Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Opinion

Climate Change and Institutional Self-fulfilment by Roger Underwood

By

I note that the Federal government has created a new agency called “The Department of Climate Change”. The department is not yet 10 months old, but is already well-established with a CEO, two assistant CEOs, four Divisions, thirteen Branches (including one devoted entirely to public affairs), and a large number of full-time public servants.

Given the current hysteria about global warming, and the plethora and complexity of emerging schemes involving carbon-trading, carbon-capping, carbon-off-setting, carbon-emission-minimising and carbon-taxing, I can understand why the government would want a single agency which can keep tabs on all this and drive their political agenda. I am also unsurprised to find that the department’s chief is an economist, and the ranks are studded with economists. This reflects the new focus of the climate change issue: no longer are governments seeking ways to reduce carbon emissions – rather they are seeking to identify the carbon-fighting measures which will have the least possible economic impact.

Nevertheless I am cynical about the creation of a new department whose budget, staffing, political influence and public status is dependent on climate change actually occurring. A Department of Climate Change needs climate change – no climate change will be (for them) a disaster. In other words, the bad-news scenario now has a bureaucratic home, its very own institution, a whole government organisation dedicated to promoting the prophesy of doom to its own advantage.

This phenomenon is not new. I was a junior officer in the Forests Department many years ago, and I recall how the environmentalists accused us of having been “captured” by the timber industry. They also accused the Mines Department of being captured by the mining industry, the Agriculture Department by the agricultural industry and the Fisheries Department by the fishing industry. (Curiously, they never saw any problem with the Department of Environmental Protection being captured by the environmentalist industry).

There is a difference between what the environmentalists call bureaucratic capture, and what I call institutional self-fulfilment. The former involves external influence on an agency by a special interest group to enhance its special interest; the latter is where an agency is working behind the scenes to ensure its own prosperity and survival. A classic historical example of institutional self-fulfilment was the work of the Rabbit Department in Western Australia. The Rabbit Department was created 100 years or so ago to wipe out the rabbit in WA. The agency grew rapidly, attracted a substantial budget, and undertook (on the advice of its senior public servants) a number of massive, expensive and ultimately useless projects. These included two “rabbit-proof” fences thousands of kilometres in length, the construction of which proceeded despite the fact that the rabbit was already west of the surveyed fenceline. I have talked to old farmers and pastoralists who regarded the department as a joke because it was well-known that departmental staff had no intention of eliminating rabbits. To do so would have been to do themselves out of a job. To make matters worse, the WA government (in the way of governments everywhere) was quite happy to come up with the one-off capital cost of building the fences, but not the recurrent costs of maintaining them properly. The fences became a joke amongst rabbits.

Similarly the bushfire issue in Australia is increasingly subject to institutional self-fulfilment. Bushfire responsibilities have been progressively transferred from land management agencies (who are concerned about fire impacts) to Emergency Services (who fight fires). Staff in Emergency Service agencies are trained and equipped for dealing with bushfire emergencies, not for management of the land where bushfires potentially occur. Don’t get me wrong – the firefighters do a great job, and are an essential community service. The trouble is, fire-fighting is their business, their raison d’être. Furthermore, it is well rewarded in terms of favourable media attention, a grateful public, political support and funds. But if there were no bushfires or an insignificant bushfire threat, the fire-fighting services would wither away. Thus their whole focus is on response after a fire starts, with investment in helitaks, water bombers, fire tankers, high tech equipment, super-gizmo headquarters, and lots of staff. What misses out is the essential but unglamorous work of damage mitigation, fire prevention, fuel reduction, fire trail maintenance, community education, law enforcement and so on, i.e., the year-in and year-out recurrent work of minimising the number and impacts of fires, and making them easier and safer to suppress. Far from being rewarded, fuel reduction burning is hated by environmentalists, who depict land management staff who carry out a burning program as irresponsible vandals, effectively undermining their political support. The way the current system is constructed, all the kudos go to the firefighters and none to the fire pre-emptors – a situation very well understood by Emergency Services chiefs.

It seems to me entirely predictable that the processes applying to rabbits and bushfires will also apply to the new Department of Climate Change. If it is to survive and prosper it will need rapidly to become a Department for climate change. I would be very surprised if DCC staff did not already realise that the security of their agency and their opportunities for recognition and promotion will be closely linked to the degree to which the media, community and politicians think that climate change is (i) imminent; (ii) disastrous; (iii) inevitable; and (iv) requiring the sort of complex economic and bureaucratic skills found only among the officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

I can think of three ways all this might pan out. First, it might become apparent to everyone that climate change is a natural thing governed largely by non-anthropomorphic factors. Second, climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions might be confirmed, but it will become apparent that there is little Australians can do that will make a significant world-scale difference, even with massive economic self-abuse. Third, the penny might drop that we have real environmental/social problems which demand urgent national attention, i.e., diminishing and more costly oil, management of water resources, declining air quality in cities and killer bushfires. Now there are four issues which each deserve their own Federal department with four divisions, thirteen branches and offices packed with beavering staff!

Roger Underwood is a West Australian forester and writer, Chairman of The Bushfire Front Inc.

Good News on High Fuel and Food Prices – A Note from Ian Mott

By

The moralising on the supposed evils of converting grain to biofuel and pushing food prices to record levels in a soon to be hungry world has only just begun. It has been described as nothing less than a “crime against humanity” by UN expert, Jean Ziegler and these sentiments were also echoed by the IMF. The only thing missing were the “four horsemen of the apocalypse”, but give them time, they are only just warming up yet.

Just be sure to take it all with a grain of salt because that is a narrow minority urban view. Afterall, the majority of the world’s population are still farmers and fisher folk. And under the principles of universal sufferage and one vote one value, it is the farmers perspective of high food prices that should, but rarely does, prevail over the bleatings of minority urban panic merchants.

It should not be forgotten that in the entire sweep of human history prior to 90 years ago, almost all non-railway transport fuel was grown on farms and the trade-off between the use of grain for food or transport was a central element of all human commerce. A part of every farm was set aside as the “horse paddock” and part of every oat or corn crop was set aside for both family consumption and horse transport and traction purposes. The family’s ride into town was fueled by a stomach full of grass but it was the bag of oats, that was contentedly munched on while the shopping was done, that fueled the ride back home. Every farmer also knew that if they wanted the ploughing done on schedule then they would need a few more bags of supplemental grain to maintain the effort. And all the products the family had bought had been transported by animals whose sole source of fuel was grain that had been bought in the same market where the same grains (of slightly different quality) were sold as food for humans.

In fact, the traditional Amish communities are still doing it to this very day. And somehow, lumping them in with the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf and uncle Jo Stalin seems just a wee bit over the top, don’t you think? Especially when you look at their CO2 emissions per capita. And if the Amish are committing crimes against humanity for diverting human food for transport purposes then what does that say about Hindu farmers who, for religious reasons, allow perfectly good cows to die of old age, un-eaten by anyone?

More to the point, there is not the slightest doubt that the presence of this competing demand for agricultural output played a major role in maintaining food prices at levels much higher than these recent “record levels” that have been attributed to rising oil prices. And it was these very same high prices for agricultural produce that ensured that small scale family farming remained as a profitable occupation. It is what maintained most of the population, and the jobs, in rural and regional settlements where their ecological footprint was incapable of producing excess CO2. It took cheap oil, cheap food and the urban megopolis to pull off that stunt.

It was also these higher food and transport prices that played a major role in curbing mankinds propensity for the kind of conspicuous consumption that is having a major impact on the ecology of the planet. These higher prices ensured that houses remained at sensible sizes, used less resources, were easier to heat, cheaper to maintain and were built closer together. People could afford to buy them with just one income. This produced denser housing in more compact towns and cities where walking, bicycling and public transport were more viable. They formed stable, safe neighbourhoods where kids could walk to school and be monitored by a careing community. And despite the past lack of medical advances, people were fit, active and rarely obese.

The drift of population to the cities was much slower under high food prices and this slower pace of development was at a rate that planners could cope with. These smaller cities enjoyed greater utilisation of infrastructure, lower maintenance costs and fewer diseconomies of scale. It was, dare I say it, a much more ecologically sustainable pace of change.

So we need to be cautious about the underlying perspectives of those predicting catastrophic outcomes from high food prices. For it may well be the case that the simple lifestyle and market induced responses of ordinary folk to higher food and transport costs will do more to cut CO2 emissions than all the climate wallies combined.

Yet, many would agree that it is not good sense to be starving poor people all over the world for the sake of a target set by uncertain science and rampant green whimsy. But it must also be remembered that most of the worlds poor are rural poor, not urban poor. And it is only the minority urban poor who will be in serious trouble from higher prices.

For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as “aid” to the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any semblance of order.

In contrast, the major increase in energy costs has produced a major increase in the price of fertiliser which is obviously not good for those users. But in the third world this also means that the nitrogen in a cows turd has also undergone a major increase in value to a point where the effort expended in collecting that turd will be properly rewarded by the additional food it will grow and the major increase in price that food will command.

And while the increase in energy costs has raised the price of weedicide for the developed world, for most of the worlds farmers it has re-created the circumstances in which a day spent chipping weeds with a hoe will be rewarded with more than enough food to make it worth his while. The improved weed control improves the water use efficiency of their limited rainfall supplies. It can have the same effect on farm output as a 30% increase in rainfall.

The problem in third world agriculture was never one of lack of underlying capacity. Cheap commodities from cheap oil simply undermined the structure of their local economy to a point where the effort required to produce a surplus of food over their own needs was more than the extra food was worth and the people who might have bought that surplus were all in the city, too far away.

Those days are now gone. These farmers have been sent a very powerful price signal from the market place that their efforts are now valued more highly and are prepared to pay a much fairer price for what they produce. The additional spring in their step that this will produce will be akin to giving them an extra acre of land each and an extra 100mm of rain.

And those members of the starving, rioting urban poor who still retain their links to the rural community will soon discover that there are new, secure jobs back home providing services to those who, some for the first time in their lives, are enjoying an investable surplus and economic security based on their own effort, under their own control.

And after all they have endured under the tyranny of cheap oil and cheap food, who of us would not wish them all the very best in their endeavours. As Candide said to Pangloss after a lifetime of catastrophe, “that is all very well, but there is work to be done in the garden”.

Ian Mott

To Cull Kangaroos, or Not: Nichole Hoskin

By

An Australian Department of Defence proposal to cull 400 Eastern grey kangaroos in Belconnen has generated a diverse range of responses on ABC News Online comments.

A contributor, Annabelle, said,

“The killing of kangaroos for convenience is disgusting. Killing kangaroos is just like killing whales-not necessary. It is a hang over from the ‘we must conquer the bush’ mentality of the past.”

It would be easier for the Department of Defence to take no action, which is problematic from an animal welfare perspective because no culling has the potential negative effects on this Eastern grey kangaroo population to lead to insufficient food and shade for the kangaroos. In addition, in this case, expert opinion suggests the Department of Defence needs to cull some of the kangaroos to protect endangered grasslands and amphibian species.

It is also questionable that the killing of kangaroos is not necessary, as asserted by Annabelle, considering that it appears there is overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on this site.

According Michael Linke, the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, there are approximately 600 kangaroos on a site with room for about 100 kangaroos.

The CEO of the New South Wales branch of RSPCA Australia told Kerri-Anne Kennelly that in the past 10 months, there is an additional 80 kangaroos on the site.

Since it appears that Eastern grey kangaroos are overpopulating the site and are continuing to increase in numbers, it is arguably necessary to cull to reduce the numbers of kangaroos on the site. The cull in this case is clearly to reduce numbers of kangaroos on this site since the proposal is for the culling of 400 kangaroos, rather than killing all the kangaroos on the site.

In addition to overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on the Belconnen site, according to ACT Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope, experts argue that overpopulation of kangaroos on the site is causing damage to endangered native grasslands and lizards . Considering that overpopulation is causing damage to endangered grasslands and species, it is arguably necessary to cull some of the kangaroos on this site to protect the environment and biodiversity on the site.

In contrast to Annabelle’s view, a contributor at ABC Online using the name ‘wildlife rescuer’ said,

“I work as a volunteer animal rescuer. Let me explain some things for you: 1. All kangaroos have home ranges (area which they know intimately) which means if relocated they become lost, confused and more often die from stress; 2. To sedate and move 400 adult kangaroos (each weighing up to 90kgs) is going to take a lot of manpower and drugs regardless, you also need people at the relocation site to ensure sedation doesn’t have nasty side effects; 3. Due to the drought we are getting more calls to kangaroos in suburbia where they have gotten lost in looking for food which just isn’t around, in travelling on concrete and asphalt these animals destroy the pads on their feet and need to be euthanized anyway. So although I am an animal lover, rescuer and activist even I have to admit that the best thing for these animals is to put them down in this instance because to move them is to kill them slowly and cruelly and with no food available nature is doing the same thing. Why make them suffer when the solution can be painless for them?”

While wildlife rescuers contribution is an opinion, it is arguably an opinion informed by practical experience and training. This opinion is interesting because it suggests that the decision to cull kangaroos in this case is in the best interests of the kangaroos in question, rather than being a choice between the best interests of the kangaroos and the best interests of humans. It is also interesting to note that the view of ‘wildlife rescuer’ is consistent with the expert advice to the ACT Government, which recommended a cull as the most humane option.

Despite expert evidence that culling of 400 kangaroos on the Belconnen site is necessary to effectively reduce environmental damage to the site caused by overpopulation by the kangaroos, activists argue for the relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales. It is questionable whether re-locating the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales is a viable option, considering that veterinarians and animal welfare experts argue, in a report to the ACT Government, that relocation is traumatic to the kangaroos and is an inhumane option in this case . It is questionable whether relocation is a viable alternative in this case because New South Wales law utilises the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species in order to resolve the problems associated with overpopulation. Given that New South Wales utilises commercial harvesting and culls to address overpopulation by some kangaroo species, it is arguable that relocating the 400 kangaroos will avoid the killing of these kangaroos. It is interesting to note that it is unclear whether the New South Wales Government would allow the relocation of the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales .

Then on ABC Radio National ‘World News Today’ on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, the Department of Defence announced that the planned cull of 400 Eastern grey kangaroos on its Belconnen site would no longer take place because the Department of Defence is researching relocating the kangaroos. The Department of Defence spokesperson claimed that the Department of Defence had always wanted to relocate the 400 Eastern grey kangaroos but the ACT Government only granted a permit to allow for the culling of the kangaroos.

For the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, Michael Linke, this decision is questionable because the expert evidence, in this case, is that a cull was the most humane option. In this case, a cull was the most humane option because experts on animal welfare view relocation as traumatic and inhumane to the kangaroos.

It is unclear how the kangaroos would adapt to changes in location.

It is also questionable whether the Department of Defence decision to research relocating kangaroos is a positive considering that this is research on relocating an abundant species. It is arguable that there is a greater need to research relocating endangered species to improve their chances of survival. The relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales is also questionable considering that New South Wales law enables the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species, including the Eastern grey kangaroo.

It is interesting to note that the Department of Defence decision to research relocation comes after two weeks of activists protesting at the Belconnen site with media coverage of the issue. It is curious that the Department of Defence is now a vocal supporter of a relocation plan, considering that representatives of various animal welfare/wildlife activist groups argued that relocation is an alternative to the cull.

Considering that veterinarians and RSPCA surgeons agree that relocation is traumatic and inhumane, it is questionable whether wildlife/animal welfare activists were protesting for the best interests of the kangaroos because they support the inhumane option rejected by experts. However, by researching the relocation of the 400 kangaroos from the Belconnen site, the Department of Defence is effectively acting against expert advice on the best interests of the kangaroos, by ‘researching’ a inhumane alternative, to appease activists who appear to have no idea about why the cull is necessary and the effect of relocation on kangaroos.

————-
Nichole has posted a lot of information on kangaroos at the environment wiki linked to this blog: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/wiki/Australian_Kangaroos

‘Climate Change Refugees’ Not Refugees: A Note from Nichole Hoskin

By

In the movie The Day After Tomorrow changes in ocean current circulation from global warming result in the northern hemisphere freezeing over and US citizens fleeing to Mexico in search of a warmer environment. In An Inconvenient Truth we are told the world is already too warm with rising sealevels now displacing some Pacific islanders. Meanwhile, in the real world, it seems there really is no such a thing as a climate change refugee …

Hi Jennifer,

The Refugee Convention establishes a procedure for States to determine whether the individual is entitled to the status of a refugee. Once status determination takes place, with health and security checks, if the individual is a refugee then he/she is entitled to the human rights specified in the Convention–such as access to health care, education, employment, housing, social security etcetera.

The main problem with trying to include people displaced by climate change within the definition in Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention is that such persons do not meet the requirements of the definition. To be a refugee, an individual must have:

1) crossed an international frontier–ie. be outside of his/her country of origin. If the individual remains in his/her country of origin, then the individual is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and not a refugee

2) “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” –the person left his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted

3) the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion

4) the individual is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin–the main aim of the Refugee Convention was to attach an individual without the protection of a State to another State.

5) subject to cessation and exception clauses–mainly for war-criminals, serious criminals, and persons under the protection of another State/UN agency.

Since the definition of a refugee requires persecution for one of the five specified reasons (race etcetera), the indiscriminate nature of climate change means that people displaced by climate change are not refugees. The issue of how international law will resolve climate change displacement is only just emerging. However, the only academics that have written papers considering the issue are scientists without legal training, who generally don’t understand the definition of a refugee. No legal academics have written about the issue yet. However, Dr Jane McAdam, an expert in Refugee Law, has been getting increasing numbers of questions on this issue from Non-Government Organisations. Jane started the course ‘Forced Migration’ last year so that she could teach refugee law and consider whether it could extend to other circumstances where people are forcibly displaced, such as climate change, development induced displacement and internal displacement. Jane is also the director of the Centre for Climate Change in the Gilbert and Tobin Public Law Centre at the University of NSW.

While it is possible to open up negotiations for an extension of the Refugee Convention, through an Optional Protocol to vary the original Convention, there is significant resistance to doing this from the UN High Commission for Refugees and legal academics. Under International Law, States must consent to the obligations to be bound by them. At present it is unlikely that States will consent to an extension of their obligations to refugees in the current political climate, where most Developed States are actively pursuing policies to avoid responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.

The other alternative is for the negotiation of a separate treaty to specifically address the needs of people displaced by climate change. It is arguably preferable to adopt this approach, particularly considering the negative perceptions of ‘refugees’ in media discussions of immigration policy in Developed States (such as Europe, US and Australia). There is also the advantage of creating a definition that allows for arrangements to be made for resettlement before people are actually displaced by climate change, rather than persisting with the crossing an international border requirement.

It is also important to take into account that there were 9.9 million refugees in 2006. The vast majority of those refugees were in Developing States, such as Pakistan with 2.1 million Afghan refugees; and about 2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, Syria, Jordon and Turkey. Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.

Nichole Hoskin

A Note to Ian Mott on Global Warming And Coral Reefs

By

Dear Ian,

The Center for Biological Diversity contends that staghorn coral and elkhorn coral are “the first, and to date only, species listed under the Endangered Species Act due to threats from global warming.” Kieran Suckling, the policy
director of the Center, “We think this victory on coral critical habitat actually moves the entire Endangered Species Act onto a firm legal foundation for challenging global-warming pollution.”

The Center for Science & Public Policy has published a report taking a closer look at the scientific evidence, which reveals that the impact of global warming on the overall health of coral species is likely to be positive–towards increased species diversity and richness and habitat expansion–and there is evidence that these changes are already underway.

The hope that this endangered species designation will somehow become a tool for global warming legislation is grossly misplaced. Global warming will likely be a benefit to elkhorn and staghorn corals, especially along the
Florida coast where increasing ocean temperatures should encourage coral reef development further and further northward.

The report is available at http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencecenter/coral_reefs_and_global_warming.pdf

Paul Georgia, Ph.D.
Center for Science & Public Policy
Frontiers of Freedom

Waste Not, Want Not: A Note from Tom Quirk on Nuclear Waste Disposal

By

The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle.

The disposal of long-lived radioactive waste within Australia could be one of the single biggest contributions we can make to the safety of our region, and even the world.

Domestically, Australia produces about 45 cubic metres – three truckloads – per year of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. Much of this material is produced in the research reactor at Lucas Heights, then used at hospitals, industrial sites and laboratories around the country.

There are about 3,700 cubic metres of low-level waste stored at over a hundred sites around Australia. Over half of the material is lightly-contaminated soil from CSIRO mineral processing research. In addition there are about 500 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate level waste.

But having dispersed storage is not considered a suitable long-term strategy for the safe storage of waste. So the Federal Government has proposed a consolidation to a single repository site.

The plan is for a disposal area about 100 metres square within a two square kilometres area.
Low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes would be disposed of in a shallow, engineered repository designed to contain the material and allow it to decay safely to background levels.

Intermediate-level wastes with lifetimes of greater than 30 years would be stored above ground in a facility designed to hold them secure for an extended period and to shield their radiation until a geological repository is eventually established, or alternative arrangements made.

Contrary to popular belief, this proposal is not about the ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the spent fuel of reactors.

The high level wastes produced by nuclear power stations are not yet a concern. If we are lucky we might have two operating nuclear power stations within 20 years. But we would not then be worrying about waste from them for another 50 years.

Even so, it may be with cheap coal and carbon dioxide burial – what we grandly call geosequestration – that we find conventional power plants are the better buy.

Currently, the concern is about the disposal of industrial waste, an area where governments have had great difficulties in finding acceptable solutions.

So what is the fuss about?

There is a worry about instability caused by earthquakes. Helen Caldicott in ABC News Opinion on Monday expressed concern that the Federal Government’s preferred site for a waste dump experienced recently a quake measuring 2.5 on the Richter scale.

However, an earthquake of this magnitude is classified as detectable but generally not felt. There are about 1,000 earthquakes of this intensity each day all over the earth. It might not even cause a ripple in your café latte.
Enrichment and reprocessing may provide further business opportunities. In this area, Australian scientists have made major technical contributions. But firms require access to large amounts of capital to pursue their development. None of our major mining or energy companies has expressed, at least recently, any desire to enter these markets.

The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle. Australia could benefit from providing both services.

Indeed, there could be significant regional demand. Thailand, China and India might find an Australian waste storage facility extremely attractive. Countries that are genuinely earthquake prone, as Japan and Indonesia are, would no doubt welcome an opportunity even more.

Australia provides its reputation, its technical expertise and its high-quality infrastructure for all manner of services to Asia-Pacific region. We should not be blind to the potential of a waste storage facility.

————————-
This piece was first published by ABC Online and is republished here with permission from the author. Tom Quirk is a member of the board of the Institute of Public Affairs and chairman of Virax Holdings Ltd, a biotechnology company. He is a nuclear physicist by original training.