Australian Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements hands down its report - recognises role of climate change in natural disasters, value of Indigenous land management knowledge & need for a permanent sovereign aerial firefighting fleet based here

 

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements was established on 20 February 2020 in response to the extreme bushfire season of 2019-2020 which resulted in devastating loss of life, property and wildlife, and environmental destruction across the nation.

Those fires started in Australia’s hottest and driest year on record, with much of the 23 million hectares that burnt already impacted by drought and the Forest Fire Danger Index reading the highest since national records began.

The Royal Commission delivered its final report on 28 October 2020 and this was released on 30 October 2020.

In summary the report found:

3.1 Australia’s national arrangements for coordinating disaster management are complicated — there is a plethora of frameworks, plans, bodies, committees and stakeholders, with significant variation and different degrees of implementation.

National coordination, in relation to both operational and policy considerations, is necessary because disaster management is a shared responsibility in our federation.

3.2 Effective national coordination will be a critical capability in managing natural disasters on a national scale or with national consequences. Arrangements need to be clear, robust and accountable.

3.3 Existing arrangements have grown organically over time to fill a void, and have largely served Australia well. The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC), a not-for-profit company, has led on specific areas related to fire and emergency services. AFAC represents the Australian and New Zealand fire and

emergency services sector, and is primarily comprised of state and territory government fire and emergency services agencies.

3.4 National arrangements for coordinating disaster management require an overhaul so that they are equipped to cope with increasing disaster risks. Australia’s natural disaster arrangements and decision-making need to be supported by informed, strategic leadership, timely policy advice to elected officials, and a robust and accountable national coordination mechanism.

3.5 The changes to Australia’s national arrangements for coordinating disaster management that are contemplated in this chapter are substantive and structural. It has therefore been necessary to set out the current arrangements in detail. It is also necessary to do so because much of the detail was not on the public record.

The report also recognised what the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison federal government has long sought to either ignore or deny – climate change.

23. Extreme weather has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change; further global warming over the next 20 to 30 years is inevitable. Globally, temperatures will continue to rise, and Australia will have more hot days and fewer cool days. Sea levels are also projected to continue to rise. Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in number, but increase in intensity. Floods and bushfires are expected to become more frequent and more intense. Catastrophic fire conditions may render traditional bushfire prediction models and firefighting techniques less effective.

It also recognised the significance of local knowledge and the need to engage further with Traditional Owners to explore the relationship between Indigenous land and fire management and natural disaster resilience. 

The report also made over eighty specific recommendations.

Most importantly to regions like North-East New South Wales where fire kicked off very early in the bushfire season and where we saw with our own eyes the value aerial firefighting capabilities in keeping fire out of our town and village streets, one of the recommendations contained these observations:

8.106 Australian, state and territory governments should work together to continue to improve Australia’s collective, Australian-based and operated, aerial firefighting capabilities. Though we see merit in the continued use of overseas-based aviation services and air crew in some instances, Australia’s current reliance represents a vulnerability, as demonstrated during the 2019-2020 bushfire season.

8.107 We define Australia’s sovereign aerial firefighting capability as the collective Australian-based aerial firefighting capabilities of the states and territories, supported by a national capability which is jointly funded by the Australian, state and territory governments. These capabilities should be maintained through procurement and contracting strategies that support the Australian-based aerial firefighting industry.

8.108 The development of a modest Australian-based and registered national fleet of VLAT/LAT aircraft and Type-1 helicopters, jointly funded by the Australian, state and territory governments, will enhance Australia’s bushfire resilience. A standing national fleet would ensure that the states and territories have the necessary resources to call upon during periods of high demand, without the need to reduce the operational capabilities of other jurisdictions. This standing fleet should also include situational awareness and support capabilities which may benefit from a nationally coordinated approach.

8.109 Australia’s sovereign aerial firefighting capability should be supported by ongoing research and evaluation to inform specific capability needs, and the most effective aerial firefighting strategies.

8.110 Australia’s sovereign aerial firefighting capability may be supplemented by overseas based aviation services, where additional capacity is forecast to be required and available. [my yellow highlighting]

Australian Royal Commission Into National Natural Disaster Arrangements - Report [Accessible] by clarencegirl on Scribd

Appendices to the final report can be found at 

https://www.scribd.com/document/482319789/Australian-Royal-Commission-Into-National-Natural-Disaster-Arrangements-Appendices-Accessible

Australian Prime Minster Morrison & Foreign Minster Payne not as sanguine about trading partners' pledges of zero green house gas emission targets as they pretend?

This was Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison after the world left this country even further behind with regard to climate change policy and emissions reduction targets…..

The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 October 2020:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he will not be dictated to by other governments' climate change goals, declaring he is not worried about the future of Australia's exports despite four of the country's top trading partners adopting net-zero emissions targets.

China, Japan, Britain and South Korea, which account for more than $310 billion in Australian annual trade between them, have all now adopted the emissions target by 2050 or 2060, ramping up pressure on Australia's fossil fuel industry. Coal and natural gas alone are worth more than 25 per cent of Australia's exports, or $110 billion each year….

Major Australian export companies such as Rio Tinto, BHP, major agriculture groups and multinational food companies are pursuing carbon neutrality, which experts say is a move to avoid being stung with trade tariffs or charges by countries that have set net-zero targets….

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister and Liberal Senator Marise Payne was just as stubborn as her own prime minister.

However, it was made obvious by at least one other media article published the next day that Morrison was perhaps uncomfortable with the situation and how it might read to the general public.

The Guardian, 29 October 2019:

The Morrison government has quietly appointed an expert panel to come up with new ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and given it less than a month to come up with recommendations.

In what is being seen by observers as an acknowledgment that its main climate change policy, the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund, is failing to cut national pollution, the government has appointed a panel of four business leaders and policy experts to suggest options to expand it.

The panel is headed by Grant King, the outgoing president of the Business Council of Australia and a former chief executive of Origin Energy. It was appointed by the minister for emissions reduction, Angus Taylor, in mid-October but has not been made public…..

The panel has been established despite Morrison and Taylor maintaining they have set out “to the last tonne” of carbon dioxide how Australia will meet the 2030 emissions target announced before the Paris climate conference . In reality, national emissions have risen each year since 2015  and most analyses  suggest the government will not reach the goal, a 26%-28% cut below 2005 levels, under current policies…..

Expert Panel examining oppo... by The Guardian

https://www.scribd.com/document/432470725/Expert-Panel-examining-opportunities-for-further-abatement

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 October 2019:

Australia's carbon emissions appear to have edged higher in the final quarter of the 2018-19 financial year, delaying the downward trajectory the nation needs in order to hit the country's Paris climate goals.

National emissions are projected to have reached 134.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) in April-June 2019, according to Ndevr Environmental Consultants, an environmental auditing company with a track record of accurately estimating the nation's emissions.

That total would come in about 900,000 tonnes of CO2-e more than for the previous three months, Ndevr said in a report based on public data and sector estimates. The tally would be less - by a similar amount - than the fourth quarter of 2017-18.

For the whole year, emissions were modestly higher than for previous 12 months, marking three consecutive years of increases. Excluding land-use changes - such as deforestation or tree planting - annual emissions have risen for the five years since the Abbott government scrapped the carbon price in 2014…..

Cartoons of the Week

David Rowe

Cathy Wilcox

Morrison Government continues to drag its feet on national greenhouse gas emissions reduction

Renew Economy, 21 September 2020:

Morrison said, of net zero emissions:

"Well, as you know, our policy is to achieve that in the second half of this century, and I certainly will achieve that, and that’s why this week’s announcements were so important because it was about the technology we need to invest in now, which will make it a reality, particularly on the other side of 2030. The target that you’ve talked about becomes absolutely achievable. I’m interested in doing the things that make that happen. I think that is very achievable"…..

Morrison was, in fact, effectively stating that Australia would reach net zero emissions by 2100. Heck, what’s a half-century between friends?

In fact, Australia’s Paris climate agreement targets are neatly aligned with reaching net zero by 2100, whereas Labor’s old 45% by 2030 targets were aligned with net zero by 2050 (the far safer option). Unfortunately, the latest projections from the government are wildly off course, not only for net zero by 2050, but also for net zero by 2100….

If the rate of yearly emissions drops between 2020 and 2030 in Australia’s government projections continue, by my own reckoning, Australia will reach net zero emissions in the year 2300….

The Guardian, 22 September 2020:

The Morrison government’s rejection of a net zero emissions target for 2050 is at odds with the Paris agreement and more than 100 countries that have backed the goal, according to some of Australia’s most experienced climate experts..... 

countries in Paris including Australia had specifically asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to examine what 1.5C of heating would mean, and what needed to be done to avoid it. 

The resulting report, released in 2018, found global emissions needed to effectively be cut in half by 2030 – to be 45% below 2010 levels – and to reach net zero by 2050. It found staying within 2C heating would require net zero by 2070, but the impact of that was likely to be far worse. 

Australia chose to stick with its existing 2030 target of a 26% to 28% cut below 2005 levels and is yet to set a date to reach net zero.....

By contrast, [Erwin] Jackson said, Australia was “confusing the market”. “On the one hand, it has signed up to an international agreement that is supposed to put it on a path to net zero emissions by no later than 2050,” he said. “On the other, it keeps talking about ‘low emissions’. We’ve moved on from a conversation about low emissions. Globally, we have recognised we need to get to zero emissions.”

BACKGROUND

Australia is almost standing still when it comes to reducing its national annual greenhouse gas emissions. At the end of 19 calendar years in 2019 federal government policy has only resulted in our annual greenhouse gas emissions falling by a trifling 18.5 metric tonnes in comparison with the annual emissions at the end of the year 2000.

Estimated National Greenhouse Gas Emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or MTCO2e over last 20 years - includes Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry:

2000 - 551 Mt CO2-e

2001 - 570 Mt CO2-e

2002 - 568 Mt CO2-e

2003 - 561 Mt CO2-e

2004 - 574 Mt CO2-e

2005 - 597 Mt CO2-e 

2006 - 610 Mt CO2-e

2007 - 606 Mt CO2-e

2008 - 590 Mt CO2-e 

2009 - 584 Mt CO2-e 

2010 - 543 Mt CO2-e

2011 - 546.3 Mt CO2-e

2012 - 551.9 Mt CO2-e (total excludes Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry)

2013 - 538.4Mt CO2-e

2014 - 535.9 Mt CO2-e 

2015 - 535.7 Mt CO2-e

2016 – 543.3 Mt CO2-e

2017 – 533.7 Mt CO2-e

2018 – 532.5 Mt CO2-e 

2019 – 532.5 Mt CO2-e (this annual total marks a difference of only -18.5 Mt CO2-e compared with the year 2000 annual total)

2020 – 528.7 Mt CO2-e (total up to 30 March)

Note:

Unadjusted figures found in Australian Government National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Quarterly updates.and at Australian Dept. of Environment and Energy.

The estimated totals from 2000 to 2009 are from Dept. of Energy and Environment.

New report by the World Meteorological Organization warns global warming 1.5℃ limit may be exceeded by 2024—and the risk is growing.

Phys Org, 9 September 2020:

The Paris climate agreement seeks to limit global warming to 1.5℃ this century. A new report by the World Meteorological Organization warns this limit may be exceeded by 2024—and the risk is growing.

This first overshoot beyond 1.5℃ would be temporary, likely aided by a major climate anomaly such as an El Niño weather pattern. However, it casts new doubt on whether Earth's climate can be permanently stabilized at 1.5℃ warming.

This finding is among those just published in a report titled United in Science. We contributed to the report, which was prepared by six leading science agencies, including the Global Carbon Project.

The report also found while greenhouse gas emissions declined slightly in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they remained very high—which meant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have continued to rise…..

Read the full article here.

Cartoons of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

Wes Mountain

Graeme MacKay

A reminder that past mistakes make the Far North Coast even more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change

It is easy to forget that long before modern urban population pressure and seachange retirees, the coastal fringe of the Northern Rivers region was being shaped by mining which irreversibly weakened shorelines now experiencing increasingly erosive wave patterns due to climate change.

This past degradation of coastal sand dunes and barrier beaches leaves many communities vulnerable.

Echo NetDaily, 12 December 2013:

Mining, not waves, destroyed Belongil

Oh, spare me. The Belongil? Again? Could The Echo run that article from a few years back that detailed (with photos) the deep sandmining that destroyed the ancient solid dune base right across Byron Bay and Tallows and more?

Is there anyone left alive who knows there’s a place called The Sand Hills Estate in Byron Bay, and why? As a reminder, it’s where the YAC is, and there were huge sand hills there, which were mined out. Does anyone recall there was a freshwater lake there, just like the ones on Fraser Island that had to be protected from sandmining in the 70s? Byron’s lake was not protected, and it was destroyed by sandmining.

Are there still residents who recall the mining industry and politicians saying the mining was ever so important, for the space program no less, and that the beaches would be fine? Because a magic plant named bitou bush would hold the soft sand together after the ancient black sand was removed?

But it turned out the black sand was used for cheap insulation on power lines, the bitou bush became an ecological nightmare, and the soft sand washed away in the first big storm. Does anyone remember any of this? Or that we even used to have black sand? And that was when the mining industry/political fixers came up with: it’s a natural process and we need a planned retreat? Any of this sound familiar? Does anyone know what the black sand was, how it got there, and how long it takes to accumulate?

And the current cliff edge at Belongil? Anyone actually bother to look at a survey map? Because that edge just happens to be where the mining stopped, at boundaries of private land. Notice that otherwise the whole thing would have been mined, washed away, and the sea would likely be across Ewingsdale Road?

For goodness sake, anyone remember the radioactive tailings dumped as landfill around town, that was all supposed to be fine? Until some smart bloke wandered about with a Geiger counter and a few people woke up. Is that sand-processing plant still rusting on the beach at Kingscliff? You know, the one with the big signs that say ‘WARNING: RADIOACTIVE’?

For pity’s sake, what on Earth lets people make statements without any reference to the geological, industrial, or political history of the landscape, and line up as the poster boys for mining industry arse-covering, and yet claim to give a damn about the world?

Listen, John Vaughan may annoy people, he may be obstreperous and confrontational in manner, but he’s actually, in this case, right. Do. Your. Homework. Or. Don’t. Put. Your. Hand. Up.

Matt Hartley, Byron Bay

BACKGROUND

Environmental Science articles by Will Kemp, 14 August 2011:

The birth of sand mining in Australia took place in Ballina, NSW, in 1870, when John Sinclair discovered gold in the black sand on Shaw’s beach. That discovery sparked a gold rush that lasted for nearly 30 years. At its peak there were about 300 people digging for gold on the beaches around Ballina (Morley, 1981).

It is, however, unlikely that the beaches were in pristine shape before the gold rush started. Cement production didn’t begin in Australia until about the same time as the beginning of gold mining on the beaches (NSW Heritage Office, 2003), so beach sand wouldn’t have been mined for construction work prior to that time. But cedar getters began working in the forests in the 1840s and they hauled logs to the beaches and out to schooners moored offshore (NPWS, 2007). This undoubtedly caused some significant damage to parts of the dune systems.

The beach gold miners depended on south-easterly gales to expose the black sand and bring the heavier, gold-containing particles to the beach surface (Morley, 1981) and mining was done entirely by hand (Nott, 1957 cited in Borland, 1999).

Within twenty years, most of the beach gold deposits were exhausted and the attention of the miners turned inland. By the end of the century, gold had been discovered on beaches from Bermagui, NSW to Fraser Island, Qld, but its peak had passed (Morley, 1981).

For the next couple of decades, mining for gold, platinum, and tin continued on the beaches around Byron Bay. But around 1920 there began to be an interest in other minerals that were found in the beach sands – rutile, zircon, and ilmenite, the “heavy minerals”.

The first large scale mining of heavy mineral sands was carried out in 1935 when Zircon-Rutile Ltd began production of zircon and rutile at Byron Bay. They only processed the ore, and engaged contractors to do the mining – which was done on the beach by hand, using shovels (Morley, 1981).

When mineral sand deposits were discovered in the back dunes and heathland country behind the beaches, mining techniques changed. Ponds were dug and small floating dredges were used to extract the minerals (Nott, 1957 cited in Borland, 1999).

In the 1950s, as a result of criticism of the environmental damage being done by sand mining, the NSW Mines department began to work towards improving the rehabilitation of mine sites. But it wasn’t until the late 1960s that any serious effort was put into this process (Unwin & Cook, 1986 cited in Burdett, 1994).

Around that time, reprofiling of sand dunes was improved by the introduction of a stacker boom to rebuild the dunes with the tailings sand returned from the separation plant (Burdett, 1994).

In the 1960s mining began in the aeolian high dunes of southern Queensland (Morley, 1981).

In the late 1960s, mining companies began to employ qualified rehabilitation workers for the first time. (Unwin & Cook, 1986 cited in Burdett, 1994)….. 

Aunty Linda Vidler (2004), an Arakwal elder from the Byron Bay area, recalled 30 foot high sand dunes at Tallow Beach before sand mining took place. There were also dune swales and permanent lakes (Vidler 2003, cited in NPWS, 2007). Today the dune system there is more uniform, flat and simplified (NPWS, 2007). 

It is likely that while sand mining continued, it caused increased erosion of the shoreline of Australian beaches, as seems to have been the case with sand mining in California (Thornton et. al., 2006). Landward displacement of frontal dunes has occurred (Dallas & Tuck, 2008). Lack of vegetation and dune instability in old, unrehabilitated mine sites continues to contribute to erosion of the dune systems. 

Sand mining has destroyed archeological and heritage sites, such as Aboriginal camp sites, middens and possibly burial sites (Dallas & Tuck, 2008). Many sites of European and Aboriginal value were lost to sand mining around the Ballina area (Dept. of Land and Water Conservation, 2003)..... 

Port Of Yamba Historical Society Museum, 30 July 2018: 

Yamba’s Pippi Beach is a big open beach ideal for long walks, surfing and fishing. At low tide the odd Pippi shellfish can be seen, but not as many as there were before sand mining and overharvesting in the mid 1900s. 

In almost every decade of the twentieth century sand mining has occurred along the north coast of NSW. The sand, rich in zircon, rutile, ilmenite and monazite was considered valuable for steel alloys, enamels, glazes and glass. 

The Depression delayed early attempts but in 1934/5 leases at Iluka, Yamba and Back Beach, Angourie were exploited. The Yamba lease consisted of a 40 metre wide strip of beach above low water mark and from a point on Pippi Beach opposite the present Ngaru Village and including most of Barri Beach (locally known as Mines or Dump Beach). The sand was loaded by hand into a horse-drawn dray, which took the mineral to the treatment plant, about 1.2 km south of Barri Point (Flat Rock). Later a tramline was erected on the beach, and hopper trucks, still loaded by hand, took the sand to the treatment plant pulled by a small diesel locomotive. 

The Yamba lease was worked out by 1937 and production shifted to Angourie. Another tramway was built from the treatment plant to Back Beach, Angourie but little evidence remains of this tramway today. 

In 1942/3 four new leases covered Turners, Yamba and Convent Beaches in Yamba and Green Point, Spookies and Back Beaches at Angourie. A small amount of mineral sand was taken from Main Beach, Yamba in 1943 before an appeal by a delegation from the surf club to the Minister for Mines had the mining stopped. A further lease was obtained in 1943 covering Barri Beach and Pippi Beach up to Lovers Point. On seeing the notices of the proposed mining activity, William Ager appealed for Council to resist the lease applications, feeling that the mining would undermine his conservation work. Despite the lease being granted, however, no mining took place in favour of richer mineral deposits further north in the Cudgen area. 

 Another period of mining occurred from 1968-1970, when sand dunes behind the beaches from Brooms Head to Yamba and Iluka were mined then rebuilt using front-end loaders. 

The Bitou bush planted by the mining company to rehabilitate the dunes has since become a noxious weed. They did however discover the Yamba Cemetery, located towards the south end of Pippi Beach, covered in 20 feet of sand. 

The declaration of Yuraygir National Park in 1980 and the importance of our beaches for tourism have largely ended any prospect of further mining. The North Coast Environmental Council and Maclean Shire Council blocked an attempt in 1995, especially after exploratory work caused severe dune damage. 

Clarence Valley Council, Coastal Hazard Study for Pippi Beach, Yamba, 23 March 2016: 

Pippi Beach and its adjoining headland to the north at Yamba Point are of high aesthetic and environmental value. 

The beach is generally backed by dunes located within Crown Reserve. These dunes were mined for heavy minerals in the 1970s and later revegetated. Poorly managed stormwater discharges into the dunes at the northern end of the beach led to erosion of the dune face and formation of localised blow outs. 

Coastal hazard investigations by Manly Hydraulics Laboratory in 2002 found that Pippi Beach was only mildly affected by coastal hazard. However, storms in recent years have lowered the beach profile and impacted on beach amenity. 

Also a public footpath has been proposed joining Yamba Point with beaches to the south and a concern has been expressed for the stability of elevated bluff areas to be traversed by this path..... 

The Daily Examiner, 2 March 2018: 

Wooli Beach, Brooms Head, Woody Head and Yamba beaches are all being impacted by coastal erosion. The Daily Examiner has been following the erosion since the high tides and big swells were forced upon the Clarence in late December 2017, January and February this year.

Map of historical coastal mineral sand mining
from Yamba in the north to Wooli in the southern section of the Clarence Coast
IMAGE: "There were always people here: a history of Yuraygir National Park", p.55

NOTE:

While minerals sands mining results in short-term alteration of ecosystems, there is a particular concern that thorium, the principal radioactive component of monazite, may over time leach from tailings dumps into local water supply systems. Also, as elevated radiation levels are likely to occur at areas of spillage adjacent to monazite loading and storage facilities on former mining sites, it may be necessary to have a system of controls to restrict the public and nearby landowners from having contact with some parts of former mine sites [Greg Swensen, Mineral sands mining in Western Australia, p.2]. 

Some samples in an old ilmenite stockpile (since removed) at Jerusalem Creek in Bundjalung National Park held thorium and uranium that exceed public health exemption criteria. [NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Bundjalung National Park Review of Environmental Factors: Proposed ilmenite stockpile removal and site rehabilitation, 2016]

A grand gesture by James Murdoch which changes nothing on the Australian media landscape

@mjrowland68

James Rupert Jacob Murdoch has decided to leave his father's toxic media organisation.

The Hollywood Reporter, 31 July 2020:

Getty

Former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch has resigned from the board of News Corp., the parent company of the Wall Street Journal. 

In a letter of resignation filed Friday afternoon, Murdoch wrote: "My resignation is due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions." 

James Murdoch had been on News Corp.'s board of directors since 2013. News Corp. is one of two media companies controlled by James' father Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch family. 

The other is Fox Corp., the parent company of Fox News and the Fox broadcast network, which was created after 21st Century Fox sold its entertainment assets to The Walt Disney Company. 

Murdoch stepped down as Fox CEO following the sale, with his brother Lachlan Murdoch becoming CEO, and father Rupert becoming co-chairman. 

News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, New York Post, News U.K. and newspaper and TV assets in Australia, is run by CEO Robert Thomson. 

After leaving the Fox fold, Murdoch started his own company, Lupa Systems, which has invested in technology companies and other firms. 

Lupa Systems has acquired stakes in Vice Media, tech startup Betalab, and is pursuing a stake in MCH Group, the parent company of the Art Basel fair. 

Lupa Systems and Joe Marchese's Attention Capital also acquired a majority stake in Tribeca Enterprises last year, the parent organization of the Tribeca Film Festival. 

In a joint statement released after the letter was made public, Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch said "We’re grateful to James for his many years of service to the company. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors.”

Earlier this year James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn issued a joint statement expressing disappointment with the level of climate change denial found in News Corp’s Australian outlets.

James Murdoch became chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in 2003 at the age of 30, when his father Rupert was still chairman. 

By 2012 after the News of the World phone hacking scandal and the subsequent Leveson Inquiry, U.K. media watchdog Ofcom declared James' ''conduct in relation to events at NGN repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman'' when he was running News Corp's News Group Newspapers.

At that time James was also a director of British Sky Broadcasting Group as well as a director of News Corporation.

He apparently stepped back from any day-to-day roles within the family business at the end of 2018.

His resignation does not imply that he has sold or intends to sell his shareholdings in News Corp or Disney.

Tweet of the Week

WATCH: The race is on to save beachfront properties at risk of collapsing on the Central Coast, after huge swell smashed the coastline.

The full story, 6.00pm on #9News pic.twitter.com/Qg1JJHKuAQ

— Nine News Sydney (@9NewsSyd) July 17, 2020

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc. commences a civil enforcement proceeding in NSW Land and Environment Court to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorprated is a group of bushfire survivors, firefighters, local councillors who have joined together to demand the Government take immediate action on climate change.

The group says of itself: "We have come together because we have lost our homes and our communities to bushfires and we want action. We are sick of waiting and we won’t put up with half-measures anymore. The Government can no longer ignore the way their climate change denial is hurting our communities and putting lives at risk. They must take Australia beyond coal projects like Adani and move to 100% renewable energy for all."

On 20 April 2020 Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc. brought a civil enforcement proceeding in the Land and Environment Court to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The proceedings seek to force the EPA to establish a climate policy, based on its statutory role which includes a requirement to prepare policies to protect the environment. The group will be arguing that the EPA as lead environment regulator in NSW failed to establish such policies in relation to climate change.

The outcome of this case is of particular interest to communities in the NSW Northern Rivers region given the mega wildfires of the 2019-2020 bushfire season and the environmental devastation/property loss/social dsiruption in their wake.

On 27 April 2020 The Daily Examiner reported:

Any notion that climate change is an issue that can be dealt with effectively in some distant future has been shown to be untenable given events of the past few years. 

Extreme weather events, severe droughts and longer and more catastrophic bushfire seasons have shown more people there is a connection between these events and the growing carbon emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Australians concerned about climate change are becoming increasingly frustrated with the ostrich-like attitudes of many politicians and government agencies. 

One group that is taking legal action in an attempt to force a NSW government agency to do more on climate change is Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, which is taking the Environmental ­Protection Agency to court ­because of its failure to better protect communities. 

Group president Jo Dodds said all members had experienced a bushfire first-hand. They believed climate change was a major contributing factor to the cause and growing intensity of bushfires in Australia. 

She said the issue wasn’t being taken seriously enough and “there’s a sense that the bushfires are over and we can get back to normal life after COVID-19 – but the fires are going to come harder and more frequently”. 

The Environmental Defenders Office is representing the group. EDO chief executive David Morris said the EPA had “a statutory mandate to protect the environment … but the EPA don’t have a current policy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions”. 

“Those two things can’t coexist,” he said. “We’re simply asking the court to tell the EPA go and create environmental quality objectives with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, regulate the pollution and use their existing powers to do so.” 

According to the EDO, the EPA is in a unique position. As an agency “with teeth”, it has the power to issue licences to control pollution, as well as put caps and prices on substances that are harmful to the environment. 

The case is listed in the NSW Land and Environment Court in Sydney on May 8. 

Leonie Blain, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition