Showing posts with label people power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people power. Show all posts

Wednesday 13 March 2024

CLARENCE VALLEY CONSERVATION COALITION'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH "EARTH MATTERS" SESSIONS START AGAIN ON 18 MARCH 2024

 








Clarence Valley Independent, 6 March 2024:


VOICES FOR THE EARTH

EARTH MATTERS SESSIONS START IN MARCH



The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition (CVCC) is restarting its Earth Matters environmental information sessions on March 18 after a break in 2020 following the advent of covid.


These public events, introduced in 2004, were held every two months between March and November and were conducted by a range of people from the community, or from government or local environment groups. Sometimes the goal was acquiring information about an issue while at other times it involved exploration of an idea, the seeking of a solution or celebrating the wonders of the natural world.


The range of subjects over the years has included sustainable farming, climate change, the impact of light at night, flying fox ecology, cane toads in the Clarence Valley, Grafton’s tree heritage, riparian vegetation on the floodplain, native bees, waste management and recycling, inspiration for your town garden, conservation in north-west Tasmania, national parks in India and Bhutan, and restoring rainforest.


Recently the CVCC decided to restart these public information sessions. The new venue is the Joan Muir Community Centre in Turf Street, Grafton. Sessions will be held between 6 and 8 pm on the third Monday of the month in March, May, July, September and November. The events will generally consist of a presentation by one or more speakers for an hour, followed by a short question and discussion session and light refreshments. Those attending will be asked to contribute a gold coin to assist with expenses.


The first two presentations have been arranged and the CVCC is looking forward to providing the community with information on a range of important environmental matters from March onwards.


Proposed Mineral Mining in the Clarence Catchment is the subject of the first Earth Matters session on March 18. Shae Fleming, Clarence Catchment Alliance Coordinator (CCA), will discuss the current situation on mining in the Clarence Catchment, CCA's role, the community campaign's aim and progress to date, the threat of mineral mining to our local water, species, environment, social, cultural and economic wellbeing and how you can help.


  • Leonie Blain


Thursday 5 October 2023

The saying ‘start as you mean to go on’ has acquired a darker meaning under the new Clarence Valley Council Mayor


Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting 
26 September 2023
Mayor Peter Johnstone in the Chair


 

The first order of business at the Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting of 26 September 2023 was the mid-term election of a mayor.


So that quite sensibly, if there was a change as to which councillor held the office, the new mayor would chair the remainder of the monthly meeting.


Thus twenty-one minutes into the meeting by a margin of one vote Cr. Peter Johnstone became the new mayor. This was followed by election of the Deputy Mayor, Cr. Jeff Smith.


After these votes the meeting immediately became interesting.


It seems unbeknownst to the general public that morning as Cr. Johnstone, Mayor Johnstone had sent a notice to the other eight councillors that he intended to make a notice of motion rejecting the tender for Regional Aquatic Facility (Grafton Pool Redevelopment).


So when he as Chair requested that Item ITEM 07.23.184 RFT22/41 be brought forward to be considered as the first item of business, he appeared to do so on the pretext that there were a number of residents & ratepayers in the visitors seats who were there to hear council’s decision concerning this tender. A tender which council officers had formerly recommended be accepted as set out in the 26 September Business Paper.


Cr. Day called the item and Mayor Johnstone requested Day to put forward “his motion” which called for rejection of the tender for the Grafton Pool Redevelopment.


The Day motion was as follows:


That Council as Crown Land Manager of Grafton Westward and General Douglas MacArthur Park Reserve

(R540035):

1. Decline to accept the tender offers for RFT22/41 Regional Aquatic Facility (Grafton Olympic Pool) as

the tenders received were higher than anticipated.

2. Revise the Aquatic Centre project to begin with:

a. replacement of the 50m pool (stage 2),

b. demolition of the existing dive pool and 50m pool and importing fill as required to make the

ground flat,

c. the completion of the other works for which grant funding has already been received,

d. and any other matters that will need to be completed to ensure the operation of the new 50m

pool.

3. Defer commencement of the remainder of the project until after the election of the next council.

4. Prepare a report for the October Ordinary Council Meeting setting out the expected timescale and

recommendations for the completion of the project as set out in item 2.

5. Receive a report at each subsequent Ordinary Council Meeting on the progress of the project until

completion.


In the middle of reading of the motion there was some interjection from the gallery at the point where further consideration of full redevelopment of the site was to be deferred until after the next local government election in September 2024, with no direction to seek another tender for work in the interim set out in Point 2. 


Understandable, given the gallery was peopled by around 40 residents/ratepayers who mostly either firmly supported the Regional Aquatic Facility, had made deputations and/or organised a community petition seeking a positive council decision concerning redevelopment of the community pool site. 


Johnstone barked out “Order” in a best parade ground voice, followed by a somewhat inaudible sentence. Some minutes later he made a second request that the audience “keep silent please”.


After reading of the motion was completed Cr. Novak appeared to notice that the wording of Cr. Day’s motion closely resembled the notice of motion sent out that morning by Johnson and sought confirmation of this fact. Johnson confirmed it was indeed “the same motion” he had sent out.


Cr. Toms then fairly efficiently dissected what was essentially the Mayor’s motion and Johnstone refused to answer a question put to him by this councillor.


Cr. Pickering also called the Mayor out as to the late timing of the motion, but it was Cr. Whaites who called a spade a spade when she asked Johnstone did he wait to introduce the motion at this time because he anticipated using the mayoral casting vote “to not do what our community wants – yes or no”.


Johnstone refused to answer, ending the exchange with Whaites on the words “when the mayor’s speaking you will not speak”. Audible laughter could be heard from the gallery at that point.


Cr. Toms continued to question Johnstone’s understanding of the role of mayor once Council in the Chamber had already made a lawful decision to proceed with the full redevelopment of the Grafton Pool site.


As the formal debate of the motion played out Johnstone reminded the gallery that he could order its members be removed. Given the mild nature and short duration of gallery interjections during this monthly meeting Johnstone’s attitude was somewhat puzzling.


Before it came time to vote on what by then every councillor was accepting as being Johnstone’s motion not Day’s, the motion was called “a farce, a joke, and it’s making a mockery of the entire process” by one councillor andit’s slow-minded and it’s short-sighted” by another councillor.


At times the ongoing debate became rather tense but remained essentially civil, nevertheless Johnstone accused Cr. Novak of something like an “act of disorder”. Again quiet laughter could be heard from the gallery.


A meeting recess was called which went on for about 5 minutes. After which the Mayor effectively gagged further debate, with the exception of himself. He spoke to his own slyly delivered motion.


In the end Mayor Johnstone’s motion was voted down five votes to three – only Johnstone, Day And Clancy supporting that motion to reject the tender.


Cr. Pickering having earlier foreshadowed the original council officers motion this was then put as follows:


COUNCIL RESOLUTION - 07.23.184

Pickering/Novak


OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


That Council, as Crown Land Manager of Grafton Westward and General Douglas MacArthur Park

Reserve (R540035):

1. accept the tender from Hines Construction Pty Ltd for RFT22/41 Regional Aquatic Facility (Grafton Pool Redevelopment) at a cost of $29,141,586 (GST Inclusive) to be funded in accordance with the funding strategy – Attachment B.

2. accept the schedule of rates submitted from Hines Construction Pty Ltd for the earthworks, total

cost to be calculated based on actual quantities as determined by a geotechnical engineer during the project works.

3. delegate authority to the General Manager to approve appropriately deemed variations to the Contract and those variations be reported to Council within the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) once the Contract is finalised.


Voting recorded that motion carried as follows:

For - Johnstone, Novak, Pickering, Smith, Tiley, Toms, Whaites

Against - Clancy, Day.


One can be forgiven for suspecting that Clarence Valley Council may have chosen the wrong person to lead it for the next 12 months.



Sunday 17 September 2023

Environmental Activism State of Play 2023


Knitting Nannas look like this and they knit.


Northern Rivers Knitting Nannas
The Echo, 1 July 2022
IMAGE: Tree Faerie







They also year in and year out peacefully protest on behalf of their concerned and often very worried communities AND they infrequently get arrested and go to court. 


On 4 July 2023 Cristine Degan, 74, was arrested after she and Susan Doyle, 76, of Valla, locked on to a harvester in Boambee State Forest, on NSW Mid-North Coast. They were both arrested and fined.


In New South Wales the fines for peaceful protest under the the Crimes Act 1900, the Summary Offences Act 1984, the Mining Act 1992, the Forestry Act 2012 & Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2022 are becoming extremely large.


In that state people can now be fined up to $22,000 and/or gaoled for a maximum of two years for protesting illegally on public roads, rail lines, tunnels, bridges and industrial estates.


In other states the laws have grown harsher as well. 


Since 2022 in Tasmania “community member protesting the destruction of old growth forests on a forestry site could face a penalty of over $13,000 or 2 years in prison; and An organisation supporting members of the community to protest could be fined over $45,000”. While in Victoria Anti-logging protestors who “hinder, obstruct or interfere with timber-harvesting operations” can face up to 12 months in prison and/or a $21,000 fine. PVC and metal pipes which are often used in protest activities are now prohibited in working sites, with additional powers provided to police to search suspect individuals who are “reasonably suspicious”. [UNSW Human Rights Institute, 2022]


Now we have the next generation of protests and protestors and one of the suspected offences confronting 37 year-old Joana Partyka - conspiracy to commit indictable offence - has an attached penalty of imprisonment from 14 years to life in West Australia…..



TheSaturday Paper, 16 September 2023:


When the knock came, I was brushing my teeth. For a moment I considered ignoring it: I wasn’t expecting anyone. Eventually I opened the door and standing there were the police. There were six of them, all armed, members of the Western Australia Police Force’s counterterrorism unit, the State Security Investigation Group. In that moment, I felt dazed, almost sun-drunk. My apartment seemed immediately smaller. As I tried to process what was happening, I knew one thing: they were there for me.


A month before the raid in February, I had spray-painted the Woodside Energy logo onto the plexiglass covering Frederick McCubbin’s Down on his luck at the Art Gallery of Western Australia, thrusting into the headlines Woodside’s grotesque mega-project on the Burrup Peninsula. In the intervening period I’d been charged with criminal damage and pleaded guilty. I’d been convicted and issued with a fine and costs, which I paid.


It was after that case had been resolved that these officers arrived at my small apartment. They handed me a search warrant that outlined two suspected offences: criminal damage and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.


As the first Disrupt Burrup Hub campaigner to receive that unexpected knock at the door, I was unprepared, uneasy and above all unclear why the police were there. I had no greater clarity when they left with my phone and laptop an hour later.


Now, six months later, I have not been charged in relation to the suspected offences outlined on the warrant. Instead, I have been charged with two counts of failing to obey a data access order – for refusing to provide police with the passwords to my devices.


Later this week, I will defend myself in the first criminal trial to come out of the Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign. It is believed to be the first time a peaceful climate activist has faced trial on this charge in Western Australia – a symbol of just how extraordinary a time it is to be a climate activist in this state…..


Read the full article at:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/share/16814/2NDiBXBK 


Friday 25 August 2023

Blockade Australia August 2023: climate crisis activists court appearances update

 

BLOCKADE AUSTRALIA, media release, 23 August 2023:








Emma Dorge appeared before Magistrate Breton at Penrith Local Court today. Emma was found guilty to resisting arrest by plain clothes officers at Springwood train station.


The Magistrate did question why the initial arrest was even made for breaching bail, as police were unable to specify the breach or provide any evidence, and did not lay this charge. Police prosecution claimed that police were acting in good faith, despite concurrent bail breach accusations against Emma of not being allowed in NSW and not residing at a NSW address. In response to this, the Magistrate stated, "I suggest otherwise, it seems there was no breach of bail, meaning there would have been no power to arrest her at all".


"Despite the obvious lack of reason for my arrest, the magistrate still decided that me turning to get out my phone to contact help constitutes resisting arrest. The judicial system has once again protected police mis-use of power; over the rights of people affected by it."


"As we see increasing over-reach by the police and courts, we also see increasing extreme climate events around the world. We must match this with resistance." Emma Dorge


Blockade Australia is a growing network of people commitment to targeting the economic pinch points that materially disrupt the exportation and exploitation that this political system relies on. This was demonstrated in a simultaneous week of actions at Brisbane, Newcastle and Melbourne ports in June.


Blockade Australia acknowledges First Nations Peoples as the custodians and true owners of this land


Earlier Blockade Australia media news announcement, 23 August 2023:


Emma Dorge, who was arrested in June 2022 in a spree of arrests made by police to repress Blockade Australia's planned mobilisation in Sydney last year, is facing court today [Wednesday 23rd] at Penrith Local Court. Several other Blockade Australia activists have faced court or had charges dropped by police this past week - details below. Two of these people - Daniel Heggie and Emma Dorge will be available for comment at court today.


Emma Dorge is pleading not guilty to resisting arrest when being apprehended by two undercover officers at a train station in June last year. The police attempted and failed to bring a detention order on Emma. Emma has been living with `bail conditions for 14 months, including: not to associate with 25 others, including their partner, had to move house and leave NSW. These conditions, whilst extensive, have been used against various activists arrested in the period in association with Blockade Australia.


At the same time in June last year, Max Curmi and Daniel Heggie were being held in custody after the bungled Colo surveillance operation which led to the large scale raid. Both were given a significant list of charges each. Daniel was facing charges of aid and abet in the commission of a crime, for unloading a trailer at Colo, was subsequently on bail for over a year, only for all charges to be dropped the day before the court date. Max was charged with conspiracy and affray, for which he was held on remand for over 3 weeks, along with Tim Neville who was also arrested during the raid.


On these police tactics, Max wrote from prison in June last year, "I'm a political prisoner, I'm being held on prefabricated charges because I refuse to let this system continue destroying this continent, the climate and our right to a livable future".


Aunty Caroline Kirk, Ngemba Elder and Lily Bett were in Paramatta court last week for charges of obstruct and intimidate the police during the Colo raids in June last year. The intimidation and obstruct charges were laid on them for yelling at or standing in the path of, what they identified as armed intruders at a private residence.


Aunty Caroline was given $400 in fine and Lily a 6 month CRO. Both had no conviction recorded.


At the time of the charges in question, police were dressed in camouflage and black clothes, refused to identify themselves and hit several people in the process of leaving in a car. It was not until 100+ police, with dogs and helicopters made their way down the valley, smashing up the camp and holding everyone for hours, that it became clear it was a police operation.


"Over the past 18 months we have seen harsh bail conditions, surveillance and incarceration of climate activists, even when no legitimate charges end up being laid. These underhanded police tactics go hand in hand with the anti protest laws introduced early last year. Australia uses these repressive mechanisms to uphold this destructive profit-growth system and block meaningful climate action." - Emma Dorge


Monday 7 August 2023

Gumbaynggirr custodians are calling for our help to protect forests of the proposed Great Koala National Park

 




Approved plans for forestry operations at Newry State Forest were made active last week.(IMAGE: ABC News, 3 August 2023.



Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, email, 5 August 2023:


The battle to protect the Great Koala National Park is ramping up. Will you support the Newry Forest protest camp and Gumbaynggirr traditional owners to protect this culturally and ecologically significant site?


., for the past few days Gumbaynggirr custodians, environment groups and the wider community have peacefully protested to save the forest from logging destruction.


The forest has recently won a few moments of temporary reprieve from the bulldozers in the past few days. The campaign has had a series of powerful protests and received coverage in the Coffs Coast Advocate, NBN, NITV, and The Echo.




Gumbayngirr traditional owners Sandy Greenwood, Uncle Micklo Jarrett and Uncle Bud Marshall.



But the fight is not over and those at the camp are calling out for your support.


If we don't act now our deeply significant cultural heritage will be desecrated, our beautiful old-growth trees will be logged, rare flora will become extinct and our koalas and endangered species will literally have nowhere else to go.” Sandy Greenwood, Gumbaynggirr Custodian.


This alliance has catalysed around a peaceful protest camp at the entry of the forest. This camp has served as an important place for meetings, events and interviews with journalists.


Are you able to put your name down to help out at camp?


Sign up here to get involved


Whether you’re able to visit once or take on a weekly task—there is something for everyone to do.


It would be a disaster and a disgrace to see some of our totemic animals like the Koala disappear for motives of greed.


The ancestral beings gave us our lore, our culture, and taught us how to live in harmony with the land. Everything was precious – we needed these places to survive. If they keep going like this we won’t have forest left. This forest needs to be a sanctuary for our people and other animals.”


Gumbaynggirr spokesperson, Micklo Jarrett.


This campaign to protect Newry State Forest relies on people like you stepping up and working together.


Please sign up here and a camp organiser will get in touch with you about next steps.


In the inspiring words of Sandy Greenwood: “The time to act is now—we will save our forests.”......



Ed Mortimer

Organising Director

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

https://www.nature.org.au/


Thursday 20 July 2023

Qld 'whiteshoe brigade' developer Graeme Ingles, and Goldcoral Pty Ltd, determined to continue pursuit of the Iron Gate Development proposal in the face of a community which has been resisting development on this site since the 1990s

 


Echo, 19 July 2023:


Evans Heads locals and other concerned members of the public form the Northern Rivers have raised concerns over Richmond Valley Council’s (RVC) apparent lack of preparation to defend the controversial Iron Gates appeal currently underway in the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) in Sydney.


The development application (DA) was rejected by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) in September 2022. An appeal was immediately launched by Gold Coast developer Graeme Ingles. Ingles has been trying to regain approval for residential development of the site since his approval was stripped by the L&EC in 1997 after illegal clearing and other works were done at the site. Remediation was required by the L&EC of approximately $2 million, however, this work has never been done by Ingles.




Some of the drains that the developer was ordered to fill that still hasn’t been done over twenty years later. Photo supplied



The current iteration of seeking a DA for residential development is now in its ninth year. The NRPP had roundly rejected the DA by Goldcoral Pty Ltd following a public hearing on the development and two independent professional assessments which recommended refusal. Grounds for rejection included serious fire, flood, ecological and Aboriginal cultural and town planning concerns.


Following his appeal application to the L&EC Ingles put the Iron Gates property up for sale by but the property was withdrawn from sale early in 2023. Goldcoral Pty Ltd was then put into administration and the appeal case in the L&EC was taken over by the large legal firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth from Ingles’ solicitor.





Developer Graeme Ingles. Photo inglesgroup. com.au









Public refused right to know basis of appeal


The matter proceeded to a Section 34 Hearing by a L&EC Commissioner held on site at the Iron Gates at Evans Head. Submissions against the appeal were presented by the public despite the fact that the basis for the appeal was not made public.


Public excluded from onsite meetings


The public was then excluded from further negotiation with the Commissioner, and the parties to the case, including a second respondent, the Bandjalang People, retired behind closed Iron Gates and closed Richmond Valley Council (RVC) chambers for further talks.


The community was not informed of the outcome of the discussions with the Commissioner by RVC’s solicitor who had overseen the public representations. Council’s solicitor declined to respond to questions about the case on the grounds that Council was its client, not the public……




Simone Barker (nee Wilson), daughter of the late Lawrence Wilson who opposed the development back in the 1990s accompanied by supporter Jaydn.



Revised reports not available to public and RVC substantially redacted


None of the new plans or revised expert reports presented by the appellant (Goldcoral Pty Ltd) and considered by the Court are publicly available. Those auditing the case (15 parties at one point during the day) were forced to infer what had been claimed.….














Iron Gates Road in flood March 2022. Photo supplied



Insufficient review time for RVC


Counsel representing Council complained to the Registrar about the fact that it had only just received material pertinent to the case from the Appellant and had insufficient time to review it. And Counsel representing Goldcoral complained that the material it was presenting to the Court needed substantial work to accommodate the significant changes to documentation necessitated by the heavily redacted RVC affidavit, changes accepted by the Registrar and parties to the case.


Despite the complaints the parties worked to adapt to the revised circumstances and most of the afternoon’s hearing was given to presentation by the legal representative from Goldcoral about the revisions to the plan for residential development. In essence the case was put that the material was for a revised development which took account of many of the criticisms put to the NRPP which led to the DA’s refusal.




LEP wetlands riparian map of Iron Gates site and Evans Head. Image supplied



Proposed changes included, among many matters, the extent of the development footprint, reduction in total area of the development, changes to size and diversity of blocks, changes to the internal roads including a new fire trail around the site, a new refuge area for fire and flood for residents cut off during such events, increased setbacks from littoral conservation areas, new consultation processes with Aboriginal stakeholders yet to be completed, changes to earthworks with reductions in mass and impact, changes to vegetation clearance and changes to stormwater management. The hearing with the Registrar is set to continue next Tuesday. Those interested in following the case can obtain details from the Land and Environment Court site.


A spokesperson from Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development (EHRFSD) said today following the Hearing that it was disappointing to witness the wholesale, and what appeared to be, valid criticism of the case material prepared by the staff of Richmond Valley Council in their affidavit to the Court. The problem was made worse by the fact that the material was not made available to the public and Council’s General Manager had written a generic letter to those asking for more information about the case that it would not be doing so:


Significant cost to ratepayers


The spokesperson for EHRFSD said that the case had already costed ratepayers a seven figure amount and more costs were on the way. He also added that given that the community had provided so much valid criticism about the former DA that it was decidedly wrong to exclude the community from the information attached to the case.


The community is not asking for a “running commentary” on legal proceedings,’ he said. ‘We have never done so. What we are asking for is the basic information such as new reports and affidavits and plans on which the case for an amended DA is based so that we can assess for ourselves the veracity of materials being presented, follow court proceedings and draw our own conclusions. The community is not stupid and has much to offer and it is becoming patently clear through what appears to be a dismal performance by council in material preparation, that community input may be essential to the case as it has been in the past for success.


There is no doubt that the case is a complex one but this is not a ground for refusing to provide basic information to an interested public, particularly one that has already gone through four versions of the DA and made substantial submissions.


As it currently stands the question before the Court, as we understand it is, “are the changes to the application so significant that it should be a new DA process, or should it be approved by the L&EC without further consideration by the public, as an amended application?”


It is our view that even in the absence of detailed information the amendment application looks like a very different application to the one we have seen and should be treated accordingly as a new DA,’ he told The Echo.


But there is a bigger question here which council has refused, and continues to refuse, to deal with and that is, “is the Iron Gates a suitable area for residential development or should it be rezoned in keeping with it natural and cultural attributes for environmental protection?”


This is a question that the community has been asking for a review of for decades. It is important to remember that this land was zoned for residential development in the early 1980’s, forty years ago when the “white shoe” brigade was in ascendance.


It is vital to ask the question “is residential zoning appropriate here today given the future impacts of climate change and our better understanding of the environment, protection of the public interest, and keeping the public out of harm’s way? There is recent precedent for doing so in the Clarence Valley,’ he explained.


Read the full article at:

https://www.echo.net.au/2023/07/richmond-valley-council-drops-the-ball-in-appeals-case-before-the-lec/


Monday 2 January 2023

Who is undermining Australia’s climate change mitigation goals?

 

2023 is the year Australians have to bite the bullet on climate change mitigation and accept that it’s never going to be enough to recycle the household’s glass, plastic, tin, paper or green waste. That though installing rooftop solar panels or being careful with the consumption of household water and energy might be admirable, the world and the nation has reached the stage where this will do little to halt the global & national climate emergency that is fast heading our way.


That while reducing our own household carbon footprint is a legitimate climate change tool, the only tool that will bring about the required rapid reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is if as ordinary individuals, interest groups and communities we use the individual and collective power of our political will to force a rate of change on all three tiers of government and on all industries operating in this country and its territorial waters.


Commencing with the biggest polluters – the fossil fuel industries.


It’s time to use our voices and our votes, the power of our consumer choices and the sheer scale of peaceful political & physical activism that communities and regions when pushed to their limit can muster across Australia.


Below is a brief look at where we are at right now and at some of the businesses which are propping up the large petroleum & gas polluters by way of their paid propaganda and greenwashing, as well as some of those who are still investing in fossil fuel corporations.



The Guardian, 28 December 2022:


Australians are feeling the heat of climate change, and in May they voted accordingly, delivering a win to Anthony Albanese’s Labor party, which saw voters switching away from the Coalition, but to the independents and the Greens, rather than Labor. The showed the biggest issue for voters, more than the economy or the pandemic, was climate change, surprising many. This has since been confirmed by other research...


For the fossil fuel industry, it’s still business as usual under the new government, which in August opened up 46,000 sq km to new oil and gas exploration. Approval after approval is going through for a maze of new gas projects, from the Scarborough and Browse projects off Western Australia to proposals to subsidise the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory.


In 2022 the world experienced a global energy crisis caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the gas industry has seen this as a massive opportunity for expansion. Governments scrambling to replace Russian gas have overreached.


Within Australia, the gas industry has run rampant with excessive windfall profits while calling for massive expansion development and increased LNG exports. The government has tried to contain the damage being caused by increased eastern Australian electricity costs linked to insufficient availability of gas, leaving the domestic gas market exposed to the highly elevated prices of the international market.


The latter half of this year has seen states starting to get out of coal power, setting phase-out goals around 2035-2037. While this is an advance, it’s still relatively far from the power sector coal exit needed by 2030 across the OECD to be aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit. The IEA’s net zero coal report carried a similar and more stark message….


The federal government is starting to move on reforming the primary tool it wants to use to curb industry emissions (including oil, coal and gas), the so-called safeguard mechanism, but it seems poised to continue allowing companies to offset their emissions at scale.


If this happens, there’s a serious risk the whole scheme will be viewed simply as a licensing system for increased fossil fuel production rather than one that actually results in real emission reductions. Some have labelled this as “state-sanctioned greenwashing.”


Australia has a terrible, 30-year history of claiming to meet its targets through dodgy accounting and, more recently, through offsets, but this cannot continue. The risk now is that if the government sticks to its apparent commitment to continue to use offsets, the country will find itself at the next federal election with industry sector emissions barely reduced at all, or worse, facing increased emissions from new fossil fuel projects…..


Read the full article here.


The Guardian, 27 December 2022:


Fossil fuel interests have signed more than 500 sponsorship deals with Australian arts, sport, education and community organisations, prompting accusations they are “engineering a social licence to operate” in the face of growing public pressure on coal, gas and oil.


The oil and gas company Woodside Energy was the most frequent entrant on a list of 535 sponsorship agreements, having signed 56 deals, including with AFL team the Fremantle Dockers and the West Australian Nippers surf lifesaving program.


Santos, another oil and gas business, had 41 known sponsorships. BHP, which maintains coal interests but this year sold its petroleum assets to Woodside, had 44 and was linked to another seven through an associated entity, the BHP-Mitsubishi Alliance….


The terms of sponsorship deals are rarely public and are often covered by non-disclosure agreements. Depending on the organisation and the type of partnership, some are thought to be worth a few thousand dollars. Others, including naming rights deals on major venues or events, can run into the millions.


Researchers working in partnership with the Australian Conservation Foundation have previously estimated the value of fossil fuel sponsorships to Australian sport were between $14m and $18m a year.


In some centres, such as Mackay, fossil fuel money has supported several major institutions within the city. In Canberra, Woodside and Shell sponsored the annual press gallery ball this year. Ampol and Shell also serve as gold partners to the Walkley Foundation.


Kelly Albion, senior campaigner with 350.org, said organisations should consider their policies governing accepting sponsorships, but responsibility ultimately lay with governments and companies…..


The survey found education institutions had 132 known sponsorship deals, community groups 124 and sports organisations 111.


According to the survey, the education organisations that partnered most frequently with fossil fuel companies included the Queensland Minerals Education Academy, a partnership between the Queensland government and Queensland Resources Council (20 agreements), Central Queensland University (10) and the Clontarf Foundation, which helps improve educational outcomes for Indigenous people (eight).


Central Queensland University disputed this count, saying one company identified was no longer a donor and another partnership arrangement advertised on the university website was double counted….


The head of the International Energy Agency has said the global goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C, included in landmark 2015 Paris agreement, meant no new oil and gas fields or coal power plants should open beyond 2021.


Market Forces, 18 October 2022:


Australia’s big four banks, ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac, recently co-financed a $1.4 billion dollar deal to major Australian oil and gas expander, Santos, related to its Barossa gas project. ANZ and Westpac lent $1.2 billion to Woodside, which is developing the huge Scarborough gas project.


An example of the less than stellar performance of superannuation funds with regard to ethical investing.


Market Forces, 18 December 2022:


The latest round of mandatory super fund disclosures reveal that most of Australia’s biggest super funds are selling shares in climate wrecking oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside. Some funds, however, have significantly increased their stake in these companies, which are both pursuing new oil and gas projects that are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.


For the first time since super fund investment disclosures became mandatory, we can compare how many shares funds have either sold or bought in their default investment options. Our analysis shows that 11 out of the 14 super fund default investment options captured in our study owned less shares in Santos at 30 June 2022 than at 31 December 2021 (see Figure 1). AustralianSuper, UniSuper and HESTA have sold down a significant number of Santos shares in their default options, selling down their stakes by 41.3%, 26.8% and 20.5%, respectively.


Hostplus’ Balanced option, on the other hand, is the only one in our study to have significantly increased its stake in Santos, with a 16.1% jump in shares. Why is Hostplus using members’ retirement savings to buy up so many shares in this climate wrecker? Supporting Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans wildly contradicts the net zero by 2050 portfolio emissions reduction target Hostplus set earlier this year.

















Comms Declare, media release excerpt, 19 September 2022:


The F-List 2022 Report from Clean Creatives and Comms Declare reveals newly-uncovered information on the broad scale of the ad industry’s collaboration with the companies that are responsible for the climate emergency.


Following last year’s ground breaking report, the 2022 edition of the F-List includes a greater focus on Latin America and the Asia Pacific regions, showcasing the agencies actively under contract with the fossil fuel industry to aid them in covert attempts to greenwash.


Key findings include:


  • 239 agencies have done recent work with fossil fuel companies. The vast majority of this work is not shared via agency channels, or with clients whose work may be affected by greenwashing claims.

  • At least 17 agencies are working for Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest polluter, including a previously undisclosed Interpublic Mediabrands agency, Well7.

  • Interpublic agencies McCann, UM, and Jack Morton have also led substantial work for Aramco, but all holding companies have some connection to the world’s largest oil company, and funder of human rights abuses.

  • The world’s biggest coal exporter, Glencore is being referred to Australian regulators over a brand campaign ad that features EVs, solar panels and wind turbines – but doesn’t mention coal. Comms Declare understands Bastion Creative is behind the campaign. This complaint follows the barring of two employees of Anacta Strategies from lobbying the Queensland government. Glencore secured a lucrative bailout while employing Anacta.

  • Edelman retains its role as the independent agency doing the most work for fossil fuel companies, despite a pledge in early 2022 to review its client policy. Some small signs of progress at the PR giant can be seen, but the company remains committed to working with polluters.


In Australia, Comms Declare, has calculated the top polluting agencies across several categories, using Scope 1 and 2 emissions data from their clients.


Most Polluting Clients (t- CO2 e)

Creative Agency: Big Red – 45, 774, 195

Media Agency: UM – 40, 670, 967

PR/Lobbyist: GRACosway – 20, 612, 667


Belinda Noble, Founder of Comms Declare said; “Big Red won the big prize nobody wanted – AGL’s creative account and, combined with its work for BHP, its Scope 3 emissions now represent more than 10% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas pollution – on par with Libya’s annual emissions.”


We calculate UM’s Scope 3 emissions are more than Finland’s, also thanks to their work with AGL.


GRACosway is the most polluting lobbyist, with clients including Santos, Glencore and BHP, meaning its total Scope 3 emissions are around 5% of Australia’s, or about the same as Kenya’s.


Meanwhile GRACosway’s owner Omnicom somewhat hypocritically claims to be ‘actively working to harness our advertising power and influence to promote sustainable consumer choices and behaviors,’ Noble added.


Also in the report are details of efforts by international coal giant, Glencore, to improve its brand. In the wake of a bribery and price fixing scandal and its refusal to pull out of Russia, Glencore has boosted its Australian marketing efforts by hiring four lobbying firms (GRACosway, NEXUS APAC, Capital Hill Advisory, Anacta Strategies) and five other agencies (Bastion Creative, Brother & Co, Wahoo, Adoni Media, Campaign Edge Sprout).


It also launched its first brand campaign, ‘Advancing Everyday Life’ which has attracted legal complaints to the ACCC, ASIC and Ad Standards over greenwashing.


Belinda Noble added, “At least nine Australian advertising and PR agencies are helping coal giant Glencore portray itself as part of a clean energy future while the company is actually expanding coal operations. Agency executives need to wake up and realise they are actively helping the corporations creating global warming, which is generating unprecedented disasters around the globe.”


Duncan Meisel, Executive Director, Clean Creatives said: “Advertising and PR companies have had decades of warnings that their relationships with fossil fuel companies are harming their reputation, and their clean clients. Until now, executives have chosen to ignore those warnings, with serious consequences for the planet, and their ability to attract and retain young talent. Hundreds of agencies have pledged not to work with fossil fuels because working with polluters is bad for business, and bad for the planet.”


The release of the F-list comes on the eve of Comms Declare’s annual agency survey on climate change policies and actions which will be used to decide the winner of the third Climate Comms Champion award, for Australia’s most climate-friendly agency….



Clean Creatives, retrieved 28 December 2022:


THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS THE WORLD’S NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF CARBON POLLUTION - AND GREENWASHING.


Approximately 90% of global carbon pollution comes from fossil fuels. In order to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement, carbon pollution needs to decline 50% by 2030.


Despite this, every major oil and gas company is currently planning to continue their expansion of fossil fuel production. Currently, their business plans will ensure that the climate emergency continues, with worsening impacts particularly affecting poor, and vulnerable people worldwide.


Fossil fuel advertising and PR does not match business reality. Shell has admitted that their “operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s Net-Zero Emissions target” that is widely featured in their advertising. In 2020 and 2021, 80% of Chevron advertisements mentioned sustainability, while only 1.8% of their capital spending went to non-oil and gas projects.


These ads are creating legal and reputational risk for agencies. Over 1800 cases are pending worldwide related to climate action, many of them focused on misleading advertising. Both Shell and BP have been rebuked by regulators in the Netherlands and UK, respectively, demanding that they end campaigns that mislead the public.


Now, fossil fuel advertisements have been banned in France, and bans are being considered many places elsewhere. There has never been a better time to drop fossil fuel clients……


The F-List 2022: 230+ Ad and PR Companies Working for the Fossil Fuel Industry


The list below documents relationships between public relations and advertising agencies, and their clients in the fossil fuel industry, since approximately 2015.


Fossil fuel industry clients include the full range of corporations involved in the business of extracting, transporting, refining, and selling fossil fuels, their trade associations, and front groups representing their interests.


These relationships have been documented through industry publications, public disclosures by agencies or their contractors, and verified reporting.


CURRENT AND RECENT FOSSIL FUEL CONTRACTS:


WPP


AKQA

Barton Deakin

Burson Cohn & Wolfe

Cannings Purple

Geometry Global

Grey

Grey (Grey Argentina)

Grey (Grey Columbia)

Hawker Britton

Hill+Knowlton

Hill+Knowlton (Group SJR)

Landor

Mediacom

Mindshare

Mirum

Mutato

Ogilvy (The Brand Union)

Ogilvy (Ogilvy Brasil)

Ogilvy

OPR (Oglivy PR)

Rediffusion -Y&R

Scholz & Friends

Super Union

The Brand Agency

VMLY&R

VMLY&R (Young & Rubicam Brazil)

Wavemaker

Wunderman Thompson

Wunderman Thompson (Wonderman Thompson Brazil)

Wunderman Thompson (Wonderman Mexico)

OMNICOM

Adam & Eve DDB

BBDO

BBDO (AMV BBDO)

BBDO (BBDO)

BBDO (Sancho BBDO)

BBDO (R K Swamy BBDO)

DDB Canada

DDC Advocacy

FleishmanHillard

GRACosway

GSD & M

Ketchum

Marketforce (Clemenger BBDO/Omnicom)

Marketforce / Marketforce North

OMD

PHD

Porter Novelli

RAPP

TBWA\Singapore

Tribal Worldwide


DENTSU

Carat

Dentsu Creative

iProspect


INTERPUBLIC

Campbell Ewald

Carmichael Lynch

FCB (Draftcb Ulka)

FCB

HUGE

IPG Mediabrands (Ensemble Worldwide)

IPG Mediabrands (Well 7)

Jack Morton

McCann Worldgroup

McCann Worldgroup (Mercado McCann)

McCann Worldgroup (McCann Santiago)

McCann Worldgroup (WMcCann)

McCann Worldgroup (MRM Worldwide)

McCann Worldgroup (FP7)

McCann Worldgroup Espana

Momentum Worldwide

UM Media

Weber Shandwick

Lowe


HAVAS

Conran Design Group

Havas Events

Havas Media (Havas Media Ortega)

Havas People

Havas Sports


PUBLICIS

Carre Noir

Digitas UK

DPZ

Leo Burnett

MSL Group

Publicis Communications

Publicis Conseil

Publicis Media

Razorfish

Saachi & Saachi


S4 CAPITAL

Media Monks


WASHINGTON POST

Washington Post Creative Group


NYTIMES

T Brand Studios


INDEPENDENT

Edelman

Edelman (Blue Advertising)

Edelman (Edelman Australia)

Vaynermedia

FTI Consulting

FTI Consulting (Compass Lexecon)

FTI Consulting (Story Partners)

¡Mg! Consultora

ADK (Japan)

Adoni Media

Adsmovil

Advanced Outcomes

Advoc8

Africa

Agencia La Feria

Almaćen

Alt/Shift

Anacta Strategies

Anima

Artificial Group

Atenas Comunicado

Atomic 212

Atomix

Audaz

Australian Public Affairs

Barker Wentworth

Bastion Creative

Bastion Creative. Bastion Interactive

Big Red

Bold Partners

BordĂł

Bright Yellow

Brivia

Brim

Brother & Co

Brunswick

Campaign EdgeSprout

Capital Hill Advisory

Cheil Worldwide

CHEP

Concept Communications

Content Labs

Continental Advertising

Costa Think Work

Critical Mass

Crosby Textor

Cuatro Coronas

Cullen Communications

Cummins and Partners

DOI Group

Demner, Merlicek, & Bergmann

Designate Group

Dezenhall Resources

Digitalwave

Don Argentina

DPG Advisory Solutions

EKO

Feed the Media

Fitch Ink

Flavor TV

Forrester Consulting

fri.to

Global Interactive

Govstrat

Greenroom Films

GUT Buenos Aires

Hardhat

Housten Group

ifahto

Intarget

Inter Ads

Inter Publicity

Interel

Iris Worldwide

ISLA

JPG Advisory

JWS Research

Kempner Communications

Kivvit

Kojo

La América

Leftloft

Liebre Amotinada

Locust Street Group

M & C Saachi

Match & Wood

McCoy Consulting

MFIELD

Michelson Alexander


MSQ

National Advertising

New Word Order

Newfields

Newgate Communications

Next Level Strategic Services

Nexus APAC

Northstar Public Affairs

Nove

Nunn Media

Paradise Outdoor Advertising

Peppery

Percept

Policy Works

Poolhouse

PowerDrift Studios Pvt Ltd

Primary Communication Partners

Propeg

Purple Strategies

Quigley-Simpson

Republic PR

Reputation Edge

Richardson Coutts


RPA

Saint Mob Media

Scarecrow Communications

SEC Newgate

Sense

Showpony

Siddhartha Advertising

Singer Associates

Sitrick and Company

Something Else Strategies

Spring Street Advisory

Statecraft

Strategic Political Councel

Talent Marcel

Tatil Design

TG Public Affairs

The Media Store

The Roma Agency

The Thinking Machine

The Visual Agency

The Zoo Republic

TLA Worldwide

Tribe

True North Strategic Communication

Twelve


VCCP

Wahoo Advertising

Willard Public Affairs

XY 01


What They Don’t Say — Where Holding Companies Stand:

The industry knows that they cannot remain silent about climate change.


But despite the sustainability commitments and net zero pledges that agencies and networks have made, they don’t say very much about how they plan to get there and what this means for their relationships with fossil fuel clients. In fact, most agencies have erased references to fossil fuel clients from their websites, so we’ve used web archives to get the full picture.


Here’s what we know so far.


WPP:

Mark Read, the CEO of WPP, told The Drum that WPP is “not naive about the challenges of climate change”, but demonstrates no intent to reconsider WPP’s large fossil fuel portfolio. Instead, he told Campaign that “Energy companies have to be part of the solution as much as anybody else.” In a conversation with AdWeek, Read said that “We want to work with companies that share our values and share our outlook for the future and energy companies are in the process of doing that…We should be there to support them on that transition.”


In June 2021, WPP made a commitment to “reach net zero in their value chain by 2030.” Read told Campaign that “we can’t engage in greenwashing”, but WPP continues to work for global oil giants that have been called out in court for manipulating and deceiving the public about climate change, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron. WPP's work for BP led to a lawsuit for using their “Advancing Possibilities” campaign to mislead people about their investment in renewable energy. Their work for Chevron is the subject of an active Federal Trade Commission complaint for greenwashing and their work for Shell is the subject of a lawsuit by New York City for misleading consumers. It’s unclear how they will reach net zero while continuing to work for the world’s largest polluters.


Interpublic Group (IPG)

In response to initiatives like Clean Creatives and the Creative Climate Disclosure, which called upon the advertising industry to disclose its fossil fuel clients, IPG and WPP told Reuters “they would not disclose their client lists. Omnicom and Publicis didn’t respond to a request for comment.”


In June 2021, IPG announced climate commitments to source 100% renewable electricity by 2030, reach net zero by 2040 and report their global energy and emissions performance data. In their Sustainability and Environmental Impact Policy, IPG advises their employees to choose double-sided printing, take public transportation and use low-energy lighting — but they haven’t said a word about their relationship with fossil fuel clients. On page 49 of the report, IPG has provided data on how their greenhouse gas emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 (notably because of the pandemic), but hasn’t provided context for how this may compare with their clients’ carbon footprint. Despite IPG’s climate ambitions, they continue to work with ExxonMobil, Aramco, Valero, Repsol and Equinor — clients who largely have expressed an interest in increasing fossil fuel production. For example, Aramco has noted in their sustainability report that they plan to “increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day by 2027 and boost gas production by 50% by the end of this decade.”


Dentsu:

In 2015, Dentsu set a goal to use “100% renewable electricity across its worldwide operations where markets allow” and met that target in 2020. This was followed by a substantial decarbonization target that they set in 2021 to “reduce absolute emissions by 90% by 2040 across its entire value chain.” However, their agencies continue to work for Chevron, Saudi Aramco, and Ampol, and any sustainability changes they make across their network cannot balance out the climate impact of working for fossil fuel clients.


Publicis:

Like other agencies, Publicis has set a carbon neutrality goal for 2030 and committed to reduced consumption. However, their client list includes Total, which plans to restart a $20 billion liquefied natural gas fossil fuel project in Mozambique that has received criticism for displacing communities and causing corruption, violence and severe environmental impacts - along with other fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Aramco.


Omnicom:

In comparison to other networks, Omnicom has not made significant sustainability commitments. They have pledged to reach 20% renewable energy by 2023 and met their goal with 21.5% renewable energy in 2021, but still work with dozens of fossil fuel clients, including ExxonMobil, AGL, API, NAM and National Gas Industry. Omnicom’s CSR website says that “our industry has less of an environmental impact than others,” but that’s not true when you consider the impact of working for oil and gas majors.


Havas

In 2020, Havas launched a CSR wing called Havas Impact+ and the Climate Solidarity Initiative to make a financial contribution to climate projects with each campaign they produce, in an effort to offset carbon emissions. This will represent 0.2% of their overall quote for the service. They have also pledged to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% and achieve carbon neutrality by 2025. So far, they are tracking their progress through office electricity consumption, recycling systems and planting trees. In their CSR report, they report that they have worked on 13 client campaigns that feature the issue of climate change, but have not mentioned whether their new sustainability standards are influencing how they work with fossil fuel clients.


Edelman

A quick Wikipedia search of Edelman shows an extensive history of creating astroturf campaigns and working with fossil fuel clients, which starts from the fourth sentence. Despite being a PR giant, their online presence is an interesting case study in public relations, with “controversies” as the largest section on their Wikipedia page. The Guardian has even named their CEO Richard Edelman as one of “America’s top climate villains”, alongside Mark Zuckerberg and Charles Koch, for Edelman’s work “peddling climate denial.”

One day after Clean Creatives’ #EdelmanDropExxon campaign in November 2021, Richard Edelman issued a statement saying “We do not accept climate assignments that aim to deny climate change and we do not work with coal producers.” However, in September 2021, Gizmodo reported that Edelman was involved in an Exxon campaign “encouraging people to oppose climate policy.” In March 2021, a BuzzFeed investigation revealed tax filings that show that Edelman was paid over $4 million for its work with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in 2019.


Edelman announced the results of a three month climate review of its clients in January 2022. Despite acknowledging the role its clients play in Edelman’s carbon footprint, they have made no public announcements of changes in client policy, or whether they have ended work with major polluters. The one exception seems to be that a contract with South African bank Standard Bank fell apart over Edelman’s unwillingness to work on behalf of the controversial EACOP oil pipeline, which Standard finances. While this is a sign of progress, it’s clear that more needs to be done…..


View and download the full 2022 report “THE F-LIST 2022:

230+ AD AND PR COMPANIES WORKING FOR THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY” at:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f5aab4d184791593e07cd03/t/6347466d77526e4144b4d3b6/1665615471218/WEB+Update+220923+Clean+Creatives+Report+2022+final+%2856pg%29+copy.pdf