Showing posts sorted by date for query the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday 27 February 2022

In an election year all incumbent governments tend to paint rosy pictures of their tenures to date. Here are a few matters to consider whenever Prime Minister Morrison or any of his Cabinet Ministers talk up their own record

 


On 21 February North Coast Voices took a brief look at some aspects of daily life that get an airing in an election year - jobs, unemployment, underemployment, cost of living and level of consumer confidence - those basic building blocks by which we often understand how the economy is treating ordinary Australians.

Today the focus is on how governments and industries are treating the environments in which we live. This brief outline primarily looks at the eastern half of the country and only covers gasfields & pipelines, land clearing and the looming extinction crisis.


The Guardian, 23 February 2022:

Australia is spending billions to build thousands of kilometres of new gas pipelines that may end up worthless stranded assets as the world moves to deal with climate change. 

The warning comes in a new report by Global Energy Monitor tracking 600km of pipelines currently under construction and 12,200km of proposed new infrastructure across Australia, with the total value of this work amounting to $25.8bn (USD$18.6bn). 

According to the report, these projects include “substantial capacity expansions planned along the existing national network”, which “highlights the Australian government’s unbridled enthusiasm” for the gas industry despite the risk of creating stranded assets. 

Should they all go ahead, these pipelines would lock in decades of new production in several basins on the east coast including Beetaloo and Narrabri, and the Scarborough gas field in the north-west, by connecting them to export terminals. 















The location of existing and potential future supply and infrastructure options across Australia in the 2021 National Gas Plan. Photograph: Commonwealth of Australia 

While the projects tracked in the report are consistent with what appears in the 2021 National Gas Plan, it also includes the west-east pipeline proposed by former Dow Chemical Global chairman Andrew Liveris. Liveris, the deputy chair of oil and gas engineering consultancy Worley and director of the world’s largest oil company, Saudi Aramco, revived the idea of a $6bn trans-continental pipeline in 2020 as an architect of the Australian government’s gas-fired recovery in response to the global pandemic

The proposal – first suggested in the mid-1970s – has long been considered unviable for a range of reasons and the most recent iteration has faced opposition even from within the fossil fuel sector.....

The burning of fossil fuels such as gas is a key driver of global heating. Last year the International Energy Agency said limiting global heating to 1.5C, a goal set out in the Paris agreement, meant exploration and exploitation of new fossil fuel basins had to stop in 2021. 

Dan Gocher, Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility’s director of climate and the environment, said the scale of construction in Australia showed the “toxic level of influence” fossil fuel companies had on government. 

“We don’t need the gas,” Gocher said. “Gas demand on the east coast is forecast to flatline or decline.

Read the full article here


NOTE:

The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 September 2020:

....Santos' proposed $3.6 billion Narrabri gasfield...

...evidence that a neighbouring coal mine will cause a larger drop in groundwater levels....

Leaks of highly saline groundwater produced from test wells caused localised pollution, killing parts of the Pilliga state forest. 

The long-standing concerns include the gasfield sits within a major recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin, its greenhouse gas emissions include potent methane, and the as-yet unresolved disposal of salt brought to the surface by the 850 proposed wells. 

 Stuart Khan, a water expert at the University of NSW, noted in his submission that at the low end of estimates the gasfield will produce 430,000 tonnes of salt over its 25-year life – or as much as 850,000 at the high end. 

The Guardian, 2 August 2021: 

Traditional owners opposed to fracking in the Beetaloo Basin have condemned the Morrison government for handing tens of millions of dollars to gas companies while Indigenous communities lack basic housing and health infrastructure. 

 A Senate inquiry on Monday heard from a series of traditional owners in the Northern Territory about plans to open up the Beetaloo Basin to gas exploration and fracking. 

The plan is part of the so-called “gas-led recovery” for stimulating economic growth following the pandemic and the federal government has already handed $21m in grants to Empire Energy, a firm with some links to the Liberal party, for exploratory drilling.  

Two other companies with exploration permits, Falcon Oil and Gas and Sweetpea Petroleum, share links with tax secrecy jurisdictions, a previous hearing of the Senate inquiry has heard. 

Traditional owners from Borroloola and Minyerri told the inquiry they feared fracking would poison their water and destroy the land. 

The traditional owners criticised a poor consultation and consent process, saying they had been given no information about the plans or told of any risks posed to the land by the fracking process.


GetUp!, 20 February 2022:

Just hours ago, the Morrison Government confirmed it was "getting on with the job of gas exploration" by granting almost $20 million to Empire Energy to frack to the Northern Territory's Beetaloo Basin. 

It comes just days after the NT was confirmed as a key election battleground, with Morrison parachuting in to kick off his unofficial election campaign on the ground. 

But while Morrison invited media to watch him sink beers in a top end pub, his policies — including fracking and racist housing cuts — show Morrison only thinks of the NT and its First Nations communities as a political football ripe for exploitation.


The Guardian, 17 February 2022:

The New South Wales government has admitted that land clearing has increased threefold over the past decade, woodlands and grasslands are deteriorating, and 62% of vegetation in the state is now under pressure from too much fire. 

The NSW State of the Environment 2021 report, released every three years, paints a grim picture for land and freshwater ecosystems, which are under increasing threat from habitat destruction, invasive species and the climate crisis. 

The report provides an overview of the environmental issues facing the state including for biodiversity, waterways and the climate. 

The number of species in NSW threatened with extinction has grown by 18 (to 1,043) since the previous report in 2018 and 64% of mammals are now considered to have suffered long-term reductions in their habitat range. 

Clearing of woody vegetation increased to an annual average of 35,000 hectares between 2017 and 2019, up from 13,000 hectares between 2009 and 2015. The rate of clearing for non-woody vegetation such as shrubs and grasses was even higher. 

Bird populations are declining, so too are freshwater fish populations, which were singled out as being in “very poor condition” across the state. 

More than 70% of endangered plants, animals and habitats in the state are threatened by invasive species, with pest animals and weeds costing the state’s economy $170m and $1.8bn respectively each year. 

The report, released on Wednesday by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, notes that although 62% of land-based species in the state are not considered to be threatened, the number of endangered species is expected to continue to grow. 

Although habitat restoration and revegetation programs are in place, these are “not restoring native vegetation at the rate of permanent clearing”, the report states. 

“Management and conservation efforts will not be enough to save many species without addressing key threats such as habitat removal and climate change.” 

The report highlights the devastating effects of the 2019-20 bushfires disaster, which affected 62% of the state’s vegetation communities, which are now under pressure from too much burning. 

It finds that although native vegetation covers 69% of NSW, the ecological carrying capacity of this vegetation is estimated to be just 31% of natural levels in the aftermath of fires..... 

The full article can be read here.


On 29 January 2022 Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison in an election-focussed media release announced: "The Morrison Government will invest a record $50 million to boost the long-term protection and recovery efforts for Australia’s koalas". [my yellow highlighting]

Not one of the five aims this 'investment' involved stopping the barely regulated clearing of koala habitat including the felling of vital shelter & feed trees by the forestry industry, urban fringe developers and broad scale farming.

This was the response from the North East Forest Alliance

Scott Morrison announcement of $50 million for Koalas is a smokescreen to cover-up his Government’s approval for increased logging and clearing of Koala habitat, while allowing climate heating to run amok, threatening the future of both Koalas and the Great Barrier Reef, according to the North East Forest Alliance. 

“Without good policies on habitat protection and climate change no amount of money will save Koalas, said NEFA spokesperson Dailan Pugh. 

“If Scott Morrison was fair dinkum about protecting Koala habitat the first thing he would do is to stop their feed and roost trees being logged and cleared. Money is no good for Koalas if they have nowhere to live. 

“The second is to take urgent and meaningful action on climate heating, as Koalas and their feed trees have already been decimated by intensifying droughts and heatwaves in western NSW, and bushfires in coastal areas. 

“If the Morrison Government doesn’t take urgent action on climate heating then neither Koalas nor the Great Barrier Reef will have a future. 

“When the Morrison Government issued an indefinite extension to the north-east NSW Regional Forest Agreement in 2018 they agreed to remove the need for Forestry Corporation to thoroughly search for Koalas ahead of logging and protect all identified Koala High Use Areas from logging. 

“They also agreed to overriding the NSW Governments own expert’s panel recommendations, supported by the EPA, to retain 25 Koala feed trees per hectare in modelled high quality habitat, by reducing retention down to just 10 smaller trees. 

“Thanks to the Morrison Government we now have a shoddy process where a few small trees are protected in inaccurately modelled habitat, while loggers rampage through Koala’s homes, and if a Koala is seen in a tree then all they need to do is wait until it leaves before cutting its tree down. 

“Now Scott Morrison is allowing the Forestry Corporation to log identified refuges in burnt forests where Koalas survived the fires

“The situation on private lands is just as dire. Morrison did nothing to save Koala habitat when his State National Party colleagues declared war on Koalas in mid 2020 and forced his Liberal colleagues to agree to remove protection for mapped core Koala habitat and to open up protected environmental zones for logging. This too is covered by Morrison’s Regional Forest Agreement. 

“If he really cared about the future of Koalas the first thing Morrison needs to do is amend the Regional Forest Agreement to ensure there are surveys by independent experts to identify core Koala habitat for protection before clearing or logging. 

“Paying for the surveys and providing assistance to affected landholders would be a good use of taxpayers money. 

“The second thing is to stop new coal and gas projects, because to have any chance of saving Koalas and the Great Barrier Reef we must act urgently to reduce our CO2 emissions, rather than increasing them. 

With the assistance of the Environmental Defenders Office, NEFA is challenging the validity of the North East NSW Regional Forest Agreement on the grounds that the Commonwealth has not duly considered climate change, threatened species and old growth forest. The case is listed for hearing by the Federal Court on 28 March. 

“For the future of Koalas, and our growing lists of threatened species, I hope we are successful” Mr. Pugh said. 

—————————————————————– 

NRC Advice – Coastal IFOA remake (November 2016) p41 

NEFA letter to NSW Environment Minister Griffin 10/1/22 https://www.nefa.org.au/fire 

[my yellow highlighting]


There is a sad list on Wikipedia containing the names of unique Australian fauna that is thought to have been driven to extinction since 1788. It includes the names of 24 birds, 4 frogs. 2 reptiles, 6 invertebrates and 26 mammals, with another 3 mammals thought to be extinct. The last extinction was listed as occurring just six years ago in 2016.

Under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, effective July 2000, the list of fauna species driven to extinction include 22 birds, 4 frogs, 1 reptile, 1 invertebrate, 39 mammals with the last mammal extinction occurring in 2016 and, 1 fish listed as extinct in the wild since 2005.

There are another 470 birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and fish on the EP&BC Act list which are considered Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable and another 8 fish which are considered Conservation Dependent. The last mammal classified as Endangered was the Koala in February 2022.

If one looks closely at this long list of disappeared and disappearing fauna, an uncomfortable fact presents itself – since 2014 the number of species which are another step closer to becoming functionally extinct at state, regional or local levels has increased and, some may be fully and irreversibly extinct in our lifetimes.

The plight of Australia's fauna is not an accident of history. It is the result of ignorance, greed, neglect and environmental vandalism, often ignored or condoned over centuries. For the first 113 years this occurred under Colonial and Dominion governments, however for the last 121 years this has occurred in an independent Federation under the by-laws, regulations and laws of the three tiers of government - local, state and federal. 

It is worth remembering it is federal legislation and regulations which have precedence. A fact Prime Minister Morrison is inclined to play down whenever he finds this politically inconvenient to acknowledge.

As for climate change mitigation.....


Crikey, 24 February 2022:

Australia’s largest fossil fuel companies systematically underestimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they will produce, according to new analysis.


What we know:

  • A report by the Australian Conservation Foundation found a fifth emit significantly more greenhouse gases than originally estimated in government approval processes (The Guardian);

  • Some fossil fuel operations emit more than 20 times what was predicted before they were approved;

  • Gas giant Chevron was the worst offender, with its Gorgon LNG plant producing an additional 16m tonnes of emissions;

  • Whitehaven’s Maules Creek coalmine was another major offender, emitting three to four times more greenhouse gas emissions than initially estimated;

  • ACF lead environmental investigator Annica Schoo said it proved the federal government’s safeguard mechanism was ineffective;

  • It comes as the Morrison government reissues almost $20m in grants to gas drilling projects in the Beetaloo Basin after the federal court thwarted its first attempt (Renew Economy);

  • A new study meanwhile finds climate change has intensified the water cycle and shifted at least twice the amount of freshwater away from warm regions than previously thought (The Guardian).


NOTE:

THE ENVIRONMENT CENTRE NT INC v MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND WATER, THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and IMPERIAL OIL & GAS PTY LTD (ACN 002 699 578), judgment 23 December 2021, in part reads:


“….I find that the Contracts Decision was legally unreasonable. No question arises as to the materiality of that error so as to avoid it being characterised as a jurisdictional error. Applying the approach in Project Blue Sky at [91] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ, I accept the applicant’s submission that, where jurisdictional error is established in the exercise of the power under s 34 of the IRD Act, the Contracts Decision is invalid and, consequently, the Imperial Contracts themselves are void.”


See:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2021/1635.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Environment%20Centre%20NT


Sunday 12 July 2020

The Great Barrier Reef is a nursery for Queensland & News South Wales fisheries and we are still failing to adequately protect its coral structure and marine biodiversity


"Healthy coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and economically valuable ecosystems on earth, providing valuable and vital ecosystem services. Coral ecosystems are a source of food for millions; protect coastlines from storms and erosion; provide habitat, spawning and nursery grounds for economically important fish species; provide jobs and income to local economies from fishing, recreation, and tourism; are a source of new medicines, and are hotspots of marine biodiversity." [UCSanDiego, Scripps Insitution of Oceanography]

Go to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation website and you be presented with links to a "Kids Corner", visual tours and various 'projects', some of which were unrealised or unsuccessful.

A website visitor will also find that the foundation has not published online an annual report since 2018 - the year the Turnbull Government announced that this small foundation was to receive $443 million dollars in federal funding.

However, it did publish the Annual Work Plan 2019-2020.

The Foundation rarely rates a mention in the mainstream media these days. 

This is the latest news report is from The Guardian on 11 July 2020:

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has raised only $21.7m out of a target of $357m in donations more than two years after it was awarded the largest single environmental grant in Australian history. 


It has prompted Labor to call for greater transparency from the foundation about its fundraising, while the Greens have said the figure “makes a mockery of the government’s logic” for awarding the grant. 

The charity controversially received $443m for reef projects in 2018, with the government defending its decision at the time by saying the private foundation would leverage the funds to attract further investment in reef restoration and science from the private sector. 

The foundation released an investment strategy in October 2018 that set a target of $357m to be raised over five years, bringing the total reef investment to $800m.  
The target is made up of $200m in contributed funds from research and project partners, and $157m in cash donations from a capital campaign ($100m), corporate giving ($50m) and individual donations ($7m). 

In response to questions from Guardian Australia, the foundation said it had raised $21.7m in in-kind donations from research and project partners, about 6% of the total $357m target. 

It has raised none of the $100m from the capital campaign and refused to provide any figures to show how it was tracking towards targets for corporate giving and individual donations. 

A spokeswoman said the Covid-19 pandemic had now “made the fundraising environment more challenging and uncertain for many not-for-profits across Australia and around the world”. 

In-kind contributions are non-cash donations, which a foundation spokeswoman said included things such as a farmer donating time to work on a water quality project, or a project partner supplying equipment such as a boat. 

“Cash is what we need to fund science projects and offer grants for community projects,” said Peter Whish-Wilson, the Greens senator who chaired a parliamentary inquiry into the awarding of the grant. 

“The kind of funds they’re seeking, yes it’s potentially lumpy and can take time to raise. But I would have thought they would have at least $50m to $100m by now. 

“It makes a mockery of the government’s logic and intent giving nearly half a billion of taxpayer money to a small private foundation on the basis they would raise dollar for dollar co-contributions from the private sector.”.... 

“Our fundraising target was $157m, of which $100m was to support the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program which was launched in April 2020,” the foundation’s managing director, Anna Marsden, said in a statement to Guardian Australia. 

“With this program now finalised and as per the strategy outlined in the collaborative investment plan, fundraising revenue is expected to start to be realised from the third year of the partnership.” 

However, the investment plan states the foundation had intended to raise 60% of that $100m across years two (2019-2020) and three (2020-2021) of the strategy. 

The foundation refused to answer questions about how much it had raised of the remaining $57m made up of corporate giving and individual donations. 

The foundation’s spokeswoman told Guardian Australia there had been some donations in these categories but the organisation would not be supplying figures.....

Read the full artcile here.

BACKGROUND


https://youtu.be/E1BvLMhQLZA 

Drone footage captures tens of thousands of sea turtles off Australia's Great Barrier Reef

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 29 June 2020: 

Literally cooked in hot water—what happened in the latest mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.... 

Coral bleaching is no longer rare, and no longer confined to a few tidal pools. 

Instead, mass coral bleaching, in which many reefs are affected, has now occurred on the Great Barrier five times in the last 23 years. Three of these events were within the past five years, most recently in the summer of 2020. Bleaching is happening much more frequently, and much more intensively. My colleagues at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, James Cook University, and I—along with many others—have been studying these coral bleaching events in an effort to find out more about what factors are driving corals to bleach, whether the Reef can overcome them by itself—and what humankind can hope to do to help the corals. The findings, so far, are bleak—even more so than when I first wrote about coral bleaching for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2016.... 

Corals are most at risk of such thermal stress in high summer, when water temperatures are at their local seasonal maximum. 

They live only 1-to-2 degrees Celsius (about 1.8-to-3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) below their threshold for heat tolerance, so unusually warm waters over a matter of even just a few weeks is sufficient to cause them to bleach.... 

Different coral species respond to thermal stress differently, with the fast-growing branching corals more susceptible, and slower-growing massive corals more tolerant. The appearance and makeup of coral communities after severe bleaching becomes flatter and less diverse as the corals responsible for the complex three-dimensional structures succumb more readily to heat stress. 

There are obvious follow-on effects to the reef-associated organisms which rely on live, healthy corals for their survival. Restoring a reef to its healthy pre-bleaching state is possible but it takes time: time for surviving corals to regain their algal partners and continue to grow; time for coral larvae to be produced on the reef or be imported from nearby unaffected reefs. 

About 10 years without disturbance is required for such recovery and this is just not happening on the Great Barrier Reef. Since 1985, a unique long-term monitoring program has regularly assessed the condition of a subset of reefs. Measurements of the amount of hard coral cover show that the Great Barrier Reef can recover from disturbances such as bleaching, tropical cyclones, Crown-of-Thorns Starfish outbreaks and diseases but that there are limits to their ability to bounce back; overall, there has been a widespread ratcheting down of coral cover. Almost every part of the Great Barrier Reef has suffered some major environmental disturbance in recent times. 

And there is nowhere for the corals to hide.....

Read the full article here.

Thursday 5 December 2019

Queensland Government gives Adani Group an early Christmas present worth up to $900 million in royalty deferrals


INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (IEEFA):

29 November 2019 (IEEFA Australia) – Queensland Treasury are expected to sign off on a massive early Christmas present worth up to $900m packaged as a seven-year royalty deferral – another term for a capital subsidy – for the Adani Group on 30 November 2019 (likely to be announced on 29 November), ironically on the one-year anniversary of Adani declaring it will self-fund its Carmichael thermal coal mine in the Galilee Basin, Queensland.
Adani Australia – part of the Adani Group of India – announced the Carmichael thermal coal mine would ‘stand on its own two feet’, without any subsidies, in November 2018.
One year later and the Adani Group is not only expected to receive a $900m royalty present from the Queensland government, but the Adani Group is also set to receive over $4.4 billion in total tax exemptions, deferrals and capital subsidies from taxpayers for the life of the Carmichael mine.
“If you give enough subsidies, anything becomes viable.”
“If you give enough subsidies, anything becomes viable,” says Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
“Global and domestic banks and insurers have turned their back on financing the Adani Group, joining the massive global financial exit away from thermal coal. To-date, 111 globally significant banks and insurers have implemented formal thermal coal restriction policies, including the latest just this week, being UniCredit, the largest bank in Italy.
“Yet the Queensland government still wants to give an early $900m Christmas present to the Adani Group for a product that faces technological obsolescence, is reliant on ongoing subsidies, and is only viable absent a price on carbon emissions.”
Under existing arrangements, Adani will effectively receive 17% of their coal for free compared to the royalty regime applying in NSW, according to The Australia Institute.
Any deal should be publicly transparent given rising stranded asset risks
“Queensland’s generosity in providing such a lavish gift to India’s richest man means local Queenslanders will NOT see royalties from Adani’s Carmichael thermal coal mine for a decade,” says Buckley. “Any deal should be made transparent to the public, and credible financial assurance needs to be put in place as a minimum to ensure eventual payment, given rising stranded asset risks....

Read the full article here.

BACKGROUND

ABC News, 14 March 2017:

Up to $3 billion from Adani's planned Carmichael coal mine will be shifted to a subsidiary owned in the Cayman Islands if the controversial project goes ahead, an analysis of company filings shows.

Key points:

  • 'Royalty deed' gives shell company rights to recieve $2-a-tonne payment beyond first 400K tonnes mined for two decades
  • Entitlement owned by company registered in Cayman Islands, controlled by Adani family
  • Carmichael coal mine's production capacity means payment ammounts to about $120 million per year
An "overarching royalty deed" gives a shell company rights to receive a $2-a-tonne payment, rising yearly by the inflation rate, beyond the first 400,000 tonnes mined in each production year for two decades.
The company with this entitlement is ultimately owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a secretive entity registered in the Cayman Islands, and controlled by the Adani family.
"In plain English, the upshot for the Adani family is [that] if the mine goes ahead, they receive a $2-a-tonne payment, so up to $3 billion, via a Cayman Islands company, a company owned in a tax haven," says Adam Walters, principal researcher and Energy Resource Insights.
With a production capacity of 60 million tonnes or more a year, that amounts to about $120 million per annum in payments, increasing each year in line with the CPI, potentially flowing offshore.
"I would describe it as a structure that means that the Adani family enriches themselves if the mine goes ahead but that other shareholders are impoverished," associate professor Thomas Clarke, director of the Centre for Corporate Governance at UTS told the ABC.
"The worry is that this may be just the beginning.
"That the Adani family have the ability to shift cash and assets around at will and in the future they may well do so at the cost of shareholders and the Queensland economy."
He said the billions flowing to the Adani private company would come at the expense of minority shareholders in the company listed on the Bombay stock exchange which ultimately owns the Carmichael mine.....
Read the full article here.
ABC News, 21 December 2016:

Giant Indian conglomerate Adani, which plans to build one of the world's largest coal mines in Queensland's Galilee Basin, has set up a complex network of companies and trusts in Australia which are owned in one of the world's major tax havens, the Cayman Islands.

The Adani Group is also attempting to shift ownership of the existing Abbot Point coal port — which it bought for $1.8 billion — to a Singaporean company ultimately owned in the Cayman Islands.

An exhaustive search of company filings and documents across the globe has cast light on this opaque structure of ownership and control.

It has alarmed environmental activists and legal experts, who fear it could make it harder to gain compensation from Adani in the event of an environmental disaster from Adani's planned mine and port expansion on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

"I've been a businessman for most of my life, as well as an environmental activist, and the risks are great," said Geoff Cousins, former Optus CEO and chairman of the George Paterson advertising agency, now a board member of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"With these kinds of approvals of big mining operations or port operations, you always get a set of conditions that the Government puts on.

"But those conditions aren't worth anything if, when something goes wrong, you try to find the company responsible and either it has no money or if it has money it's in a tax haven and you can't reach it."

It is a view echoed by David Chaikin, a professor of business law at the University of Sydney.

"The advantage of having the money in tax havens is that you are able to conceal the source of money, the use of money, and also to minimise tax," he said…..

Adani has created four companies and two trusts in Australia for the rail project.

The parent company for all these entities is Carmichael Rail and Port Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent.

This Singapore parent company is in turn owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a private company controlled by the Adani family and based in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands……

The Guardian, 29 August 2018:

Mining conglomerate the Adani Group is trying to prevent Indian authorities from accessing its business records as part of an investigation into an alleged $4bn fraud by power companies.
Lawyers for Adani on Tuesday filed a plea asking the Bombay high court to quash a formal request by Indian investigators to Singaporean authorities to force the company to produce information regarding its coal imports from Indonesia.
The request is part of an investigation by India’s Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into a $4.4bn alleged fraud by 40 power companies including six Adani subsidiaries.
According to DRI documents, the companies allegedly used fake middlemen to inflate the price of coal they were importing from Indonesia. The scheme allowed the companies to charge higher tariffs by exaggerating their production costs, the DRI claimed.
If true, the alleged scam would also have allowed the companies to siphon billions of dollars from India into offshore bank accounts where Indian authorities would struggle to tax or account for the money....

Wednesday 21 August 2019

Tweed Shire Council abandons its principled stand on foreign multinational Adani's proposed Galilee Basin coal mine


In which Tweed Shire Council decides Australia doesn't need the Great Barrier Reef or the Black-throated Finch......

Echo NetDaily, 19 August 2019: 

The Tweed Shire Council has performed a political back-flip on a 2017 promise to avoid hiring building companies contracted to Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine in central Queensland. 

Councillors voted for the ban two years ago, with Tweed Shire Deputy Mayor Chris Cherry (Independent) saying they ‘wished to represent the views of the community’. Cr Cherry said Adani didn’t have any approvals to mine in Carmichael at the time but people on the Tweed were concerned about potential environmental impacts of the project on the Great Barrier Reef. 

Labor councillor flips anti-Adani ban in favour of jobs 

Last week, Cr James Owen (Liberals) tabled a rescission on the 2017 vote and won majority support, meaning the ban no longer applies. 

Cr Ron Cooper (Independent) was absent from the meeting and had originally supported an anti-Adani stance. 

But a change of heart from Cr Reece Brynes (Labor) was enough to change council policy as he joined forces with Councillors Owen, Pryce Allsop (Independent) and Warren Polglase (Nationals). 

Cr Byrnes told Echonetdaily although he initially voted for the ban and continues to share environmental impact concerns, state and federal government approvals of the Carmichael project mean the council has to ‘accept realities’. 

‘My priority and Labor’s priority is always about creating more local jobs in the Tweed,’ he wrote in an email, ‘I make no apologies that Labor’s priority is always about creating jobs’. 

The council had to ‘move away from a position of protest’ to one that wouldn’t ‘prohibit or hamper future projects and jobs for people in the tweed’, Cr Byrnes wrote.....


BRIEF BACKGROUND

Environmental Defenders Office Qld, Case Explainer: Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme - Federal Judicial Review

Australian Conservation Foundation, Stop Adani's polluting coal mine

Lock the Gate, Coal Mining: Water Impacts of the Adani Coal Mine

Climate Council, Adani Mine Must Be Stopped

ABC News, What we know about Adani's Carmichael coal mine project

Tuesday 6 August 2019

The awful truth that over 8 million* Australians refuse to face


The Monthly, August 2019:

In June, I delivered a keynote presentation on Australia’s vulnerability to climate change and our policy challenges at the annual meeting of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the main conference for those working in the climate science community. I saw it as an opportunity to summarise the post-election political and scientific reality we now face.

As one of the dozen or so Australian lead authors on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) sixth assessment report, currently underway, I have a deep appreciation of the speed and severity of climate change unfolding across the planet. Last year I was also appointed as one of the scientific advisers to the Climate Council, Australia’s leading independent body providing expert advice to the public on climate science and policy. In short, I am in the confronting position of being one of the few Australians who sees the terrifying reality of the climate crisis.

Preparing for this talk I experienced something gut-wrenching. It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible truth…...

The results coming out of the climate science community at the moment are, even for experts, similarly alarming.

One common metric used to investigate the effects of global warming is known as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, defined as the full amount of global surface warming that will eventually occur in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations compared to pre-industrial times. It’s sometimes referred to as the holy grail of climate science because it helps quantify the specific risks posed to human society as the planet continues to warm.

We know that CO2 concentrations have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 410 ppm today, the highest recorded in at least three million years. Without major mitigation efforts, we are likely to reach 560 ppm by around 2060.

When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming within the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C as the Earth reaches a new equilibrium. However, preliminary estimates calculated from the latest global climate models (being used in the current IPCC assessment, due out in 2021) are far higher than with the previous generation of models. Early reports are predicting that a doubling of CO2 may in fact produce between 2.8 and 5.8°C of warming. Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer.

When these results were first released at a climate modelling workshop in March this year, a flurry of panicked emails from my IPCC colleagues flooded my inbox. What if the models are right? Has the Earth already crossed some kind of tipping point? Are we experiencing abrupt climate change right now?

The model runs aren’t all available yet, but when many of the most advanced models in the world are independently reproducing the same disturbing results, it’s hard not to worry.
When the UN’s Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015, it defined a specific goal: to keep global warming to well below 2°C and as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (defined as the climate conditions experienced during the 1850–1900 period). While admirable in intent, the agreement did not impose legally binding limits on signatory nations and contained no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, each country committed to publicly disclosed Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce emissions. In essence, it is up to each nation to act in the public interest.

Even achieving the most ambitious goal of 1.5°C will see the further destruction of between 70 and 90 per cent of reef-building corals compared to today, according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released last October. With 2°C of warming, a staggering 99 per cent of tropical coral reefs disappear. An entire component of the Earth’s biosphere – our planetary life support system – would be eliminated. The knock-on effects on the 25 per cent of all marine life that depends on coral reefs would be profound and immeasurable.

So how is the Paris Agreement actually panning out?

In 2017, we reached 1°C of warming above global pre-industrial conditions. According to the UN Environment Programme’s “Emissions Gap Report”, released in November 2018, current unconditional NDCs will see global average temperature rise by 2.9 to 3.4°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.

To restrict warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the world needs to triple its current emission reduction pledges. If that’s not bad enough, to restrict global warming to 1.5°C, global ambition needs to increase fivefold.

Meanwhile, the Australian federal government has a target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which experts believe is more aligned with global warming of 3 to 4°C. Despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s claim that we will meet our Paris Agreement commitments “in a canter”, the UNEP report clearly identifies Australia as one of the G20 nations that will fall short of achieving its already inadequate NDCs by 2030.

Even with the 1°C of warming we’ve already experienced, 50 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is dead. We are witnessing catastrophic ecosystem collapse of the largest living organism on the planet. As I share this horrifying information with audiences around the country, I often pause to allow people to try and really take that information in.

Increasingly after my speaking events, I catch myself unexpectedly weeping in my hotel room or on flights home. Every now and then, the reality of what the science is saying manages to thaw the emotionally frozen part of myself I need to maintain to do my job. In those moments, what surfaces is pure grief. It’s the only feeling that comes close to the pain I felt processing the severity of my dad’s brain injury. Being willing to acknowledge the arrival of the point of no return is an act of bravery.

But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically explosive rage. Because in the very same IPCC report that outlines the details of the impending apocalypse, the climate science community clearly stated that limiting warming to 1.5°C is geophysically possible.

Past emissions alone are unlikely to raise global average temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC report states that any further warming beyond the 1°C already recorded would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next 20 to 30 years, if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to zero immediately. That is, if we act urgently, it is technically feasible to turn things around. The only thing missing is strong global policy.
Although the very foundation of human civilisation is at stake, the world is on track to seriously overshoot our UN targets. Worse still, global carbon emissions are still rising. In response, scientists are prioritising research on how the planet has responded during other warm periods in the Earth’s history.

The most comprehensive summary of conditions experienced during past warm periods in the Earth’s recent history was published in June 2018 in one of our leading journals, Nature Geoscience, by 59 leading experts from 17 countries. The report concluded that warming of between 1.5 and 2°C in the past was enough to see significant shifts in climate zones, and land and aquatic ecosystems “spatially reorganize”.

These changes triggered substantial long-term melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, unleashing 6 to 13 metres of global sea-level rise lasting thousands of years.

Examining the Earth’s climatic past tells us that even between 1.5 and 2°C of warming sees the world reconfigure in ways that people don’t yet appreciate. All bets are off between 3 and 4°C, where we are currently headed. Parts of Australia will become uninhabitable, as other areas of our country become increasingly ravaged by extreme weather events.

This year the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society’s annual conference was held in Darwin, where the infamous Cyclone Tracy struck on Christmas Day in 1974, virtually demolishing the entire city. More than 70 per cent of the city’s buildings, including 80 per cent of its houses, were destroyed. Seventy-one people were killed and most of the 48,000 residents made homeless. Conditions were so dire that around 36,000 people were evacuated, many by military aircraft. It was a disaster of monumental proportions.

As I collated this information for my presentation, it became clear to me that Cyclone Tracy is a warning. Without major action, we will see tropical cyclones drifting into areas on the southern edge of current cyclone zones, into places such as south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales, where infrastructure is not ready to cope with cyclonic conditions.

These areas currently house more than 3.6 million people; we simply aren’t prepared for what is upon us.....

Notes:

* the over "8 million Australians" are the 8,018,310 voters who did not give their first preference vote at the May 2019 federal election to a political party with a solid climate change policy.