Author: The Green Outlaw

The Federal government announced its 2023 budget last night.

Every budget has no past, only a future. It’s all about variations, decisions and speculative forward thinking. Forward estimates are meaningless. No one ever said hey, three years ago you predicted that…

Anyhow, this years budget outlined announced some new funding initiatives as outlined below.

Environmental Funding

New spending outlined in the budget for the environment include:

• $1 billion over the next four years to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system.
• $1.3 billion to establish a fund to support home updates that improve energy performance and save energy, including low-cost loans for double glazing and solar panels.
• $741.3 million over 5 years to support environmental and agricultural programs through the Natural Heritage Trust.
• $355.1 million over four years to protect federal national parks and marine reserves.

Cuts and revenue:

• $2.4 billion in savings over four years due to changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax
• $872.5 million in savings over 11 years by cutting projects in the National Water Grid Fund, including $595 million allocated for the Dungowan Dam.

But rest assured the government will splash an additional $159 million over the next four years, and about $40 million a year going forward, on themselves. Every parliamentarian will receive “additional frontline electorate staff resources”, as well as a boosted traveller expense allowance, which the government says will help politicians “be engaged and responsive to the increased needs of the community”.

Surprisingly, there is never any cost savings on politicians expenses in budgets, is there?

Our Federal and state governments in Australia are continuing to approve large fossil fuel projects and provide record amounts of subsidies to oil and gas companies.

This week, the Northern Territory (NT) State Government approved fracking in the Beetaloo basin, clearing the way for gas production and the expansion of wells in the area. There is almost 70 years worth of Australia’s emissions in the NT gas basins. The decision completely ignores climate scientists’ warnings not to proceed.

The International Energy Agency’s 2021 Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050 states:

the world can no longer afford to develop any new coal, oil or gas developments globally if we are to have a liveable planet.”

– International Energy Agency

There are currently 114 coal and gas projects (in the pipeline) in Australia. If completed, these would produce emissions estimated to be more than double the current domestic carbon emissions of Australia.

In 2022-23, Australian Federal and state governments provided a total of $11.1 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries. Research by the Australian Institute reveals that Australian federal and state governments are promising to spend $57.1 billion on fossil fuel subsidies over the next 4 years. This is $2 billion more than last year.

Using taxpayer’s funds for oil and gas developments and exploration given the rising global temperatures, is not only unethical but should be phased out completely.

The IMF estimates that fossil fuels are being subsidized at rate of $13 million every minute or about $7 trillion a year.

Political parties will continue to support and fund fossil fuel projects to appease their political donors. Hopefully, at the next election we will see more independent candidates who have policies underpinned by climate and integrity. Although it does seems that our future and the planet may be in trouble unless there is major political shift.

There is persuasive scientific evidence that the Earth is warming and that human beings are largely responsible. Despite scientific evidence pointing to the need for urgent measures to reduce emissions, the responses by governments have been slow, muted and largely ineffective.

Why is there a mismatch between the apparent seriousness of the problem and our collective institutional response?

Is it because of entrenched actors such as fossil fuel companies or conservative voters who don’t believe in the reality of climate change? Are political systems such as liberal democracies ineffective or unable to solve complex societal problems?

What are some of the ways to create political action on major environmental issues?

This will be explored further in subsequent blog posts.

Are we at a point where everyone is trying to spread an opinion, but no one is really listening?

I am a listener. I have been quite surprised lately by the number of people I meet who unashamedly (with speed and ease) launch into controversial issues, often citing disproven facts and opinions.

Most issues we are dealing with in society are complex. For many people important issues such as the moral imperative to address climate change can be cognitively effortful to grasp. Attitudes on the environment can also fall along political lines, which fosters ideological polarisation and a sense of tribalism.

When confronted with strong opinionated people try and have a few good points. Keep it short. Unfortunately though, some people just like an argument – but at least the other person has to use ‘some’ listening skills when you’re speaking!

The Bimblebox Alliance have successfully challenged Clive Palmers Galilee Coal Mine project, arguing it would cause irreversible environmental damage and unacceptable impacts to local agriculture.

The Galilee Coal Project proposed roughly 50% of the 8000-hectare Refuge undergo large-scale clearing for two open-cut coal pits and four underground mines. The proposed mines would produce 40 million tonnes per annum of thermal coal over a life of 25-30 years, generating around 2.9 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Bimblebox Nature Refuge is a private conservation reserve (located 500km west of Rockhampton) with one of the largest tracts of intact woodland in Queensland. It is habitat for the endangered Black-throated Finch, the vulnerable Squatter Pigeon and the Near Threatened Black-chinned Honey Eater and Black-necked Stork.

Bimblebox is the first nature refuge to have applications for a mining lease and environmental approval challenged in court, and have them overturned based on climate and human rights grounds. This hopefully sets a precedent.

The Department of Environment and Science recently issued a media release stating the Land Court ruling, and that the department has decided to refuse the environmental authority application for the Galilee Coal Mine.

To stop the destruction of the natural environment and more action on climate change, will individuals be increasingly drawn to radical environmental methods such as eco-terrorism?

Eco-terrorism is a misused and often misinterpreted term. It is an amalgam of civil disobedience, political activism and sabotage. Some academic writers have broadly defined it as ‘severe damage or destruction to property in defence of the environment, or to direct changes in environmental policy’.

Earth First! were one of the first eco-terrorist labelled organisations. Founded in 1979 in South-Western United States, the group went beyond tree-sitting protests to tree-spiking, cutting down billboards and pouring sand into the gas tanks of bulldozers.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (who were labelled eco-terrorists by the FBI) used direct action against Japanese whaling vessels beyond the borders of the United States.

Often the actions of groups who are labelled ‘eco-terrorists’ rarely meet the working legal definition of ‘terrorism’ in Australia. However, it’s possible that groups in the future may use, or threaten violence as a mechanism. There is definitely anger and dissatisfaction among people and a growing interest in the anti-progress / pro-environment agenda.

This is one of the biggest trees in the Grove of Giants in the Southern Forests of Tasmania. It is over 75m tall and is scheduled to be logged this year (2023) by Sustainable Timber Tasmania.

Sustainable Timber Tasmania manage Tasmania’s Permanent Timber Production Zone. The conservation of giant trees in these areas have little protection.

If you think giant trees in the Southern Forests of Tasmania should be preserved, then voice your concern to the following Tasmanian State government representatives:

• The Tasmanian Premer: jeremy.rockliff@parliament.tas.gov.au

• Tasmanian MP: felix.ellis@parliament.tas.gov.au

• Tasmanian MP: roger.jaensch@parliament.tas.gov.au

More importantly, check out The Tree Projects for more engaging information, films, campaigns and research on big trees.

Government agencies managing National Parks are required to balance a wide range of competing stakeholder interests and uses.

The most common pressures are between conservation, recreation and the local community.

For example;

• Conservation of the natural environment – where human impacts in areas have been relatively limited, but are under increasing pressure to enable public enjoyment of the natural environment.
• Recreation may also conflict with the interests of local communities. I.e Increasing visitor numbers to areas can create issues for locals such as overcrowding, traffic, noise and litter.

How do government agencies manage National Parks to include stakeholders interests whilst ensuring conservation principles are achieved?

  

Rather than focus on laws, how about we look more closely at how well they are being enforced and implemented? Environmental regulators are increasingly under resourced, incompetent and have a lack of incentive – especially when certain sectors have undue influence over decision-makers. Individuals, business, community groups and environmental professionals need to demand more from government.

National Parks and Marine Parks – we’re having so much trouble maintaining and funding these areas that are of ‘special value’ and ‘importance’. What does that say about our collective attitudes towards the environment?