Around The Web

Stunning $7.5 billion surge in investment in large scale wind and solar projects means Renewable Energy Target is well within reach, and could be filled by commitments this year.

A table summarising the large scale renewable energy projects completed, under construction, or about to start in 2017.

Matt Canavan accuses bank of conflict of interest over policy to limit lending for coal projects to ‘existing coal-producing basins’

Matt Canavan has redoubled his attack on Westpac – accusing the bank of a conflict of interest over financial links to the Newcastle port – as a direct competitor to future coalmines in the Galilee basin.

“This stinks to high heaven,” the resources minister told the ABC in response to the bank’s new policy to limit lending for new thermal coal projects to “existing coal-producing basins”.

Continue reading...

AAP/Paul Miller

The news last week that Australia’s oldest bank, Westpac, has withdrawn from any prospect of financing Adani’s Carmichael coal mine may well be the death knell for the controversial project.

Westpac is the last of the big four Australian banks to have ruled out investing in Adani. ANZ declared its move away from mining in December 2016. The Commonwealth Bank and NAB dissociated themselves from Adani in August and September 2015.

The move means that, even if the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund proceeds with a A$1 billion subsidy for the mine in the form of a dedicated, “private” railroad for Adani to export the coal, the mine is unlikely to proceed. The timing of Westpac’s decision may be a response to the multiple campaigns being launched against Adani, including consumer activism targeting the bank itself.

Westpac may have perceived these campaigns could have an impact on its customer base, and the savings accounts that underwrite its lending revenue stream. It responded with an update to its position statement on climate change. The statement specifies terminating financing mines with coal quality of less than 6,300 calories per kilo – which rules out Adani’s lower-quality coal from funding.

This is significant beyond just ruling out Adani. Westpac is the first of the big four banks to put restrictions on new thermal coal mines. This signals the largest financial players in Australia are accelerating the transition away from coal, and – as the position statement outlines – toward increasing lending to renewables and energy efficiency projects by two-thirds.

Climate solutions finance group Market Forces’ executive director Julien Vincent said Westpac has “raised the bar” on climate change for the other banks. Whereas banks used to watch each other for who was going to pass on interest rate cuts, it seems now they are also mindful of who is doing the most for climate change.

But even without its new position statement, Westpac could not expose itself to the obvious risks of funding a project that will so rapidly devolve from a global climate pariah to a fossilised stranded asset.

According to a report from 2011 on climate-change issues for the Land Court of Queensland’s hearing of objections to the grant of Adani’s mining lease:

The cumulative emissions related to this mine … are amongst the highest in the world for any individual project, and – to the knowledge of the authors – the highest in the Southern Hemisphere.

Given our current atmospheric CO₂ is 407.5ppm, this gives us 43ppm left to keep warming under 1.5℃, according to IPCC trajectories. Even at Adani’s own conservative estimates that it will emit 4.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, which is almost 11% of the remaining global carbon budget.

1.5℃ of committed warming presents an adaptation nightmare for coastal communities around the world. This level is almost approaching the Emian period of 120,000 years ago, when sea levels were six-to-nine metres higher than they are today.

So, while Westpac still has a way to go before it gets off the Market Forces watch-list of fossil-fuel-friendly banks, it has managed to avoid an investment and PR disaster.

Westpac would have studied India’s electricity plan, released in December, which abandoned building any new coal-fired power stations in the next decade in favour of 350 gigawatts of new solar and wind power. Over the weekend, Shadow Environment Minister Mark Butler pointed out that the Modi government has said it intends to phase out thermal coal imports entirely by 2020.

But this did not stop Barnaby Joyce, on Q&A on Monday night, wheeling out the much-discredited argument that Australia has a “moral obligation” to help India keep its lights on. This is actually morally bankrupt when you consider that India is planning to look after itself with renewables.

The turning tide has not stopped The Australian newspaper from doing all it can to support the mine. This has included giving plenty of airtime to Resources Minister Matt Canavan, who last week labelled Westpac “wimps” for abandoning the mine. The Australian reported over the weekend that Canavan met with Guatam Adani in Brisbane, and was “confident the project would get the finance it needed from other lenders”.

But The Australian has been doing the heavy lifting for Adani’s PR campaign for some time now. Post-Cyclone-Debbie articles in April talked up the mine’s declared “huge economic benefits”. One front page headline declared:

Shorten isolated over Adani mine opposition (Unions, mayors, ALP premier unite to back coal project) (April 12)

And there was a blatant editorial promotion of the mine on April 18, entitled:

Adani project offers fresh hope

The April 12 edition even included a front page comment by Simon Benson, that:

Bill Shorten’s repositioning on the Adani coalmine in north Queensland appears to be yet another political retreat into the inner-city streets of leftist fanaticism.

What such a campaign tells us is it seems to be crunch-time for the mine – and the future of the entire Galilee Basin, whose coal deposits will be made to look a little more viable if that railway gets built.

But opposition to the railway subsidy has surfaced in the most unlikely of quarters. Sydney shockjock Alan Jones has weighed in, denouncing the subsidy as a case of taxpayers funding a private venture that is not in the national interest.

Paradoxically, Jones ended his outrage by comparing funding Adani with subsidising windfarms, for which Australians – both present and future – are direct beneficiaries in so many ways. But both The Australian and Jones have ignored the the big story on investment into renewables.

Whereas a giant coal-mining company has taken seven long years to realise no-one is listening – except for major political parties, perhaps eager for political donations they are accustomed to from the mining industry – investors can’t get enough of renewables. Investment opportunities for community projects have been selling out within minutes.

Grassroots solar projects are in high demand for investors. Fifty such projects have been established across Australia and are backed by $24 million. But the ABC reports Australia lags behind Scotland, Denmark and Germany, which all have extensive energy co-operatives that are promoting wind more than solar.

With an average of 7% return on investment, the appetite for such projects in Australia is obviously strong. And it will only take local communities and small businesses to be better organised to take advantage of the renewables investment revolution. At the very least, the remarkable appetite for renewables investment will drive the large banks and lending institutions to service this growing market.

With thanks to Tahnee Burgess for research assistance on this article.

White House has said a decision on whether U.S. will remain in accord will be made by end of May, when world leaders gather for G7 Summit in Italy.

Climate Policy Initiative stresses flexibility and shows how energy storage and limited gas generation can support a power system dominated by renewables at a lower cost than conventional generation.

Block Island officials switched on cable linking wind farm to main grid, which allowed island’s only electricity source — a small diesel-fueled power plant — to shut down.

Bob Brown was arrested in January 2016 at a forestry protest in Tasmania; charges were later dropped.

Researchers say noise could affect how whales, dolphins and seals find food and communicate.

Using the insecticide thiamethoxam in spring could reduce numbers later in the year, a study finds.

In a landmark case now before the High Court, former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown and fellow forestry protester Jessica Hoyt are arguing that Tasmania’s anti-protest laws unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech.

The two-day hearing, which concludes today, focuses on Tasmanian legislation. But the case has implications for hardline laws introduced in New South Wales and Western Australia.

Standing outside the High Court, Brown summarised what is at stake:

Had these laws been in place a couple of decades ago the Franklin River would be dammed. The tropical rainforest of Queensland would be largely cut up… We’re here to defend the right of all Australians into the future to be able to show environmental destruction where it takes place.

Critics see these laws in Tasmania as part of a deliberate effort to stifle environmental protest as the government pursues its stated aim of “rebuilding Tasmania’s forestry industry”.

Laws that some scholars say put corporate interests ahead of democratic rights have been legislated internationally. However, the issue now before the High Court is narrow. Does the Tasmanian legislation breach the constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication?

Tasmania’s laws

Under the Act, a protest is defined as any activity that promotes “awareness of or support for … an opinion, or belief, in respect of a political, environmental, social, cultural or economic issue” taking place on business premises. Political expression is thus an explicit focus of the law. It creates numerous protest offences with serious penalties.

Protesters who do not leave a premises when directed by police face penalties of up to A$10,000 each. New offences of causing or threatening damage or risk to the safety of a business carry penalties of up to A$250,000 or 5 years’ imprisonment. The definition of “business premises” is very broad and includes land that may be publicly owned, such as “business access areas” and mining and forestry sites.

Tasmania’s former resources minister Paul Harriss, in a statement made when the bill was passed in 2014, said:

Tasmania will now have the strongest legislation in the country to protect the rights of workers to lawfully earn a living, while ensuring the right to free speech and legitimate protest have been protected… No longer will Tasmania tolerate the extremists; you may have your say but you may not stop workers from earning a living.

Two months earlier, the United Nations urged Tasmania to withdraw the legislation. UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye described the law and its penalties as “disproportionate and unnecessary”. His colleague Maina Kiai argued that the law impedes the basic democratic function of protest: to hold government and corporations accountable.

The High Court

In January 2016, Brown was arrested and charged at an anti-forestry protest in Tasmania’s northwest, for refusing a police order to vacate the Lapoinya Forest exclusion zone, a “business access area”. He faced a maximum fine of A$10,000.

Brown announced in March 2016 that he intended to challenge the laws in the High Court. Two months later the charges were dropped, although a statement by Tasmanian Police Commissioner Darren Hine suggested that this was due to a technical error in the charges rather than an issue with the law’s constitutional validity.

Brown opted to continue his challenge to the laws. To broaden the case and secure legal standing, Hoyt joined as a co-plaintiff. She had been arrested at Lapoinya for returning to the area (rather than refusing to leave), thereby triggering a different section of the legislation.

Crucial question

In the High Court, the key question is whether the Tasmanian legislation is consistent with freedom of political communication. Because Australia lacks a bill of rights, this freedom has been implied from the constitutional principle of representative government. The reasoning is that it would be illogical to empower a citizenry to elect members of parliament but fail to protect public discussion about politics.

The court will be required to decide whether the Tasmanian law burdens communication about government or political matters.

The second, and more interesting, question is whether the Tasmanian law is “reasonably appropriate and adapted” to fulfil its claimed purpose of protecting workers and business while remaining consistent with our system of representative and responsible government.

Peter Gutwein, formerly Tasmanian forestry minister and now Tasmanian treasurer, has expressed confidence that the legislation will stand up to a constitutional challenge. However, this is far from certain.

In late 2016, UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst reported that Tasmania’s laws:

would contravene Australia’s … obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of expression as well as peaceful assembly.

The Human Rights Law Centre has criticised the law as placing business interests over democratic values. Spokesperson Emily Howie argued:

Governments can’t just sell off our democratic rights in order to appease vested business interests. This Tasmanian law is completely unbalanced; it puts business interests way ahead of our rights as individuals to engage in political communication or indeed protest.

Other governments, both in Australia and internationally, will be watching the outcome of the case with interest. Australian citizens, especially those who feel that successive governments have shown more interest in protecting the fossil fuel industry than in effectively responding to climate change, will be looking for a sign about the values that underpin our Constitution.

Peter Burdon is affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Mary Heath is affiliated with The Wilderness Society (SA).

One of the UK's last killer whales, which was found dead last year, had some of the highest levels of a toxic pollutant ever recorded.

Adult whale Lulu was one of UK’s last resident pod and had never produced a calf, signalling pollutants in her blubber cause infertility

One of the highest concentrations of toxic pollutants ever recorded in a marine mammal has been revealed in a Scottish killer whale that died in 2016.

The adult whale, known as Lulu, was a member of the UK’s last resident pod and a postmortem also showed she had never produced a calf. The pollutants, called PCBs, are known to cause infertility and these latest findings add to strong evidence that the pod is doomed to extinction.

Continue reading...

Urbanisation of marine environment impacts on seal hearing and is comparable to noise pollution of inner cities

Seals are being temporarily deafened by underwater noise in the UK’s busy shipping lanes, a new study suggests. Researchers compared the experience of the seals to that of people living amid the din of inner cities.

Dr Esther Jones, an ecologist from the University of St Andrews, said: “Like humans living in busy, noisy cities, some seals live in areas where there is a lot of shipping traffic and associated noise.

Continue reading...

The fissure that will lead to the breakaway of one of the largest bergs ever seen has a new branch.

May brings the joys of spring for the northern hemisphere while winter is a step closer for the southern hemisphere. We’d like to see your wildlife photos

• Click here to see photographs shared so far
  

Whether you are in the northern hemisphere where creatures are enjoying spring, or you’re in southern climes edging closer to winter, May, which brings change, is a great time for wildlife photography.

Related: Corvids build castles in the sky

Continue reading...

The UK Government has decided not to appeal against the High Court's rejection of a bid to delay publication of its draft plan to tackle illegal levels of air pollution.

The Guardian has expanded its global environment desk with three new appointments

• Support our coverage by becoming a member or making a one-time contribution today
  

Last November, the Guardian environment columnist Bill McKibben made the grim prediction that the “damage from the US election would be measured in geologic time”.

One hundred days and counting into Trump’s presidency, there’s little reason for optimism. The former CEO Of ExxonMobil is our secretary of state. The new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency wants to dismantle the agency. The Keystone pipeline has been revived, the clean power plan is in peril, and vast swaths of the Atlantic seaboard may be opened to offshore drilling.

Continue reading...

No 10 will not challenge high court judgment, which rejected ministers’ efforts to keep policy secret until after election

A draft plan to tackle air pollution will finally be published within the next week, after No 10 said it would not challenge a court ruling forcing the government to release information before the election.

Theresa May’s official spokesman said the government would not appeal against the high court judgment, which rejected attempts by ministers to keep the policy under wraps until after the poll.

Continue reading...

Nasa says its Saturn probe encountered very few particles in its dive inside the rings last week.