Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

admin

Global Climate Change Law and Policy Book

By

Folks,

 

I have just received this notification.

 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE – Australian Law and Policy

 

This book was launched at the University of Western Australia Co-op Bookshop yesterday.

 

It is by David Hodgkinson (Special Counsel, Clayton Utz; Executive Director, EcoCarbon) and Renee Garner (Solicitor, Freehills, member of Freehill’s National Climate Change Steering Group).

 

Described as ‘a comprehensive guide to climate change law and policy at local, state and national level in Australia, it also examines the international jurisdiction frameworks established to deal with climate change.’

 

The book claims to ‘explore the physical science of climate change’. However, it merely uncritically accepts the alarmist global warming perspective of IPCC/Stern/Hamilton/Garnaut. The frontispiece quotation, for example, is from ‘Jim’ Hansen, 2006.

 

The ‘Denialist-Sceptic View’ gets only two pages (25-27), with the Australian section mainly comprising quotations from Clive Hamilton’s dreadful book Scorcher (2007).

 

Publisher: LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2008.

Email: academic@lexisnexis.com.au

ISBN: 978-0-409-32535-5

Cost: A$110.00

 

 

Bob

How Much of Australian Agricultural Production is Exported?

By

Hi Jennifer,

 

This article disputing the percentage of Australian agricultural produce that is exported appeared on Agmates at the end of August. 

 

I feel it should have a wider airing, especially if we have all been misled about this subject. 

 

http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/08/29/myth-busted-australia-exports-just-22-of-ag-production-not-80/

 

The link to the original article is here

 

http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/01/01/report-into-ag-production-export-discrepancies/

 

You may like to consider it as a blog topic. 

 

Cheers, Helen

 

PS And I grabbed this from one of the links:

 

At the end of the Customs House Meeting, the committee had established the facts, and the subsequent agreement of proceedings became known as the Customs House Agreement.

 

 

The Customs House Agreement

  • It is unequivocally agreed that for the year 93/94 that only 22% of farm gate value is directly exported from Australia.
  • It is agreed that direct exports, together with the first round total of indirect exports, roughly account for 25% or an additional three percentage points,
  • All agreed that those who propose the higher figures like 80% are simply wrong,
  • ABS agreed that 66% was questionable and problematic ,and
  • ABS would not arrive at 66% figures using accepted methods,
  • Only 7 of 53 sectors exported more than 50% of output,
  • All agreed the real proportion of exports as shown by Dr McGovern was well known for some time,
  • Figures such as 80% use FOB values to compare with farm gate values,
  • Some calculations have led to double counting or have included inappropriate components which have distorted outcomes,
  • Errors occur when comparing value added items like biscuits in a container on board ship with wheat at farm gate or perhaps a bottle of wine on board ship with the value of grapes at farm gate,
  • In some cases inappropriate basis are used eg. the value of spraying or shearing being added to exports of wool, grain or cotton,
  • Other examples of double counting occur when such things as sausages consumed by coal and steel miners in their respective industries are classified as exported agricultural production.

All these definitional and methodological anomalies distort real farm gate values. Some extreme methods of calculation have arrived at up to 200% of farm gate value exported.

New Reef Creatures

By

“Hundreds of new kinds of animal species, including 130 colourful corals, have been discovered.   The extraordinary creatures were found by researchers systematically exploring waters off two islands on the Great Barrier Reef and a reef off northwestern Australia.”   Read more from the UK Telegraph here.  

The Fight Against Global Warming Justifies Criminal Action: UK Jury Clears Greenpeace Activists

By

Last week a UK jury decided that the threat of global warming justifies breaking the law; or at least they condoned the painting of the word ‘Gordon’ on someone else’s chimney stack.    

 

The jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage accepting defence arguments that they had a “lawful excuse” when they vandalised the chimney stack because the carbon dioxide emissions from the Kingsnorth power plant are harmful to the environment of the Hoo Peninsula.

 

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 damage is condoned if it will prevent even greater damage.   

 

This is surely an unusual interpretation of a law meant to allow, for example, someone to break down the door to a burning building?

 

It does suggest the pubic are very concerned about global warming and see a link between a protest against a power station and saving the environmental.   Furthermore it creates precedence, at least in the UK, the idea that it is OK to destroy property to save the environment from climate change.

 

Writing in The UK Independent Geoffrey Lean claimed that:

 

“The jury in effect sat through a six-and-a-half-day seminar on global warming, in a forum where lying was illegal, and every statement could be challenged by top barristers. And, at the end, they decided that the danger was so immediate and serious that it justified taking extreme – and normally illegal – action against it.”

 

NASA’s James Hansen gave evidence in defence of the Greenpeace activists at the trial and according to Kent News when asked what his message to Prime Minister Gordon Brown would be, Dr Hansen replied: 

 

“I would ask him to make a clear public statement for a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2.”

 

It is unlikely the case will have significant implications for activism in Australia. 

 

In New South Wales (and all other States of Australia), juries are only available in criminal case for serious offences (indictable offences) such as sexual assault, murder, armed robbery and other serious crimes against a person. Since graffiti is a summary offence that would be heard by a magistrate, it is unlikely that a magistrate would find climate change a justification for the offence. 

 

Secondly, the legal argument that graffiti to prevent climate change is damage to prevent greater damage in the future is not a very good legal argument. The main problem is that it is just as likely that the graffiti will make no difference what so ever to climate change that it fails to prevent the future damage.

 

Thirdly, in NSW criminal law, there is not similar provision that damage to property is permissible to prevent greater harm.  If a similar case was brought in NSW, the magistrate would be likely to rule that the evidence on whether climate change is damage, which would be key to the case, would be ruled to be irrelevant and dismissed.

 

 The damage to the Kingsnorth power station was estimated at £35,000.

 

***************
Comment on legal implications for Australia from Nichole Hoskin.   This post is based on news reports and opinion pieces, does anyone have a link to, or copy of, the actual judgement.