrake’ on land rehabilitation.”
“The review also recommends that farmers leave a certain number of weeds per hectare. For example, farmers have to retain some woody weed species that have a trunk diameter (at breast height) of less than 20cm.
“For western NSW alone, there are over 70 rules on retaining woody weed species at various trunk diameters, making the physical removal of weeds by tractor and chain totally impractical.”
Posted by jennifer at 09:50 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
August 08, 2006
WWF Too Close To Tim Flannery & Government?
Clive Hamilton, Executive Director of The Australian Institute, has written a rather pointed piece for today's Sydney Morning Herald suggesting that Tim Flannery, author of a recent book on global warming, is "a trump card" in Prime Minister John Howard's "nuclear power play". It also suggests that the government has bought off environment group the WWF:
"WWF (formerly the World Wide Fund for Nature) is the foremost of the friendly organisations. It is close to the Government, providing a stream of favourable commentary on its policies and bestowing several awards for the Government's environmental achievements, including three "Gift to the Earth" awards, which the Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, displays in his office. In return, the Government has been generous, sending tens of millions to the fund for various programs.The force behind the emergence of the organisation as the leading group backing the Government's environment policy is the businessman Robert Purves. He has made a very large donation to WWF and is now its president.
Purves has drawn Tim Flannery into the orbit of conservative environmentalism by funding the preparation of Flannery's book on climate change, The Weather Makers. ... Purves is said to have spent $1 million promoting Flannery's book, including costly backlit billboards outside Qantas Club lounges around the country."
This is not the first time Clive Hamilton has thrown mud at WWF, his first shot was perhaps publication of a report titled 'Taming The Panda' just a couple of years ago.
Posted by jennifer at 01:11 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
Businesses Exploiting Environmentalism
I've just had a piece published by Online Opinion about graziers and environmentalists in a symbiotic parasitic relationship in the Macquarie Marshes, click here to read the story.
And Christian Kerr from Crikey.com.au recently pointed out the advantages for some of Australia's biggest companies in claiming concern over global warming:
Visy ... has been an active promoter of recycling because it makes good business sense. It is also good business for Visy to protect and enhance its environmental credentials [by claiming concern over global warming].Swiss Re and IAG are insurers. They have been talking up the impacts of climate change for the past five years so they can justify increased premiums against increased risk of damage from the effects of climate change. Cute, hey?
Origin is in the gas business. The gas suppliers are keen to promote climate change so that state governments come under pressure to switch from coal to gas fired electricity. It has about half the greenhouse emissions per GWh – but is a lot more expensive. So, PR.
Posted by jennifer at 06:13 PM | Comments (85) | TrackBack
November 12, 2005
Crikey Greenpeace
In August, Melbourne's The Age newspaper reported that Greenpeace was experiencing something of a cost blow out.
On Friday, Crikey was quoting an anonymous tipster suggesting financial problems at the multi-national, text follows below.
I find much of the information from the 'anonymous tipsters' a bit far fetched.
Crikey also published a response from Greenpeace denying they are on the verge of bankruptcy, text follows below.
It is interesting that the rumours are circulating. It is interesing that the media is taking an interest in the organisation. Once Greenpeace managed to focus the media exclusively on its campaigns.
Text from Crikey's anonymous tipster:
A friend of mine who is a contractor at Greenpeace Australia Pacific is about to get the flick because they have suddenly realised that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. After taking a high risk strategy of running big deficits in the hope of a massive fundraising increase, they have suddenly panicked. Their three months reserve policy (see their financial report on their website) is gone, along with the reserves. To save the organisation, they have stopped hiring people for empty positions (I hear there are quite a few) and told all contractors that when their term contracts expire, they are out (this applies to about 20% of staff and their contracts generally expire by the end of the year). They have pretty much stopped any campaigning work for the rest of the year to save cash.The CEO has left this disaster a couple of months ago (without even knowing it was coming) and has just taken up a position as CEO of the RSPCA in Australia. In the two weeks since this crisis began, one member of senior management has quit and the other 3 are under pressure to go. The new CEO starts in a few weeks.
The reason for this huge deficit - fund raising out of control. Fund raising expenses this year are around 50% of total organisation expenditure (up from 36% last year and around 30% in previous years).
For the next few months they are going to desperately try to find a few million to save from their annual budget. At the end of their review some full time staff are probably going to get the flick as well. Staff are close to starting a revolution.
The craziest thing about this is that fund raising income is above budget for the year and expenditure is below budget (because Greenpeace hardly does any campaigning any more). The whole disaster is because of financial incompetence by management.
On a side note - the board clearly didn't see this coming either. Not quite sure what that bunch of pleasure cruisers are up to.
Crikey also published a response from Sonia Zavesky, Greenpeace communications manager:
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is not on the verge of bankruptcy. 3.8 million people worldwide give money to Greenpeace - in Australia Pacific we receive regular monthly donations of $1 million per month.This year we will have more money donated to our work than ever before, and as our audited financial statements show, we maintain appropriate reserves. In line with our 5 year strategic fundraising plan, our investment in fundraising for the 04/05 tax year is 32% of turnover. This is annual planning and budget time and as we do every year we are looking at what campaigning work needs to be done and what staffing levels and operating budgets are required. As is the practise in most organisations, contract staff are brought in to cover busy periods, holiday cover etc. At the end of each contract period a decision is made on whether that contract needs to be extended. So while we can understand that some contract staff may find this difficult, it is simply wrong to say that all contractors are out, or that we are on shaky financial ground.
The simple truth is, that when your remit is to save the planet from environmental devastation, it's hard to cut work. But our campaigning needs are changing, our methods of communicating are changing and we would be irresponsible managers if we did not adjust our structure and staffing levels accordingly.
As your article mentions, one senior manager has recently resigned: that is me. After 2.5 years working for an organisation I truly love, I have had to concede that being a sole parent and working for a global outfit that campaigns 24/7 around the globe, often in rapid response mode is no longer viable for me.
Greenpeace is the largest independent global environment organisation. We do not accept any funding from governments or business. We rely on donations from individuals who care about the planet to fund our work. We take our responsibility to our supporters very seriously, even if that means taking some measures that are unpopular with some individuals.
Posted by jennifer at 01:50 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Greenpeace Accounts for 2004
I was surprised to read The Melbourne's Age newspaper describe Greenpeace as an 'eco-fascist concern':
Multinational stunt outfit Greenpeace Australia Pacific saw its supporter base decline and fund- raising costs blow out in calendar 2004. Accounts just to hand for the eco- fascist concern show that a bigger slice of its fund-raising efforts was swallowed up by costs, to wit, 36per cent compared with 31 per cent previously.
... keeping reading here, http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/some-red-among-the-green-as-costs-rise/2005/08/01/1122748581956.html .
Posted by jennifer at 10:13 AM | Comments (6)
August 18, 2005
Telstra was Meant to Save the Environment
With all the talk about Barnaby Joyce and the sale of Telstra I am reminded of the Natural Heritage Trust - established from the sale of T1. And this is what John Anderson said in the Australian Parliament on 19th June 1996:
This Bill will establish the Trust and provide for it to be known as the "Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Reserve". The initial capital of one billion dollars to be invested in the Trust will come from the proceeds of the partial sale of Telstra.
In effect, the transfer of funds from the partial sale of Telstra into the Natural Heritage Trust represents a transfer from investment in a telecommunications company to an investment in natural capital. Maintaining and restoring this natural capital is an investment in the well-being of future generations of Australians.
And what has the Natural Heritage Trust achieved for the Australian environment?
Posted by jennifer at 10:42 PM | Comments (6)
July 06, 2005
Government Payments for Environmental Services
The Hon. Warren Truss MP (until recently Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestery) gave a speech to the Victorian Rural Press Club in March in which he talked about the recently released 'Agriculture and Food Industry Stocktake' and some of the issues facing agriculture in Australia. The speech was big on the impact of changing community values on agriculture including the impact of campaigning by animal rights and environmental groups.
The Minister said that the Stocktake was a starting point for wide-ranging discussion under a newly formed Reference Group. This group was to report back to the Minister by the end of the year with a view to developing a "comprehensive policy framework to build, secure and protect Australian Agriculture".
The Reference Group has since put out a fairly boring position paper which is very different in content to the Minister speech. The paper is apparently intended "to help focus the discussion".
Part D of this paper is about natural resource management and seems to promote a lot of ideas that have been popular with bureaucrats in both government and the agripolitics for some years now.
It suggests that 'stewardship payments'could be a 'market based mechanism' for paying farmers for public good conservation.
The position paper suggests that "farmers be paid for their output of environmental services such as biodiversity (for example, the management of wetlands for migratory bird habitats), improved air and water quality and other environmental and public health benefits. To be feasible, incomes from delivery of environmental services would need to at least offset any reductions in earnings from traditional agricultural enterprises that result from changed management practices".
I know a fair bit has been written about this. But I fail to see how 'the market' could effectively operate given government bureaucrats (or government appointed committees) are likely to decide the terms and conditions and have all the money.
I would be interested in readers of this blog providing me with examples and/or arguments that challenges my current thinking.
I intend to make a submission to the reference group that will include some discussion of this issue.
There is more information at http://www.agfoodgroup.gov.au/tor.html.
Posted by jennifer at 04:35 PM | Comments (5)
June 15, 2005
Should Academics Play E-Politics?
What role might Universities play in the "small-p politics" of the environment? This is the subject of a piece in today's The Australian in which I am quoted as saying, academics should foster informed debate but not be "advocates of a particular perspective".
Professor Peter Fairweather from Flinder's University is quoted, "We (academics) have to primarily give the scientific view first because nobody else can really do that."
I note the word "scientific view". I would like to think it was a poor choice of words.
It seems to me that academics increasingly confuse evidence, facts, theories and hypothesis, from arguments, from knowledge. Then there is opinion and there are views. And then there is the truth.
The Professor goes on to suggest that, when scientists spoke in the policy debate they should make this clear since as citizens they did not "necessarily have any more importance than anyone else, because everyone's got a view of what we should do policy-wise," he said.
What waffle! There are views and views and views. But it requires discipline and knowledge to build a robust argument.
The piece in The Australian is reporting on a decision by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee to consider a role for universities in environmental politics.
I do think it is good the issue is being considered. But let us not pretend that Universities are not already involved in environmental politics. I know a professor in a Life Science Faculty that has unashamably very publicly driven campaigns for WWF.
Posted by jennifer at 09:40 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
May 11, 2005
The Budget, Peer Review (Part 2) & A Worst Ever Report
Yesterday I wrote that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) are the big ticket/big budget environmental issues. Well the Treasurer has even made special allocations for both in this year's budget.
There is only ever going to be so much money for the environment.
Can we have confidence that budget allocations are determined on the basis of need i.e. that the MDB and GBR are areas of greatest environmental need?
A functioning peer review process could assist prioritization by helping to ensure correct information as a basis for public policy decision making (see my yesterday's blog-post).
To what extent is the peer reviewed literature setting the public policy agenda? To what extent is the peer reviewed literature relied upon by research leaders?
When it comes to the GBR and MDB, I will contend that research leaders increasingly rely on government reports and the non-peer reviewed literature rather than publications in reputable scientific journals to influence public policy decision making.
As an example, when John Quiggin reacted to my review paper 'Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment' in his much quoted 24th March 2004 blog-post he made much of a graph within a government report (rather than something peer reviewed) to suggest a Murray River salinity problem that was likely to get much worse.
I wonder whether the graph would have made it through a peer review process? It represents 40-50 years of daily salt readings stretched and smoothed over an 80 -90 year period with this trend line then merged into a projection from a computer model that as far as I can tell has never given a correct forecast. Certainly the model has been predicting in the wrong direction for the last 6 years.
I suggest the graph is a disgrace and designed simply to perpetuate the myth of a worsening salinity problem. Salinity levels are in fact significantly less than suggested by the graph and have been reducing, not increasing over the last 20 years.
But perhaps the worst all time unpublished, non-peer reviewed report that has significantly influenced public policy decision making in the MDB is The NSW River's Survey by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology and NSW Fisheries.
The report's principal conclusions include that "A telling indication of the condition of rivers in the Murray region was the fact that, despite intensive fishing with the most efficient types of sampling gear for a total of 220 person-days over a two-year period
in 20 randomly chosen Murray-region sites, not a single Murray cod or freshwater catfish was caught."
Most remarkably at the same time, in the same years and regions, that the scientists were undertaking their now much-quoted survey that found no Murray cod, commercial fishermen harvested 26 tonnes of Murray cod!
Criticism of the report's findings from a local fisherman goes something along the lines "The scientists, although having letters behind their name, spending some $2million on gear, and 2 years trying, evidently still can't fish."
This is some of the non-peer reviewed literature driving public policy decision making in Australia - including how our money is allocated for the environment as part of the budget process.
Posted by jennifer at 10:08 AM | Comments (23)
May 10, 2005
Problems with Peer Review (Part 1)
There has been quite a bit of comment on this web-blog about the importance of peer review (e.g. see comments following my post of 29th April 2005, titled What do Geologists Know about Climate?).
Peer review refers to a researcher's work being vetted by his/her colleagues as part of the publication process. The idea is that the non-expert can have a high level of confidence in articles, reports, reviews, papers in 'reputable'journals because the work has been thoroughly 'checked' by others with expertise in the field.
I generally believe in peer review as a process.
I greatly appreciated the constructive criticisms I received from anonymous expert reviewers when I published as a research entomologist. Indeed at that time I mostly only read the peer reviewed literature in my areas of expertise and interest.
However, once one moves from the relatively mundane-type of research I was undertaking in the 1980s to mid 1990s, into politically sensitive research on big ticket environmental icons like the Great Barrier Reef and Murray Darling Basin ... well, I have discovered the peer review process just doesn't seem to work.
Indeed it has been my observation that many research 'managers'are being paid very high salaries to virtually ensure the research from their 'research team' actually confirms policy decisions that governments have already more-or-less made, often as election commitments, often as a consequence of intense environmental campaigning from organisations like the WWF.
It seems certain assumptions are just not allowed to be challenged!
I will use my work on the Murray River as an example to illustrate this point - perhaps in my next blog-post which will probably be tomorrow.
Posted by jennifer at 12:09 PM | Comments (51)
April 16, 2005
$10,000 funding limit misleading
The impression from the media over the last week has been that green groups are now only going to get a maximum of $10,000 each year in funding from the government
The reality is quite different.
Some groups will have their federal government funding cut. The Queensland Conservation Council, for example, received $92,000 in funding under the Grants to Voluntary Environmental and Heritage Organisations Scheme (GVEHO) and will now receive a maximum of $10,000 under this scheme.
But the organization will continue to pick up government money from other sources.
Tax payer's money is also likely to keep rolling in to WWF. This organization received over $15 million in federal government grants over the period 1996-2003. (See Australian Institute Report by Clive Hamilton and Andrew Macintosh titled Taming the Panda).
Not only will WWF continue to be funded by the federal government, but WWF is actually in-charge of providing federal government funding to community groups.
Through the WWF-administered, government-funded Threatened Species Network Community Grants program WWF provides funding of up to $50,000 per annum to green groups. This is part of the billion dollar Natural Heritage Trust Fund.
There is also the $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
As part of the Federal Government's $2 billion Australian Water Fund, $200 million will be available over the next 5 years for community grants of up to $50,000 to save and protect water resources through practical on-the-ground work.
And the list goes on, and on and on.
Posted by jennifer at 10:09 AM | Comments (1)