Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday 9 April 2018
Land degradation will be main cause of species loss & driver of the migration of millions of people by 2050
IPBES:
Science and Policy for People and nature, media
release, 26 March 2018:
Worsening Worldwide Land
Degradation Now ‘Critical’, Undermining Well-Being of 3.2 Billion People
Main cause of species loss & driver of the migration of millions of people by 2050 In landmark 3-year assessment report, 100+ experts outline costs, dangers & options
Worsening land degradation caused by
human activities is undermining the well-being of two fifths of humanity,
driving species extinctions and intensifying climate change. It is also a major
contributor to mass human migration and increased conflict, according to the
world’s first comprehensive evidence-based assessment of land degradation and
restoration.
The dangers of land degradation, which
cost the equivalent of about 10% of the world’s annual gross product in 2010
through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are detailed for
policymakers, together with a catalogue of corrective options, in the
three-year assessment report by more than 100 leading experts from 45
countries, launched today.
Produced by the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the
report was approved at the 6th session of the IPBES Plenary in Medellín,
Colombia. IPBES has 129 State Members.
Providing the best-available evidence
for policymakers to make better-informed decisions, the report draws on more
than 3,000 scientific, Government, indigenous and local knowledge sources.
Extensively peer-reviewed, it was improved by more than 7,300 comments,
received from over 200 external reviewers.
Serious Danger to Human
Well-being
Rapid expansion and unsustainable
management of croplands and grazing lands is the most extensive global direct
driver of land degradation, causing significant loss of biodiversity and
ecosystem services – food security, water purification, the provision of energy
and other contributions of nature essential to people. This has reached
‘critical’ levels in many parts of the world, the report says.
“With negative impacts on the
well-being of at least 3.2 billion people, the degradation of the Earth’s land
surface through human activities is pushing the planet towards a sixth mass
species extinction,” said Prof. Robert Scholes (South Africa), co-chair of the
assessment with Dr. Luca Montanarella (Italy). “Avoiding, reducing and
reversing this problem, and restoring degraded land, is an urgent priority to
protect the biodiversity and ecosystem services vital to all life on Earth and
to ensure human well-being.”
“Wetlands have been particularly hard
hit,” said Dr. Montanarella. “We have seen losses of 87% in wetland areas since
the start of the modern era – with 54% lost since 1900.”
According to the authors, land
degradation manifests in many ways: land abandonment, declining populations of
wild species, loss of soil and soil health, rangelands and fresh water, as well
as deforestation.
Underlying drivers of land
degradation, says the report, are the high-consumption lifestyles in the most
developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and
emerging economies. High and rising per capita consumption, amplified by
continued population growth in many parts of the world, can drive unsustainable
levels of agricultural expansion, natural resource and mineral extraction, and
urbanization – typically leading to greater levels of land degradation.
By 2014, more than 1.5 billion
hectares of natural ecosystems had been converted to croplands. Less than 25%
of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity –
and by 2050, the IPBES experts estimate this will have fallen to less than 10%.
Crop and grazing lands now cover more
than one third of the Earth´s land surface, with recent clearance of native
habitats, including forests, grasslands and wetlands, being concentrated in
some of the most species-rich ecosystems on the planet.
The report says increasing demand for
food and biofuels will likely lead to continued increase in nutrient and
chemical inputs and a shift towards industrialized livestock production
systems, with pesticide and fertilizer use expected to double by 2050.
Avoidance of further agricultural
expansion into native habitats can be achieved through yield increases on the
existing farmlands, shifts towards less land degrading diets, such as those
with more plant-based foods and less animal protein from unsustainable sources,
and reductions in food loss and waste.
Strong Links to Climate
Change
“Through this report, the global
community of experts has delivered a frank and urgent warning, with clear
options to address dire environmental damage,” said Sir Robert Watson, Chair of
IPBES.
“Land degradation, biodiversity loss
and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the
increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural
environment. We cannot afford to tackle any one of these three threats in
isolation – they each deserve the highest policy priority and must be addressed
together.”
The IPBES report finds that land
degradation is a major contributor to climate change, with deforestation alone
contributing about 10% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Another
major driver of the changing climate has been the release of carbon previously
stored in the soil, with land degradation between 2000 and 2009 responsible for
annual global emissions of up to 4.4 billion tonnes of CO2.
Given the importance of soil’s carbon
absorption and storage functions, the avoidance, reduction and reversal of land
degradation could provide more than a third of the most cost-effective
greenhouse gas mitigation activities needed by 2030 to keep global warming
under the 2°C threshold targeted in the Paris Agreement on climate change,
increase food and water security, and contribute to the avoidance of conflict
and migration.
Projections to 2050
“In just over three decades from now,
an estimated 4 billion people will live in drylands,” said Prof. Scholes. “By
then it is likely that land degradation, together with the closely related
problems of climate change, will have forced 50-700 million people to migrate.
Decreasing land productivity also makes societies more vulnerable to social
instability – particularly in dryland areas, where years with extremely low
rainfall have been associated with an increase of up to 45% in violent
conflict.”
Dr. Montanarella added: “By 2050, the
combination of land degradation and climate change is predicted to reduce
global crop yields by an average of 10%, and by up to 50% in some regions. In
the future, most degradation will occur in Central and South America,
sub-Saharan Africa and Asia – the areas with the most land still remaining that
is suitable for agriculture.”
The report also underlines the
challenges that land degradation poses, and the importance of restoration, for
key international development objectives, including the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. “The greatest
value of the assessment is the evidence that it provides to decision makers in
Government, business, academia and even at the level of local communities,”
said Dr. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary of IPBES. “With better
information, backed by the consensus of the world’s leading experts, we can all
make better choices for more effective action.”
Options for Land
Restoration
The report notes that successful
examples of land restoration are found in every ecosystem, and that many
well-tested practices and techniques, both traditional and modern, can avoid or
reverse degradation.
In croplands, for instance, some of
these include reducing soil loss and improving soil health, the use of salt
tolerant crops, conservation agriculture and integrated crop, livestock and
forestry systems.
In rangelands with traditional
grazing, maintenance of appropriate fire regimes, and the reinstatement or
development of local livestock management practices and institutions have
proven effective.
Successful responses in wetlands have
included control over pollution sources, managing the wetlands as part of the
landscape, and reflooding wetlands damaged by draining.
In urban areas, urban spatial
planning, replanting with native species, the development of ‘green
infrastructure’ such as parks and riverways, remediation of contaminated and
sealed soils (e.g. under asphalt), wastewater treatment and river channel restoration
are identified as key options for action.
Opportunities to accelerate action
identified in the report include:
Improving monitoring, verification
systems and baseline data;
Coordinating policy between different
ministries to simultaneously encourage more sustainable production and
consumption practices of land-based commodities;
Eliminating ‘perverse incentives’ that
promote land degradation and promoting positive incentives that reward
sustainable land management; and
Integrating the agricultural,
forestry, energy, water, infrastructure and service agendas.
Making the point that existing
multilateral environmental agreements provide a good platform for action to
avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation and promote restoration, the authors
observe, however, that greater commitment and more effective cooperation is
needed at the national and local levels to achieve the goals of zero net land
degradation, no loss of biodiversity and improved human well-being.
Knowledge Gaps
Among the areas identified by the
report as opportunities for further research are:
The consequences of land degradation
on freshwater and coastal ecosystems, physical and mental health and spiritual
well-being, and infectious disease prevalence and transmission;
The potential for land degradation to
exacerbate climate change, and land restoration to help both mitigation and
adaptation;
The linkages between land degradation
and restoration and social, economic and political processes in far-off places;
and
Interactions among land degradation,
poverty, climate change, and the risk of conflict and of involuntary migration.
Environmental and
Economic Sense
The report found that higher
employment and other benefits of land restoration often exceed by far the costs
involved. On average, the benefits of restoration are 10 times higher
than the costs (estimated across nine different biomes), and, for regions like
Asia and Africa, the cost of inaction in the face of land degradation is at
least three times higher than the cost of action.
“Fully deploying the toolbox of proven
ways to stop and reverse land degradation is not only vital to ensure food
security, reduce climate change and protect biodiversity,” said Dr.
Montanarella, “It’s also economically prudent and increasingly urgent.”
Echoing this message, Sir Robert
Watson, said: “Of the many valuable messages in the report, this ranks among
the most important: implementing the right actions to combat land degradation
can transform the lives of millions of people across the planet, but this will
become more difficult and more costly the longer we take to act.”
Unedited
advance Summary for Policymakers of the regional assessment of biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific
EN
PDF
EN
Word
Unedited
advance Summary for Policymakers of the thematic assessment of land degradation
and restoration
EN
PDF
EN
Word
Wednesday 4 April 2018
Sunday 11 March 2018
A brief respite in the NSW Berejiklian Government's war on the natural world
"Clearing under the Code may threaten the viability of certain threatened species at property and local landscape scale. The risk highest in overcleared landscapes where most clearing is likely to occur under the Code." [NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, "Concurrene on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017, p. 3]
Sometime in 2017 a document was prepared for the NSW Minister for Environment & Heritage and Liberal MP for Vaucluse Gabrielle Upton to sign in order for increased clearing of native vegetation across New South Wales to occur.
This new land clearing policy came into effect in August of that year but faced a legal challenge.
The
Coffs Coast Advocate,
9 March 2018:
THE Land and Environment
Court has delivered a massive blow to the NSW Government by ruling its land
clearing laws invalid because they were made unlawfully.
The Nature Conservation
Council (NCC) launched a legal challenge to the codes last November arguing
Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair failed to obtain concurrence from
Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton before making the codes, as is required by
law.
This morning the
government conceded this was the case and NCC chief executive Kate Smolski was
was quick to pounce.
"Today's ruling is
an embarrassing admission of failure by the government and a great victory for
the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us in taking
this action,” she said.
"It is
deeply troubling that the government disregarded the important oversight role
of the Environment Minister when making environmental laws but we are even more
concerned about the harmful content of the laws themselves.
"By
the government's own assessment they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to
45 per cent and expose threatened wildlife habitat to destruction including 99
per cent of identified koala habitat on private land.
"Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”…..
The NSW Government is
yet to issue a statement on the decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature Conservation Council (NCC)
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Media Release, 2 March 2018:
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Court finds NSW
Government land-clearing laws invalid
The Land and Environment
Court today ruled the NSW Government’s land-clearing laws invalid because they
were made unlawfully.
“The government has
bungled the introduction of one of its signature pieces of legislation, and in
the process demonstrates its careless disregard for nature in NSW,” Nature
Conservation Council CEO Kate Smolski said.
“Today’s ruling is an
embarrassing admission of failure by the Berejiklian government and a great
victory for the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us
in taking this action.”
The Nature Conservation
Council, represented by public interest environmental lawyers EDO NSW, launched
legal challenge against the government’s land-clearing codes last November.
NCC had argued through
its barristers Jeremy Kirk SC and David Hume the codes were invalid because the
Primary Industries Minister failed to obtain concurrence of the Environment
Minister before making the codes, as is required by law. The government today
has conceded this was indeed the case.
“It is deeply troubling
that the government disregarded the important oversight role of the Environment
Minister when making environmental laws, but we are even more concerned about
the harmful content of the laws themselves,” Ms Smolski said.
“By the government’s own
assessment, they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to 45% and expose
threaten wildlife habitat to destruction, including 99% of identified koala
habitat on private land.
“These laws were made
against the advice of the scientific community and against the wishes of the
vast majority of the many thousands of people who made submissions.
“It would
be completely cynical for the government to immediately remake these laws
without first correcting their many flaws and including environmental
protections the community wants and the science says we need.
“Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”
Ms Smolski pledged to
continue the campaign to overturn weak land-clearing laws.
“As the state’s peak
environment organization, we will do everything we can to expose the damage of
land clearing and will not stop until we have laws that protect nature,” she
said.
“These laws are a matter
of life or death for wildlife. More than 1000 plant and animal species are at
risk of extinction in this state, including the koala and 60 per cent of all
our native mammals.
“Land clearing is the
main threat to many of these animals, and the laws this government introduced
unlawfully are pushing them closer to the brink.
“It is regrettable that
we had to take the government to court to make it abide by its own laws, but it
demonstrates the critical role organisations like ours play in our democracy.”
Environment Minister
knew 99% of koala habitat would be exposed to land clearing by contentious new
laws, FIO document shows
A document obtained
under freedom of information laws shows the Berejiklian government knew its new
land clearing laws would cause extensive harm to wildlife habitat but pressed
ahead with the changes anyway.
“This is damning
evidence that the Environment Minister approved these new laws knowing they
would expose 99% of identified koala habitat on private land to clearing,” NCC
CEO Kate Smolski said.
“The document also shows
the Minister was warned the laws could cause a 45% spike in land clearing and
that they would mostly benefit very large agribusinesses that could clear land
on a massive scale, not smaller enterprises and farming communities across the
state.
“It shows what we have
suspected all along – environment policy in NSW is being dictated by the
National Party and the powerful agribusiness interests the party represents.
“Minister Upton knew
these laws were very bad for threatened species and bushland, yet she approved
them anyway. This is a disgrace.”
The document, obtained
by EDO NSW for the Nature Conservation Council, was prepared by the Office of
Environment and Heritage for the Environment Minister and outlined the
consequences of Ms Upton agreeing to land-clearing codes proposed by Primary
Industries Minister Niall Blair.
Key warnings in the
document include:
*
“The regulatory changes will further increase agricultural clearing by between
8% and 45% annually.” (Page 3)
*
Clearing under the code risks: “Removing key habitat for threatened species,
including koala habitat (less than 1% of identified koala habitat in NSW is
protected from clearing under the Code)” and “Increasing vulnerability of
threatened ecological communities”. (Page 6)
*
If unchecked “such clearing could destroy habitats, cause soil and water
quality impacts”. (Page 5)
*
“The main benefits are likely to be private benefits for large farming
operations which broadscale clear under the Code.” (Page 6)
“These are terrible laws
that put our wildlife at risk,” Ms Smolski said. “Premier Berejiklian should
act immediately to protect the thousands of hectares of koala habitat at risk
by exempting sensitive areas from code-based clearing. “In the longer term, she
should go back to the drawing board and draft new laws that protect our
precious wildlife and bushland.”
Snapshots from NSW Office of
Environment & Heritage, "Concurrence
on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017:
UPDATE
The respite
ended before it really began………
The
Guardian, 11
March 2018:
But the government made
no delay remaking the laws, announcing
on Saturday it had been completed.
“The remade code is
identical to the previous one and is an integral part of the new land
management framework which gives landowners the tools and certainty they need,”
said David Witherdin, the CEO of Local Land Services, which oversees clearing
under the codes.
The move was condemned
by the NCC.
Friday 16 February 2018
Failed coal seam gas mining company Linc Energy's 9 week trial underway in Queensland, Australia
As the story unfolded.........
ABC
News, 16
April 2016:
Oil and gas company Linc
Energy has been placed into administration in a bid to avoid penalties for
polluting the environment, a Queensland green group says.
It was announced late
Friday that administrators PPB Advisory had been called in to work with Linc's
management on options including a possible restructure.
In a statement to the
ASX, the company said after receiving legal and financial advice and
considering commercial prospects the board decided it was in the best interests
of the company to make the move.
It comes one month after
the company was committed to stand trial on five charges relating
to breaches in Queensland's environmental laws at its underground coal
gasification site.
The state's environment
department accused the company of wilfully causing serious harm at its trial
site near Chinchilla on the Darling Downs.
Drew Hutton from the
Lock the Gate Alliance said the company could face up to $56 million in fines
if found guilty, but the penalty might never be paid.
"It is going to be
difficult to get any money out of this company now that it is in
administration," he said.
Mr Hutton said going
into administration was a common legal manoeuvre to dodge fines and costly clean-ups......
Queensland Government, Dept. of Environment
and Heritage Protection,
29 January 2018:
Environmental Protection
Order directed to Linc
Prior to Linc entering
liquidation, DES issued Linc with an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) which
required it to retain critical infrastructure on-site, conduct a site audit and
undertake basic environmental monitoring to characterise the current status of
the site.
Linc’s liquidators
launched a legal challenge associated with this EPO in the Supreme Court
seeking orders that they were justified in not causing Linc to comply with the
EPO (or any future EPO). DES opposed this application.
In April 2017, the
Supreme Court directed that Linc’s liquidators are not justified in
causing Linc not to comply with the EPO. The Court accepted DES’ argument that
the relevant provisions of the EP Act prevail over the Commonwealth Corporations
Act and that Linc’s liquidators are executive officers of the company.
Subject to any appeal decision, this confirms DES’s ability to enforce
compliance with environmental obligations owed by resource companies who have
gone into administration or liquidation.
Linc’s liquidators have
since appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was heard in
September 2017 and the decision was reserved.
Environmental Protection
Order directed to a related person of Linc
DES used the ‘chain of
responsibility’ amendments to the EP Act to issue an EPO to a ‘related person’
of Linc. The EPO requires the recipient to take steps to decommission most of
the site’s dams and provide a bank guarantee of $5.5 million to secure
compliance with the order.
The recipient of the EPO
has appealed to the Planning and Environment Court and that litigation is
ongoing.
The recipient of the EPO
also applied for an order that the appeal be allowed and the EPO be set aside
on the basis that DES denied him procedural fairness. The Planning and
Environment Court dismissed that application. The recipient of the EPO appealed
that decision to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was heard in March 2017 and
judgment in favour of DES was delivered in August 2017. Subject to any further
appeal, this decision confirms that the recipient was not denied procedural
fairness and that DES’ interpretation of the EP Act was correct.
The earlier appeal in
relation to the EPO (regarding the substance of the document) is yet to be
heard by the Planning and Environment Court.
Investigation and
prosecution of Linc and former executives
Linc Energy Limited will
stand trial in the Brisbane District Court, commencing 29 January 2018, on five
counts of wilfully causing serious environmental harm, in contravention of the Environmental
Protection Act 1994.
All counts relate to
operations at the Linc Energy underground coal gasification site near
Chinchilla, from approximately 2007 to 2013, and allege that contaminants were
allowed to escape as a result of the operation.
In addition, the
Queensland Government has charged five former Linc Energy executives over the
operation of the UCG site in Chinchilla. A committal hearing in the Brisbane
Magistrates Court is expected to take place in mid-2018.
As these matters remain
before the courts, DES is unable to comment further on the legal proceedings.
Media releases
11 March 2016—Linc
Energy committed for trial
ABC
News, 30
January 2018:
A landmark case
described by a District Court judge as "unusual" will hear how gas
company Linc Energy allegedly contaminated strategic cropping land causing
serious environmental damage to parts of Queensland's Western Downs.
Linc Energy is charged
with five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing environmental harm between
2007 and 2013 at Chinchilla.
The charges relate to
alleged contamination at Linc Energy's Hopeland underground coal gasification
(UCG) plant.
The trial will enter its
second day today in the District Court in Brisbane, with crown prosecutor Ralph
Devlin QC expected to begin his opening address to the empanelled jury later
this morning.
Former Linc Energy
scientists, geologists, and engineers as well as several investigators from the
Queensland Environment Department are among those expected to give evidence.
Echo
NetDaily, 30
January 2018:
BRISBANE, AAP – A
failed energy company accused of knowingly and illegally polluting a
significant part of Queensland’s Darling Downs has faced trial in a landmark
criminal case in Brisbane.
Linc Energy is charged
with five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing environmental harm between
2007 and 2013 after allegedly allowing toxic gas to leak from its operations.
The Brisbane District
Court trial has heard Linc’s four underground coal gasification (UCG) sites and
water were polluted to the point it was unfit for stock to consume but the
company kept operating.
Crown prosecutor Ralph
Devlin QC told the jury the company allowed hazardous contaminants to spread
even after scientists and workers warned about gases bubbling from the ground.
Linc operated four UCG
sites in Chinchilla where it burnt coal underground at very high temperatures
to create gas.
In his opening address
on Tuesday, Mr Devlin said scientists warned senior managers about the risk
environmental harm was being caused throughout the operation…..
‘Bond prioritised Linc’s commercial interests
over the requirements of operating its mining activity in an environmentally
safe manner,’ Mr Devlin said.
‘Linc did nothing to
stop, mitigate or rehabilitate the state of affairs that Linc itself had
caused.’
As part of the UCG
process, Linc injected air into the ground, which created and enlarged
fractures.
It tried to concrete
surface cracks and use wells to control pressure but they didn’t sufficiently
reduce risks or damage, the court heard.
‘Linc kept going, even
knowing the measures weren’t working,’ Mr Devlin said.
Scientists who visited
the site are due to give evidence during the nine-week trial, but no senior
managers from the company, which is in liquidation, will take the stand.
The trial continues.
ABC
News, 8
February 2018:
Workers at an
underground coal gasification plant on Queensland's Western Darling Downs were
told to drink milk and eat yoghurt to protect their stomachs from acid, a court
has heard.
The gas company
has pleaded not guilty to five counts of causing serious
environmental harmfrom its underground coal gasification operations between
2007 and 2013 in Chinchilla.
The corporation is not
defending itself as it is in liquidation so there is no-one in the dock or at
the bar table representing the defence.
A witness statement by
former gas operator Timothy Ford was read to the court, which he prepared in
2015 before his death.
The court was not told
how Mr Ford died.
He said the gas burnt his
eyes and nose and he would need to leave the plant after work to get fresh air
because it made him feel sick.
"We were told to
drink milk in the mornings and at the start of shift… we were also told to eat
yoghurt," he said.
"The purpose of
this was to line our guts so the acid wouldn't burn our guts.
"We were not
allowed to drink the tank water and were given bottled water."
Mr Ford said he always
felt lethargic, suffered infections and had shortness of breath.
"During my time at
the Linc site, would be the sickest I have been," he said.
"It is my belief
that workplace was causing my sickness.
"I strongly feel
that the Linc site was not being run properly due to failures of the wells and
gas releases.".....
Sunshine
Coast Daily,
9 February 2018:
A CONCRETE pumper says he
saw 'black tar' seeping up at a Linc Energy site and raised concerns with the
company.
Robert Arnold has told a
court he noticed some odd occurrences when he went to the Chinchilla site in
late 2007……
On Thursday, Mr Arnold
told jurors he noticed several phenomena at the site.
"We saw bubbles
coming up ... and a black tar substance. We commented back to Linc about
it."
"A few of us went
over and had a look ... basically it just looked like a heavy black oil ... it
was in the puddles as well, in the same area," Mr Arnold added.
"We couldn't place
our equipment close to the well because of these overhead pipes ... it was
dripping out of the joints."
Prosecutor Ralph Devlin
earlier claimed a "bubbling" event happened on the ground after
rainfall at the coal gasification site.
Mr Arnold told jurors
that after discussing the oozing substance, concrete trucks turned up and he
pumped the concrete into a well.
Mr Arnold said he felt
the concrete used that time was "very light" but the on-site
supervisor made that decision.
Prosecutors previously
told the court concerns were raised at various times with Linc leadership about
the quality of cement and geological data used at the site.
The Crown has also
claimed Linc used its underground wells in a way that made them fail, and
allowed contaminants to escape far way, to places Linc could not remove them.
BACKGROUND
Wikipedia, 5 February 2018:
Linc started its
Chinchilla Demonstration Facility in July 1999. First gas was produced in that
very same year. Initially Linc Energy used the underground coal gasification
technology worked out by Ergo Exergy Technologies, Inc, of Canada.
However, in
2006 the cooperation with Ergo Exergy was terminated and the cooperation
agreement for technology usage, consultation and engineering services was
signed with the Skochinsky Institute of Mining and
the Scientific-Technical Mining Association of Russia.[2]
In 2005, Linc signed a
memorandum with Syntroleum granting a licence to use the Syntroleum's
proprietary gas-to-liquid technology and started to build a
GTL pilot plant in November 2007 at the Chinchilla facility. The plant was
commissioned in August 2008. The first synthetic
crude was produced in October 2008.[3]
Labels:
Coal Seam Gas,
environment,
farming,
law,
mining,
pollution,
water
Friday 9 February 2018
Falling biodiversity, degradation of productive rural land, intensification of coastal & city development, and the threat of climate change require Australia to produce blueprint for a new generation of environment laws
“The next
generation of environmental laws will need to recognise explicitly the role of
humanity as a trustee of the environment and its common resources, requiring
both care and engagement on behalf of future generations.” [APEEL,
Blueprint for the Next Generation of Environmental Law,
August 2017]
The Guardian, 6 February 2018:
Environmental lawyers and academics have called for a comprehensive rethink on how Australia's natural landscapes are protected, warning that short-term politics is infecting decision-making and suggesting that the public be given a greater say on development plans.
The Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law has launched a blueprint for a new generation of environment laws and the creation of independent agencies with the power and authority to ensure they are enforced. The panel of 14 senior legal figures says this is motivated by the need to systematically address ecological challenges including falling biodiversity, the degradation of productive rural land, the intensification of coastal and city development and the threat of climate change.
Murray Wilcox QC, a former federal court judge, said the blueprint was a serious attempt to improve a system that was shutting the public out of the decision-making process and failing to properly assess the impact of large-scale development proposals.
"We found the standard of management of the environment is poor because everything is made into a political issue," Wilcox said. "Nothing happens until it becomes desperate.
"We need a non-political body of significant prestige to report on what is happening and have the discretion to act."
The legal review, developed over several years and quietly released in 2017, resulted in 57 recommendations. It was suggested by the Places You Love alliance, a collection of about 40 environmental groups that was created to counter a failed bid to set up a "one-stop shop" for environmental approvals by leaving it to the states. The panel undertook the work on the understanding it would be independent and not a piece of activism.
Review report can be found here.
Tuesday 30 January 2018
Scientists issue a final warning to humanity
THEN……
1992 World Scientists'
Warning to Humanity
Scientist Statement: World
Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) (PDF document)
Some 1,700 of the
world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the
sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to
Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of
UCS's board of directors.
Introduction
Human beings and the
natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and
often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not
checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish
for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the
living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.
Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present
course will bring about.
NOW……
World
Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice (PDF Document)
WILLIAM
J. RIPPLE, CHRISTOPHER WOLF, THOMAS M. NEWSOME, MAURO GALETTI, MOHAMMED
ALAMGIR, EILEEN CRIST, MAHMOUD I. MAHMOUD, WILLIAM F. LAURANCE, and 15,364
scientist signatories from 184 countries
Twenty-five years ago,
the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists,
including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the
1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental file S1).
These concerned
professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and
cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on
it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto,
they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. They
expressed concern about current, impending, or potential damage on planet Earth
involving ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine life depletion,
ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and
continued human population growth. They proclaimed that fundamental changes
were urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present course would bring.
The authors of the 1992
declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their
capacities to support the web of life. They described how we are fast
approaching many of the limits of what the biosphere can tolerate without
substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the
human population, describing how our large numbers—swelled by another 2 billion
people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can
overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future (Crist et al. 2017).
They implored that we cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and phase out fossil
fuels, reduce deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity.
On the twenty-fifth
anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human
response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the
exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to
make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental
challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, file
S1). Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic
climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al.
2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production—
particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014).
Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540
million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least
committed to extinction by the end of this century.
Humanity is now being
given a second notice, as illustrated by these alarming trends (figure 1). We
are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically
and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued
rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even
societal threats (Crist et al. 2017). By failing to adequately limit population
growth, reassess the role of an economy rooted in growth, reduce greenhouse
gases, incentivize renewable energy, protect habitat, restore ecosystems, curb
pollution, halt defaunation, and constrain invasive alien species, humanity is
not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperilled biosphere.
As most political
leaders respond to pressure, scientists, media influencers, and lay citizens
must insist that their governments take immediate action as a moral imperative
to current and future generations of human and other life. With a groundswell
of organized grassroots efforts, dogged opposition can be overcome and
political leaders compelled to do the right thing. It is also time to
re-examine and change our individual behaviors, including limiting our own
reproduction (ideally to replacement level at most) and drastically diminishing
our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources.
Read the full
Second Notice here.
ALL THE WHILE THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK IS TICKING.......
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25 January 2018:
ALL THE WHILE THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK IS TICKING.......
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25 January 2018:
It
is now two minutes to midnight
Editor’s
note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped
develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using
the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear
explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The
decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock
is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in
consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The
Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s
vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new
technologies emerging in other domains. A printable PDF of this statement,
complete with the President and CEO’s statement and Science and Security Board
biographies, is available here.
To:
Leaders and citizens of the world
Re:
Two minutes to midnight
Date:
January 25, 2018
In 2017, world leaders failed to respond
effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making
the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as
dangerous as it has been since World War II.
The greatest risks last year arose in
the nuclear realm. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program made remarkable
progress in 2017, increasing risks to North Korea itself, other countries in
the region, and the United States. Hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions
by both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or
miscalculation.
But the dangers brewing on the Korean
Peninsula were not the only nuclear risks evident in 2017: The United States
and Russia remained at odds, continuing military exercises along the borders of
NATO, undermining the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), upgrading
their nuclear arsenals, and eschewing arms control negotiations.
In the Asia-Pacific region, tensions
over the South China Sea have increased, with relations between the United
States and China insufficient to re-establish a stable security situation.
In South Asia, Pakistan and India have
continued to build ever-larger arsenals of nuclear weapons.
And in the Middle East, uncertainty
about continued US support for the landmark Iranian nuclear deal adds to a
bleak overall picture.
To call the world nuclear situation
dire is to understate the danger—and its immediacy.
On the climate change front, the danger
may seem less immediate, but avoiding catastrophic temperature increases in the
long run requires urgent attention now. Global carbon dioxide emissions have
not yet shown the beginnings of the sustained decline towards zero that must
occur if ever-greater warming is to be avoided. The nations of the world will
have to significantly decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to keep climate
risks manageable, and so far, the global response has fallen far short of
meeting this challenge.
Beyond the nuclear and climate
domains, technological change is disrupting democracies around the world as
states seek and exploit opportunities to use information technologies as
weapons, among them internet-based deception campaigns aimed at undermining
elections and popular confidence in institutions essential to free thought and
global security.
The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists Science and Security Board believes the perilous world security
situation just described would, in itself, justify moving the minute hand of
the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight.
But there has also been a breakdown in
the international order that has been dangerously exacerbated by recent US
actions. In 2017, the United States backed away from its long-standing
leadership role in the world, reducing its commitment to seek common ground and
undermining the overall effort toward solving pressing global governance
challenges. Neither allies nor adversaries have been able to reliably predict
US actions—or understand when US pronouncements are real, and when they are
mere rhetoric. International diplomacy has been reduced to name-calling, giving
it a surreal sense of unreality that makes the world security situation
ever more threatening.
Because of the extraordinary danger of
the current moment, the Science and Security Board today moves the minute hand
of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes
to midnight—the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it
was in 1953, at the height of the Cold War.
The Science and Security Board hopes
this resetting of the Clock will be interpreted exactly as it is meant—as an
urgent warning of global danger. The time for world leaders to address looming
nuclear danger and the continuing march of climate change is long past. The
time for the citizens of the world to demand such action is now:
#rewindtheDoomsdayClock.
The untenable nuclear
threat. The risk that nuclear weapons
may be used—intentionally or because of miscalculation—grew last year around
the globe.
North Korea has long defied UN
Security Council resolutions to cease its nuclear and ballistic missile tests,
but the acceleration of its tests in 2017 reflects new resolve to acquire
sophisticated nuclear weapons. North Korea has or soon will have capabilities
to match its verbal threats—specifically, a thermonuclear warhead and a
ballistic missile that can carry it to the US mainland. In September, North
Korea tested what experts assess to be a true two-stage thermonuclear device,
and in November, it tested the Hwasong-15 missile, which experts believe has a
range of over 8,000 kilometers. The United States and its allies, Japan and
South Korea, responded with more frequent and larger military exercises, while
China and Russia proposed a freeze by North Korea of nuclear and missile tests
in exchange for a freeze in US exercises.
The failure to secure a temporary
freeze in 2017 was unsurprising to observers of the downward spiral of nuclear
rhetoric between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
The failure to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program will reverberate not just
in the Asia-Pacific, as neighboring countries review their security options,
but more widely, as all countries consider the costs and benefits of the
international framework of nonproliferation treaties and agreements.
Nuclear risks have been compounded by
US-Russia relations that now feature more conflict than cooperation.
Coordination on nuclear risk reduction is all but dead, and no solution to
disputes over the INF Treaty—a landmark agreement to rid Europe of medium-range
nuclear missiles—is readily apparent. Both sides allege violations, but
Russia’s deployment of a new ground-launched cruise missile, if not
addressed, could trigger a collapse of the treaty. Such a collapse would
make what should have been a relatively easy five-year extension of the New
START arms control pact much harder to achieve and could terminate an arms
control process that dates back to the early 1970s.
For the first time in many years, in
fact, no US-Russian nuclear arms control negotiations are under way. New
strategic stability talks begun in April are potentially useful, but so far
they lack the energy and political commitment required for them to bear fruit.
More important, Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and semi-covert support
of separatists in eastern Ukraine have sparked concerns that Russia will
support similar “hybrid” conflicts in new NATO members that it borders—actions
that could provoke a crisis at almost any time. Additional clash points could
emerge if Russia attempts to exploit friction between the United States and its
NATO partners, whether arising from disputes on burden-sharing, European Union
membership, and trade—or relating to policies on Israel, Iran, and terrorism in
the Middle East.
In the past year, US allies have
needed reassurance about American intentions more than ever. Instead, they have
been forced to negotiate a thicket of conflicting policy statements from a US
administration weakened in its cadre of foreign policy professionals, suffering
from turnover in senior leadership, led by an undisciplined and disruptive
president, and unable to develop, coordinate, and clearly communicate a
coherent nuclear policy. This inconsistency constitutes a major challenge for
deterrence, alliance management, and global stability. It has made the existing
nuclear risks greater than necessary and added to their complexity.
Especially in the case of the Iran
nuclear deal, allies are perplexed. While President Trump has steadfastly
opposed the agreement that his predecessor and US allies negotiated to keep
Iran from developing nuclear weapons, he has never successfully articulated
practical alternatives. His instruction to Congress in 2017 to legislate a
different approach resulted in a stalemate. The future of the Iran deal, at
this writing, remains uncertain.
In the United States, Russia, and
elsewhere around the world, plans for nuclear force modernization and
development continue apace. The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review
appears likely to increase the types and roles of nuclear weapons in US defense
plans and lower the threshold to nuclear use. In South Asia, emphasis on
nuclear and missile capabilities grows. Conventional force imbalances and
destabilizing plans for nuclear weapons use early in any conflict continue to
plague the subcontinent.
Reflecting long decades of frustration
with slow progress toward nuclear disarmament, states signed a Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the ban treaty, at the United
Nations this past September. The treaty—championed by the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which has been awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize for its work—is a symbolic victory for those seeking a world without
nuclear weapons and a strong expression of the frustration with global
disarmament efforts to date. Predictably, countries with nuclear weapons
boycotted the negotiations, and none has signed the ban treaty. Their increased
reliance on nuclear weapons, threats, and doctrines that could make the use of
those weapons more likely stands in stark contrast to the expectations of the
rest of the world.
An insufficient response
to climate change. Last year, the US government
pursued unwise and ineffectual policies on climate change, following through on
a promise to derail past US climate policies. The Trump administration, which
includes avowed climate denialists in top positions at the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Interior Department, and other key agencies, has
announced its plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. In its rush to
dismantle rational climate and energy policy, the administration has ignored
scientific fact and well-founded economic analyses.
These US government climate decisions
transpired against a backdrop of worsening climate change and high-impact
weather-related disasters. This year past, the Caribbean region and other parts
of North America suffered a season of historic damage from exceedingly powerful
hurricanes. Extreme heat waves occurred in Australia, South America, Asia,
Europe, and California, with mounting evidence that heat-related illness and
death are correspondingly increasing. The Arctic ice cap achieved its
smallest-ever winter maximum in 2017, the third year in a row that this record
has been broken. The United States has witnessed devastating wildfires, likely
exacerbated by extreme drought and subsequent heavy rains that spurred
underbrush growth. When the data are assessed, 2017 is almost certain to continue the trend of exceptional global
warmth: All the warmest years in the instrumental record, which extends
back to the 1800s, have—excepting one year in the late 1990s—occurred in the
21st century.
Despite the sophisticated disinformation
campaign run by climate denialists, the unfolding consequences of an altered
climate are a harrowing testament to an undeniable reality: The science linking
climate change to human activity—mainly the burning of fossil fuels that
produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—is sound. The world continues
to warm as costly impacts mount, and there is evidence that overall rates of
sea level rise are accelerating—regardless of protestations to the contrary.
Especially against these trends, it is
heartening that the US government’s defection from the Paris Agreement did not
prompt its unravelling or diminish its support within the United States at
large. The “We Are Still In” movement signals a strong commitment within the
United States—by some 1,700 businesses, 250 cities, 200 communities of faith,
and nine states, representing more than 40 percent of the US population—to its
international climate commitments and to the validity of scientific facts.
This reaffirmation is reassuring,
and other countries have maintained their steadfast support for climate action,
reconfirmed their commitments to global climate cooperation, and clearly
acknowledged that more needs to be done. French President Emmanuel Macron’s
sober message to global leaders assembled at December’s global climate summit
in Paris was a reality check after the heady climate negotiations his country
hosted two years earlier: “We’re losing the battle. We’re not moving quickly
enough. We all need to act.” And indeed, after plateauing for a few years,
greenhouse gas emissions resumed their stubborn rise in 2017.
As we have noted before, the true
measure of the Paris Agreement is whether nations actually fulfill their
pledges to cut emissions, strengthen those pledges, and see to it that global greenhouse
gas emissions start declining in short order and head toward zero. As we drift
yet farther from this goal, the urgency of shifting course becomes greater, and
the existential threat posed by climate change looms larger.
Emerging technologies
and global risk. The Science and Security Board
is deeply concerned about the loss of public trust in political institutions,
in the media, in science, and in facts themselves—a loss that the abuse of
information technology has fostered. Attempts to intervene in elections through
sophisticated hacking operations and the spread of disinformation have
threatened democracy, which relies on an informed electorate to reach
reasonable decisions on public policy—including policy relating to nuclear
weapons, climate change, and other global threats. Meanwhile, corporate leaders
in the information domain, including established media outlets and internet
companies such as Facebook and Google, have been slow to adopt protocols to
prevent misuse of their services and protect citizens from manipulation.
The international community should establish new measures that discourage
and penalize all cross-border subversions of democracy.
Last year, the Science and Security
Board warned that “[t]echnological innovation is occurring at a speed that
challenges society’s ability to keep pace. While limited at the current time,
potentially existential threats posed by a host of emerging technologies need
to be monitored, and to the extent possible anticipated, as the 21st century
unfolds.”
If anything, the velocity of
technological change has only increased in the past year, and so our warning
holds for 2018. But beyond monitoring advances in emerging technology, the board
believes that world leaders also need to seek better collective methods of
managing those advances, so the positive aspects of new technologies are
encouraged and malign uses discovered and countered. The sophisticated hacking
of the “Internet of Things,” including computer systems that control major
financial and power infrastructure and have access to more than 20 billion
personal devices; the development of autonomous weaponry that makes “kill”
decisions without human supervision; and the possible misuse of advances in
synthetic biology, including the revolutionary Crispr gene-editing tool,
already pose potential global security risks. Those risks could expand without
strong public institutions and new management regimes. The increasing pace of
technological change requires faster development of those tools.
How to turn back the
Clock. In 1953, former Manhattan
Project scientist and Bulletin editor Eugene Rabinowitch set the
hands of the Doomsday Clock at two minutes to midnight, writing, “The achievement
of a thermonuclear explosion by the Soviet Union, following on the heels of the
development of ‘thermonuclear devices’ in America, means that the time, dreaded
by scientists since 1945, when each major nation will hold the power
of destroying, at will, the urban civilization of any other nation, is close at
hand.”
The Science and Security Board now
again moves the hands of the Clock to two minutes before midnight. But the
current, extremely dangerous state of world affairs need not be permanent. The
means for managing dangerous technology and reducing global-scale risk exist;
indeed, many of them are well-known and within society’s reach, if leaders pay
reasonable attention to preserving the long-term prospects of humanity, and if
citizens demand that they do so.
This is a dangerous time, but the
danger is of our own making. Humankind has invented the implements of
apocalypse; so can it invent the methods of controlling and eventually
eliminating them. This year, leaders and citizens of the world can move the
Doomsday Clock and the world away from the metaphorical midnight of global
catastrophe by taking these common-sense actions:
• US President Donald Trump should
refrain from provocative rhetoric regarding North Korea, recognizing the
impossibility of predicting North Korean reactions.
• The US and North Korean governments
should open multiple channels of communication. At a minimum,
military-to-military communications can help reduce the likelihood of
inadvertent war on the Korean Peninsula. Keeping diplomatic channels open for
talks without preconditions is another common-sense way to reduce tensions. As
leading security expert Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University recently wrote: “Such talks should not be seen as a reward or
concession to Pyongyang, nor construed as signaling acceptance of a
nuclear-armed North Korea. They could, however, deliver the message that while
Washington fully intends to defend itself and its allies from any attack with a
devastating retaliatory response, it does not otherwise intend to attack North
Korea or pursue regime change."
• The world community should
pursue, as a short-term goal, the cessation of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and
ballistic missile tests. North Korea is the only country to violate the norm
against nuclear testing in 20 years. Over time, the United States should seek
North Korea’s signature on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty—and then,
along with China, at long last also ratify the treaty.
• The Trump administration should
abide by the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran’s nuclear
program unless credible evidence emerges that Iran is not complying with the
agreement or Iran agrees to an alternative approach that meets US national
security needs.
• The United States and Russia should
discuss and adopt measures to prevent peacetime military incidents along the
borders of NATO. Provocative military exercises and maneuvers hold the
potential for crisis escalation. Both militaries must exercise restraint and
professionalism, adhering to all norms developed to avoid conflict and accidental
encounters.
• US and Russian leaders should return
to the negotiating table to resolve differences over the INF treaty; to seek
further reductions in nuclear arms; to discuss a lowering of the alert status
of the nuclear arsenals of both countries; to limit nuclear modernization
programs that threaten to create a new nuclear arms race; and to ensure that
new tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons are not built and that existing
tactical weapons are never used on the battlefield.
• US citizens should demand, in all
legal ways, climate action from their government. Climate change is a real and
serious threat to humanity. Citizens should insist that their governments
acknowledge it and act accordingly.
• Governments around the world should
redouble their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so they go well
beyond the initial, inadequate pledges under the Paris Agreement. The
temperature goal under that agreement—to keep warming well below 2 degrees
Celsius above preindustrial levels—is consistent with consensus views on
climate science, is eminently achievable, and is economically viable, provided
that poorer countries are given the support they need to make the post-carbon
transition. But the time window for achieving this goal is rapidly closing.
• The international community should
establish new protocols to discourage and penalize the misuse of information
technology to undermine public trust in political institutions, in the media,
in science, and in the existence of objective reality itself. Strong and
accountable institutions are necessary to prevent deception campaigns that are
a real threat to effective democracies, reducing their ability to enact
policies to address nuclear weapons, climate change, and other global dangers.
• The countries of the world should
collaborate on creating institutions specifically assigned to explore and
address potentially malign or catastrophic misuses of new technologies,
particularly as regards autonomous weaponry that makes “kill” decisions without
human supervision and advances in synthetic biology that could, if misused,
pose a global threat.
The failure of world leaders to
address the largest threats to humanity’s future is lamentable—but that failure
can be reversed. It is two minutes to midnight, but the Doomsday Clock has
ticked away from midnight in the past, and during the next year, the world can
again move it further from apocalypse. The warning the Science and Security
Board now sends is clear, the danger obvious and imminent. The
opportunity to reduce the danger is equally clear.
The world has seen the threat posed by
the misuse of information technology and witnessed the vulnerability of
democracies to disinformation. But there is a flip side to the abuse of social
media. Leaders react when citizens insist they do so, and citizens around the
world can use the power of the internet to improve the long-term prospects of
their children and grandchildren. They can insist on facts, and discount
nonsense. They can demand action to reduce the existential threat of nuclear
war and unchecked climate change. They can seize the opportunity to make a
safer and saner world.
They can #rewindtheDoomsdayClock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)