SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Newcastle, Australia--home to the world's largest coal export port--on Tuesday joined the growing divestment movement after voting to pull its holdings from the country's biggest banks if they continue to fund fossil fuel projects.
The 6-5 city council vote marked a decisive break from Prime Minister Tony Abbott's pro-fossil fuel government and economy, and is a bold statement in a place where the coal industry accounts for over 1,000 jobs and over $1 billion in "direct community and business purchasing."
Despite coal's grip on the local economy, Labor councilor Declan Clausen, who brought the motion before the city council, said after the vote that the "writing is on the wall, coal is not going to be a leader long into the future." Instead, he suggested that the city should be look to diversify its economy, including investments into renewable technologies, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
"With a lack of leadership from state and federal government, it falls to local government to act," Clausen told 350.org Australia.
Roughly 80 percent of the City of Newcastle Council's $270 million investment portfolio is held in Australia's "big four banks," which all lend to new and existing fossil fuel projects. Statements from bank representatives indicated they have no intention of changing their current investment strategy.
The move was swiftly supported by both environmental groups and Newcastle residents, whose daily lives are impacted by the omnipresent coal industry.
"With the largest coal port on the planet at our doorstep, for too long our families have endured the damages created by investing in dirty energy," said Newcastle nurse Cathy Burgess. "Our reality is tainted with loud and dangerous coal trains and coal ships. Our homes and landscapes face a constant showering of harmful coal dust. For these reason and for so many more, I support the Council's decision to divest from the dirty fossil fuel industry."
According to the city's annual report, during 2012-2013, exports of coal from the port exceeded 142.6 million tons, at an estimated value of A$15.25 billion.
Dr. John Mackenzie, a coordinator with the local environmental justice group, the Hunter Community Environment Centre, said the move "sets the precedent that our local leaders are embracing a vision that breaks the cycle of coal dependency that has too long gripped the Newcastle community."
And in a press statement, Isaac Astill, a fossil fuel divestment campaigner with 350.org Australia, said: "We applaud the Newcastle City Council in its decision to divest from fossil fuels that are as bad for a balance sheet as they are for our air, water, and climate."
"As Tony Abbott forges backwards, hand-in-hand with the coal industry," Astill continued, "it is refreshing to see real leadership from local communities and Councils on one of the most defining issues of our time."
Australian business magnate and multi-billionaire Ruport Murdoch created even more enemies when he declared on Tuesday that the Great Barrier Reef, which has suffered severe destruction at human hands, looks "to the naked eye...fully as good as it did 50 years ago."
Murdoch made the comment in a series of posts to his Twitter page:
\u201cAustralia's Great Barrier Reef truly one of the world's great wonders. Never more beautiful than today teeming with multi-coloured fish.\u201d— Rupert Murdoch (@Rupert Murdoch) 1440475964
\u201cof course we should do everything to preserve the reef, but first let's get all the scientific facts in a row if greens can agree anything.\u201d— Rupert Murdoch (@Rupert Murdoch) 1440486034
\u201cTo the naked eye reef looks fully as good as it did 50 years ago.\u201d— Rupert Murdoch (@Rupert Murdoch) 1440487145
Environmental campaigners were quick to express ire following the comments.
"Anything Rupert Murdoch says in this area, you have to remember you are talking about a man with no scientific training who is a rampant political ideologue," Bill Snape, senior counsel to the Center for Biological Diversity, told Common Dreams. "Anyone who takes him half-seriously is a fool."
"The Great Barrier Reef is most certainly under threat and we look forward to advising Rupert Murdoch on his next visit to the optician," Leanne Minshull, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace International, told the Independent.
Murdoch's statements follow the Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposed gutting of a critical environmental protection law, section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, which experts say would put the Great Barrier Reef and other natural treasures under immediate threat of further destruction.
The reef, a UNESCO World Heritage site, stretches 1,200 miles off Australia's northeastern coast. The bio-diverse site has suffered severe harm from human-made climate change, oil spills, pollution, and over-fishing. In 2009, it was declared in a government report that the reef faces "catastrophic damage" from climate change and chemical runoff and has "poor" chances of healthy survival. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting in Bonn in early July confirmed that the reef continues to deteriorate and gave the Australian government 18 months to meaningfully protect it.
Murdoch's comments also provoked outraged responses on social media, including from Twitter users who questioned Murdoch's credentials to make such a claim.
\u201cRupert Murdoch just said the Great Barrier Reef looks as good as 50 years ago. I.. I don't think he can see colours anymore. #auspol\u201d— Dr Costa Avgoustinos (@Dr Costa Avgoustinos) 1440562918
\u201cAn Australian @Greens MP reacts to @RupertMurdoch's tweets during Great Barrier Reef holiday, via @reddit\u201d— ED Day - After The Pandemic (@ED Day - After The Pandemic) 1440516364
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was described this week by author and activist Naomi Klein as a "climate villain," is cracking down further on environmental groups and democracy by seeking to repeal a section of the country's conservation law that allows green groups to mount legal challenges to environmental approvals.
The move is described by the Sydney Morning Herald as a response to the controversial decision that stopped Australia's largest coal project--Adani's Carmichael coal mine--in its tracks. Earlier this month, the federal court overturned the Abbott government's approval of the mine, saying the environment minister, Greg Hunt, ignored his department's advice about the mine's impact on two vulnerable species, the yakka skink and the ornamental snake.
"If these changes go ahead, it will undermine basic justice and fairness for rural communities who are facing off against the biggest mining companies in the world."
--Nicky Chirlian, Upper Mooki Landcare Group
Abbott decried the successful challenge, brought by a small environmental group, as "legal sabotage." Attorney General and Senator George Brandis, who will take the repeal amendments to Parliament this week, said the country's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, as it currently stands, had encouraged cases of "vigilante litigation," and he was "appalled" by the Adani decision.
"Section 487 of the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act] provides a red carpet for radical activists who have a political, but not a legal interest, in a development to use aggressive litigation tactics to disrupt and sabotage important projects," Brandis said.
But Lenore Taylor, the Guardian's Australia political editor, put it another way: "When an environment group successfully uses 16-year-old national environmental laws to delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change the law to prevent them from ever doing it again."
According to the Morning Herald:
Under the current laws, anyone "adversely affected" by a decision or a failure to make a decision has the legal right to challenge it.
This includes any Australian citizens and residents who have acted "for protection or conservation of or research into the environment" any time in the two years before the decision was made.
The changes proposed will mean that legal challenges can only be made by people directly affected by a development, such as a land holder.
"I won't be directly affected by the Shenhua mine, but my regional environment and my entire community will be," said Nicky Chirlian, a member of the Upper Mooki Landcare Group challenging another controversial project, the Shenhua Watermark coal mine proposed for the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales, Australia. "If these changes go ahead, it will undermine basic justice and fairness for rural communities facing off against the biggest mining companies in the world."
Echoing that charge, the Australian Conservation Society said the political maneuver was "nothing short of an attempt to strip communities of their right to a healthy environment."
And Greenpeace chief executive David Ritter added: "Australia's environment laws aren't very restrictive; they allow you to mine coal in prime farmland and are even failing to protect world heritage areas like the Great Barrier Reef ... but today the government [has] announced that they are going to get them to prevent local communities from objecting to mega mines like the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland."
Essentially, Ritter said, Abbott and his coalition are "seeking to legislate special treatment and fast-tracking for an industry in decline that causes significant environmental and economic damage."