|
Save the Environment, Stop the Emissions Trading Scheme
Visit Campaign Website
There is a temporary holding page for our new campaigning website www.ListenToUs.org.au .
You can subscribe at the site to the campaign newsletter as well as make a foundation investment in the campaign through PayPal.
We have so far raised $20,000. Our target for the campaign against the Emission’s Trading Scheme is $30,000.
********
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Request for Financial Support to Stop the Emissions Trading Scheme
At our recent conference and AGM in Canberra, members decided that the best thing we could do as an organisation for the environment over the next year would be to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
You might well ask why an environment group would oppose such a scheme. Well, for three reasons:
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
2. It will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
3. It will make Australians poor, but it is richer, not poorer nations, that are generally better able to protect their natural environment.
Last week the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, said that the Australian government would take the global economic slowdown into account with its plans for carbon trading, but said there was no reason to push back start dates.
I wish she would also take some of the science into consideration!
Indeed the proposed trading scheme represents a major intervention in to the Australian economy with absolutely no chance of changing global temperatures let alone preventing the feared ‘climate crisis’.
It is bad economics, it is bad science and the associated policies are bad for the environment.
On July 14 this year, just before Minister Wong released The Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper, she stood with the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on the banks of the Hume Dam and suggested that by embracing Emissions Trading, Australians could somehow make it rain in the Murray Darling Basin. (Interview)
Ridiculous statements continue to be made by politicians and lobbyists in the media and attempts to correct them are mostly just ignored. For example, on Monday, Dr Dennis Jensen MP was denied the opportunity to table information in federal parliament showing that many of the current problems facing the Murray Darling Basin are the result of low runoff as a consequence of changed land management practices (including more plantations in the top of catchments), catchment-wide drainage management plans (place in the 1980s and 1990s to lower water tables) and more efficient water use (resulting in less leakage). He explained that it was wrong to blame climate change because there had been no long term decline in rainfall in the Basin, yet the data which shows this was not permitted to be provided to our elected representatives.
Also on Monday, but in the Senate, Ron Boswell spoke against a proposed tax deduction for establishing carbon sinks. The Senator asked the question “If we put 40 million hectares of land into new forestry, where on earth do we put those millions of kangaroos that we’re supposed to farm according to [Professor Ross] Garnaut?” More seriously, if 40 million hectares goes under plantation forestry as proposed by the federal government to fight climate change and offset emissions, there will be even less water for our rivers and streams.
There are a lot of politicians and journalists, as well as ordinary Australians who know that much of what is currently being proposed in the name of stopping climate change is absurd, but there is no organised campaign putting the alternative perspective.
An AEF member, Professor Bob Carter, recently commented to me, “One of the things that I find most troublesome is the degree to which the public airwaves and print channels are filled by people propagating ritualistic, often irrational, emotional views. To what degree this is caused by systematic activity by Green groups or their acolytes, I can't judge, but the result is the same regardless of what the balance of genuine: zealot contributors might be. It is that public opinion still appears to be utterly captivated by AGW dogma. This, of course, is the same perception that all MPs still have, for the Greens make very sure that every communication channel that they can command delivers the alarmist message to MPs.”
The internet is increasingly recognised as an important medium for networking and campaigning. It is a medium for getting an alternative message to a large audience. A dedicated and custom built campaigning website can make it easy for an online community to quickly find their local media and local member and send them a message – as well as encouraging their friends, colleagues and family to send a message.
The AEF needs to build and run a dedicated campaigning website that will initially be used to campaign against the ETS.
If you can make a financial contribution, please go to our website and donate through the PayPal facility using your credit card. http://www.aefweb.info/
Alternatively send a cheque to the Australian Environment Foundation, PO Box 274, Deakin West, ACT 2600.
If you need more information contact Max Rheese (info@aefweb.info, tel. 03 5762 6883)
Make a Donation, Save the Environment, Stop the Emissions Trading Scheme!
Kind regards,
Jennifer Marohasy
Chair, Australian Environment Foundation
ECHUCA RALLY OPPOSES VEAC’S RED GUM PROPOSALS
A Public Land Rights Rally was held in Echuca on October 5th 2008 to protest against the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council proposals for the red gum forests of the Murray River.
2000 marchers, a number of them AEF members, blocked the traffic in High Street Echuca and brought the town to a standstill. Local people and visitors alike clapped and cheered as the march led by dozens of Barmah cattlemen on their horses proceeded to the local park to hear speakers denounce the proposals that if implemented will see selective timber harvesting, controlled grazing and campfires in the holiday period all banned from new parks.
Nearby state forests at Nyah are already declining in health, even though grazing has been excluded for only six years. Parasitic native cherry, Exocarpus strictus is sweeping through the forest and forming dense stands, affecting the vigour of the red gums.
RIVER PLAN WILL SINK
Draft proposals for the changed management of public land along the Murray River by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council have ignited community passion and galvanised the mood of local communities in the face of further regulation of their activities on public land.
The draft proposals, released for public discussion in July, recommended a number of major changes in the Murray River region.
These included the establishment of five new national parks, large reductions in timber harvesting, an end to cattle grazing in many areas of public land, the re-classification of 23 state game reserves to exclude hunting, bans on camp fires, reduced camping opportunity and less access to the river.
The major proposal from the investigation is an overbank flood of 4000GL every five years to relieve stress on the red gum forests, due to a lack of natural flooding.
But what is the true picture of red gum forests? Can they be saved only by a massive 4000GL flood — roughly equal to the capacity of Dartmouth dam — or have the massive changes to the floodplain in the past century made that sort of event impossible to achieve?
Even if the water was available, it would be worth in excess of $5 billion.
Can we afford $1 billion a year in environmental flows? Is this the best use of our water or our financial resources?
Some environmentalists say relieving the stress on the forest is worth any amount of water at any cost, but it is clear that not all of the forest is under stress. It is equally clear that the regulation of water, primarily to suit agriculture, has had an effect on the forest that reducing timber harvesting, hunting or camp fires will not alleviate.
The allocation of water to the red gum forests is of such paramount importance and potentially impacts on so many stakeholders in the wider Murray Darling Basin that it should be considered separately from the other recommendations contained within the draft proposals.
Protection and successful management of the natural environment will succeed when it takes into account the needs of the people, in balance with the needs of the environment.
(Originally published as a letter to the editor in The Weekly Times, October 31, 2007 by Max Rheese, Executive Director, Australian Environment Foundation.)
See also:
Fighting for Red River Gums
Hijacked by hyperbole in environment debate
More National Parks not the Answer
Red Gum lock-up is not the Solution
Taskforce Investigates VEAC Red Gum Proposals on Water
Woody Weeds Debacle
AEF Chairman, Don Burke visited Cobar for the Landcare Forum on September 1st. See Fight for better clearing laws in war on woody weeds (FarmOnline): Invasive native scrub now covering vast areas of western NSW is a threat to native wildlife and groundcover plants, and a cause of erosion. The amount of land affected continues to grow each year because of prescriptive native vegetation laws that prevent landholders from controlling these weeds. Calls to change the laws have been strongly resisted by green groups such as the Wilderness Society. See Green hypocrisy and environmental vandalism.
Don Burke welcomes the statements made by the Australian Beef Association calling for changes to the NSW Native Vegetation laws. Click here for media release.
A Documentary about the Dark Side of Environmentalism
"Mine Your Own Business" is a journey through the dark side of environmentalism. It demolishes the cosy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning agenda free activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the west, take for granted.
www.mineyourownbusiness.org
Youtube trailer Buy the DVD
|
NEWS UPDATES
No way to protect the Murray and Red River Gum
Declaring four new national parks in northern Victoria is not the way to protect the Murray and its associated red gum forests according to Mark Poynter, a member of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and the AEF. See his article in the The Age of January 2: As red gum forests turn green.
Max Rheese makes a similar point in a letter in The Australian of January 4.
*********
GetUp’s global warming television ads are dishonest and inaccurate, according to Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Chair of the Australian Environment Foundation. See Media Release.
*********
This editorial in The Australian on Dec 17th 2008 highlights how badly the Fourth Estate have let the Australian public down “….naive, prone to hyperbole on environmental issues, ideologically blinkered and lacking logic and analysis skills”
*********
Friends of the Reef not worried about global warming
"THE Greens reckon the Great Barrier Reef is a casualty of Labor's lower-than-expected emissions reduction target, but for those who work among the corals, forecasts aren't so bleak." The Australian Dec 17th 2008.
*********
See Max Rheese's letter in The Australian on emissions trading.
*********
The 2008 Conference was filled with informative presentations on contemporary issues. For an update on the conference, look here.
The 2009 Conference will be held in Perth during September.
*********
Miranda Devine in the Sydney Morning Herald writes about the address that Professor Bob Carter will give at the AEF Annual Conference in Canberra on October 11th. This will be one of three presentations on climate science at the conference. Read what she had to say: Act hastily, roo the scare tactics.
Also see Bob Carter's article, "Knock knock: Where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming?" in Economic Analysis and Policy.
*********
Here is a paper with some interesting things to say on why people adopt and hold on to wrong ideas.
'Ignorance is Contagious, the importance of critical thinking in environmental management', presented by Dr Ian Woodward at a recent Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand seminar in Tasmania.
*********
"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't support the earth's current population - maybe half." - Nina V. Fedoroff . According to the New York Times, Ms Fedoroff is an Advocate for Science because of her views that science supports the introduction of GM foods. Read the interview here.
**********
Mark Poynter writes at On Line Opinion on the reasons behind the rise of blog sites and community dissatisfaction over the media coverage of environmental issues, in particular the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance campaign to see the introduction of community friendly public land classifications. Read the article here
**********
AEF director Jennifer Marohasy had a feature article published by the Weekend Australian on August 23rd presenting some facts on salinity levels, rainfall and temperature. The article dispels many of the popular myths that abound on these subjects. To see the graphs which support the article go to Case of the warm and fuzzy.
**********
Green Threat to Reason is an article on Andrew Bolt’s Herald Sun blog about AEF member Professor Ian Plimer’s recent speech in Brisbane about the new religion of environmentalism. It can be viewed here
Professor Bob Carter on YouTube: Science & social context of climate change
(From our 2008 Conference)
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
A CALL FOR CHANGE IN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
Edwards River near Moulamein framed by red gums An article in The Weekend Australian August 9th 2008 Keeping hands off our lands covers a number of interesting points with regards to the current state of play with land management around the country.
Former AEF chairman, Barry Cohen talks of his heartbreak in dealing with bureaucracy whilst trying to set up a wildlife reserve.
Doug Humann of Bush Heritage Australia believes in involving private enterprise in biodiversity protection to achieve goals that government cannot.
The article author, Greg Roberts makes the statement “National parks are no longer seen as necessarily the primary means of protecting biodiversity”, which is what AEF members have been saying for years.
This creeping change in public sentiment with regard to the way our public land is managed is epitomised in the struggle for the red gum forests of the Murray River. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council has recommended five new national parks to ‘ensure biodiversity protection’. This has inflamed the rural community in particular, that have had enough of restrictive land management practises imposed upon them.
This change in thinking was the theme for a new land management plan [go to pdf file] of the river red gum forests that saw a recommendation for Ramsar Reserves to incorporate the ‘wise use principles’ of the internationally accepted Ramsar Convention. This plan was launched at the Victorian Parliament on July 31st 2008 and is now being considered by the Victorian Government.
RIVER RED GUM FOREST INVESTIGATION
The Rivers & Red Gum Environment Alliance launched its alternative plan to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council [VEAC] proposals for the River Red Gum Forests of the Murray River at the Victorian Parliament on Thursday July 31st 2008.
The AEF is one of the 25 organisations that make up the Alliance and contributed to the compilation of the report.
The major recommendation of the Alliance Conservation & Community Plan is the creation of 104,700 hectares of Ramsar Reserves to allow for multiple use management of the forests and a higher level of biodiversity conservation. Read more on the launch and the Alliance plan here
SAVING AUSTRALIA'S FORESTS: and its implications
A book by Mark Poynter
Written from the perspective of a long career caring for and managing forests, this book challenges the conventional wisdom that ceasing local wood production and placing huge swathes of forest in national parks is the best way to protect the environment. It examines the implications of this policy in terms of climate change, bushfire management, biodiversity conservation, water production and the rising level of rainforest timber imports.
This is an important book for anyone wishing to make up their mind about the native forests question free from the emotional rhetoric that invariably accompanies its elevation onto the political stage prior to each state or federal election. Purchasing details.
The Macquarie Marshes: an ecological history
A report by Gillian Hogendyk
After years of research the cloak of misinformation about the Macquarie Marshes is lifted. More details.
Also see the AEF media release on the Marshes.
Changing Attitudes to GM Foods
Craig Cormick, Manager of Public Awareness, Biotechnology Australia, argues on ABC radio that there is increasing support for GM foods.
“We have long known that concerns about a new and unknown technology diminish over time, and in regard to gene technology and biotechnology we're now seeing that played out in the public's minds...
"The second factor was a perception that genetically modified crops could be of benefit in helping to address a range of new concerns in people's minds, which included drought, climate change, rising salinity levels and fuel shortages…
"Now this is going to present a challenge for many environmental groups who will be overjoyed to know that the public are increasingly concerned about the environment, but will be less overjoyed to know that the public strongly support gene technology as a possible solution to environmental problems, when many environmental groups are not particularly supportive of gene technology.
"I suspect that many of these groups might need to reconsider, or update, their positions and at least consider that the mantra of 'all gene technology is bad' should be re-examined carefully and modified to a more realistic statement of 'some gene technology is bad, but some gene technology is good.' ...
Read more here
GM decision a win for science over ideology
COMMENTS by Premier Brumby on the lifting of the moratorium on genetically modified crops in Victoria that his Government is a supporter of science should be reassuring to all Victorians. The Government needs to be applauded for making the decision based on science and not ideology or emotion. The facts are these: overwhelming scientific evidence supports the social, environmental and economic benefits of GM crops.
The Government has consulted all stakeholder groups over a considerable period of time, despite the assertions of those opposed, and has made a decision that it sees in the best interests of the community based on the advice of its chief scientist.
All major players, including the Government, support adequate labelling requirements so that consumers have a choice on what they buy. Farmers now have a choice that will make them competitive on world markets and they can choose not to grow GM crops.
The environment will be the big winner in the adoption of GM cropping by Victorian farmers as the smaller ecological footprint of GM food production has been clearly demonstrated around the world during the past 10 years. GM food production will enhance our clean, green image with the proven reduction in the use of chemicals.
See also:
A presentation by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy at a Forum on GM at the Victorian Parliament May 22nd 2007
GM: debate the science not the values
GM Canola or Nothing Soon
|
