Climate Change
Book Launch: Climate Finance
Please join us for the Sydney book launch of Climate Finance: Taking a Position on Climate Futures (Agenda Publishing).
Co-authors Gareth Bryant and Sophie Webber (University of Sydney) will be joined by Adrienne Buller (author of The Value of a Whale: On the Illusions of Green Capitalism) and Jenny Leong (Greens MP for Newtown) to launch the book.
Where: Gleebooks, 49 Glebe Point Road, Glebe (now fully accessible)
When: Wednesday 3rd April 2024, 6pm for 6.30 start
RSVP: https://www.gleebooks.com.au/event/gareth-bryant-sophie-webber-climate-finance/
The post Book Launch: Climate Finance appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).
Gomeroi win in the Federal Court: now kill off gas in the Pilliga
Gomeroi people have won a stunning legal victory over gas giant Santos. On 6 March, the Federal Court upheld an appeal made by Gomeroi against a Native Title Tribunal (NTT) ruling from December 2022.
The NTT had granted Santos permission to proceed with the Pilliga-Narrabri gas project and drill 850 coal seam gas wells in the Pilliga state forest in north-west NSW without Gomeroi consent.
This successful appeal revokes that permission, forcing Santos back to the negotiating table at a time when the company has already faced lengthy delays to its drilling timeline, potentially making the project unviable.
Justice Dowsett at the NTT had refused to accept that the Santos project would have any impact on the climate and said he was not obliged to consider climate impacts. The Federal Court judges ruled that Dowsett was wrong.
Real victories in the Native Title system are rare. It is a racist system that denies Aboriginal people any real control over development on their lands, providing only a “right to negotiate” on benefits resulting from developments.
If Aboriginal people refuse a deal—as the Gomeroi have refused Santos—companies can run to the NTT and get permission to proceed regardless. But they first need to demonstrate that their project is in “the public interest”.
Racist system
The Pilliga is the largest inland forest remaining on the continent, with many endangered species and deep spiritual significance for Gomeroi people.
Gomeroi have a Native Title claim registered over the forest and have played a leading role in fighting Santos’s gas plans for more than a decade.
In 2021, Santos lodged four applications with the NTT covering the area of the proposed gas-field, seeking permission to over-ride Gomeroi rights and start drilling.
Historically, the NTT has considered virtually all resource projects to be in the public interest, citing the importance of mining to the Australian economy.
There have only been three NTT rulings in favour of Aboriginal people trying to stop unwanted projects and 149 decisions in favour of developers.
Santos put a final offer to a major Gomeroi Native Title meeting in March 2022. Gomeroi people knew that if they refused a deal, Santos would likely win in the Tribunal and they could receive no compensation at all.
Despite this, in an inspiring display of unity and commitment to fight for their lands, Gomeroi voted 162-2 against any deal with Santos.
Black rights and climate justice
In the NTT, Gomeroi were subjected to consistent, racist denial of the importance of their connection to the Pilliga and their rights over the forest.
The Federal Court found no fault in most of Dowsett’s judgement. However, the fact that Dowsett acted like a blatant climate denier during the hearing brought his judgement undone.
Gomeroi had made a strident argument that the risks posed by climate change meant that the project could not be considered in the public interest.
This was the first time a Native Title group had ever made such an argument. It reflected the fact that Gomeroi have built strong links with the climate movement over many years, and major climate demonstrations in Sydney and elsewhere have championed opposition to the Pilliga project.
Dowsett was contemptuous, attacking the credibility of expert witness Professor Will Steffen and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on which Steffen had served. He insisted the Tribunal had no business considering climate impacts when assessing “public interest”.
But a groundswell of climate activism over many years has made the issue one that courts can’t simply ignore.
Dowsett was found to be mistaken—the Federal Court made a clear ruling that the NTT is indeed obliged to consider climate impact as part of the “public interest” test.
This victory shows the power of ensuring that Black justice is at the heart of the climate fight. This fight must continue—Gomeroi need control over the Pilliga.
Since 2021, there has been significant solidarity developed with unions. Unions NSW has taken a stand against a fossil fuel project for the first time, supporting delegations to the Pilliga and pledging action. These networks should now demand Labor kill off Santos’s plans for good.
Santos will most likely return to the NTT, arguing that even when considering climate impacts, profits should still win out. They are continuing operations in the forest, preparing for when they get permission for mass expansion.
But the Black rights, climate and trade union movements acting together hold the power to defeat fossil fuels and win real land rights.
By Paddy Gibson
The post Gomeroi win in the Federal Court: now kill off gas in the Pilliga first appeared on Solidarity Online.
How Can Cities Drive Net-Zero Carbon Goals and Create Vibrant Urban Communities?
Cities must achieve four goals: minimize greenhouse gas emissions, foster low and net-zero carbon behaviors, minimize changes in land cover that increase local temperatures and exacerbate the urban heat island effect, and create livable and vibrant communities. ...
Latest US inflation data is no cause for alarm – the trend is down
It’s Wednesday and I have looked at the US CPI release overnight that has set alarm bells off in the ‘financial markets’ and among mainstream economists. My assessment is that there is nothing much to see – annual inflation less volatile items is still falling and the lagged impact of shelter (housing) is still evident…
Rishi Sunak’s Plans for New Gas Power Stations Will Leave UK ‘Stranded’ in Push for Net Zero
Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho and the chair of a senior House of Lords committee last night clashed over the future of the UK’s energy security needed to safeguard the Government’s move to Net Zero by 2035.
The row blew up after the minister announced a new wave of gas fired power stations as a standby for renewable energy on the eve of a House of Lords report calling for the opposite solution – a new network of long term storage sites for surplus renewables.
The Energy Secretary said the new gas fired power stations – to replace existing plant coming to the end of its useful life - was “a common sense solution” to prevent black outs should renewable energy fail through lack of wind and sun. She was backed by Rishi Sunak, who said: “I will not gamble with our energy security. I will make the tough decisions so that no matter what scenario we face, we can always power Britain from Britain.
However, Baroness Brown of Cambridge, the crossbench chair of the Lords Science and Technology Committee, denounced the decision describing the new gas fired power stations as “stranded assets” and leaving the UK open to “volatile gas prices”.
She said: “A strategic reserve of hydrogen as a means of low-carbon long-duration energy storage would insulate the UK against dependence on volatile gas prices whilst allowing it to continue decarbonising the electricity system. We should be building this now rather than designing in delay by expecting the market to deliver fossil-fuelled plants that will hardly be used and will rapidly become stranded assets."
The Lords report also criticises the government for not getting its act together to set up a new network of storage sites which can take years to get planning permission, time to build and need to be connected to the national grid to be effective.
The report says: "Long-duration storage facilities can take 7–10 years to build and require up-front capital investment. Developers need a clear business case, supporting infrastructure such as grid connections, and financial support in order to invest.
"Energy storage has multiple benefits. It allows a greater amount of cheap renewable power to be integrated into the electricity system, lowering the overall cost of electricity for consumers. It provides power capacity that can be switched on and off, making the grid more flexible."
"It avoids the waste when, as often occurs today, renewables have to be curtailed due to excess supply or congestion on the grid. And it provides electricity system services to the grid, such as the ability to restart after power failures. For many of these services, energy storage facilities can replace fossil fuel power plants."
The peers say if a network of storage facilities were set up the UK could export their surplus power and the new technology to other countries. But it warns that to do nothing now would make it extremely unlikely that the UK would be able to meet the target of a fully decarbonised power system by 2035.
Baroness Brown added: "In light of the huge economic damage the recent energy crisis has caused, it is distressing to see that the Government lacks a clear plan for energy supply risks and indeed is still deliberating over investment in long-duration storage to prevent future crises. A strategic reserve of electricity storage is a critical investment to secure the UK’s energy supply against future shocks, but the Government is still equivocating over whether it is necessary to invest in one."
The report is also a challenge to Labour which has had to scale down its ambitious net zero programme because of lack of money. Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, appeared to back Rishi Sunak yesterday by saying it would build new gas power stations as well.
The Killer-Sunshine State
On the first day of 2023, a 28-year old vegetable harvester reported for his first shift on a farm in southeastern Florida’s Broward County. Later that day, having complained of fatigue and leg pain amid the 90-degree heat, the unnamed man’s body was discovered by coworkers in a drainage ditch. Several months later, as the state’s temperatures reached the highest levels ever recorded, fellow farmworker Efraín López García, age 30, met a similar fate and was found lifeless under a tree.
Republican lawmakers are trying to make these jobs even more dangerous. Rather than viewing these deaths as cause for new workplace protections amid rising temperatures, business groups and their GOP allies are pushing legislation that would prevent communities from establishing workplace heat-exposure standards or compelling employers to abide by them.
It’s just the latest example of Republicans trampling on local government at the behest of their corporate benefactors. But in an era of worsening extreme heat, this particular attack on workers — connected to a coordinated and well-financed effort by big business and right-wing dark money — could be more deadly than ever before.
This is not a paywall. You can read the full story for free.
Just sign up below for a free subscription to The Lever to get access to this story and much more.
Already have an account? Sign in
Can Cities Drive SUVs Off Their Streets?
In early February, Paris took a decisive step to deter visitors from driving enormous cars like SUVs in the city center. Voters approved a measure that would triple parking fees for SUVs and other large vehicles. If Paris City Council approves this measure in May, on-street parking fees for heavy vehicles will be as high as $240 for six hours, as opposed to $80 for regular cars. (Exceptions will be made for Paris residents who park in their own neighborhoods, people who use heavier vehicles because of disabilities, and professional vehicles such as taxis.) Residents of Lyon, the third-largest city in France, will vote on a similar proposal this month, and in Grenoble, residents have already voted to increase parking prices for SUVs who park in city-owned parking structures.
There are several reasons a city like Paris might want to discourage people from driving ginormous vehicles. Not only do SUVs and other large cars guzzle more fuel (and therefore emit more greenhouses gases) than regular cars, but they’re also more lethal to pedestrians and cyclists. New research published by the Virginia-based nonprofit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that trucks, SUVs, and vans with hood heights greater than 40 inches were nearly twice as likely to cause a fatality in crashes with pedestrians than shorter, lighter vehicles. This adds to a growing body of research that shows bigger, heavier vehicles are more lethal in crashes — even to other cars. Children are particularly vulnerable. In New York City, half of the children killed on city streets between 2014 and 2019 were struck by SUVs or other large vehicles; in 2022, that percentage rose to a grisly 80 percent. Finally, heavy vehicles like SUVs, which can weigh over 6,000 pounds (three tons), also take a greater toll on roads.
Voters in Paris recently approved a measure to triple parking fees for SUVs. Credit: Hadrian / Shutterstock
Following Paris’ example, Germany’s Environmental Agency (BUND) called for higher parking fees on SUVs, and so did the Association of German Cities. (So far, only the city of Tübingen has implemented such a policy.) That said, in seven European countries, the taxes residents pay when buying a combustion-engine car or truck more than double the cost of the vehicle. Those countries are Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Turkey, the Netherlands and Norway.
Though he’s unaware of any American city that has introduced a parking reform similar to Paris’s, Henry Grabar, author of Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World, thinks a policy like this is far more likely to be adopted in the US than one might expect.
“It’s less about getting rid of on-street parking spaces and more about putting the interests of city residents over those who live outside the city,” Grabar says. “So even if you were a Parisian who drives an SUV this would’ve been an appealing proposal for you, because the more you can dissuade suburbanites from driving into town and using up your parking, the more parking there is available for you.” A decade ago, Donald Shoup, the US’s foremost parking scholar, wrote a paper for Access called “Making Parking Meters Popular” suggesting exactly this policy. One way to make parking meters more palatable to voters, he argues, is to give parking discounts to local residents.
“Resident parking discounts are justified because residents already pay taxes to maintain the streets and municipal garages in their city,” he writes. This policy should also please merchants, according to Shoup, because it’ll give residents new incentives to shop locally. (In that same piece he also floated an idea to give parking discounts to smaller cars that take up less curb space. Though he suggested cities classify license plates by car length, not weight, the idea was the same as the one behind the new Paris ordinance: tax larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles.)
Washington D.C. was the first US city to pass legislation to raise registration fees for larger vehicles. Credit: Erik Cox Photography / Shutterstock
That said, there are a few places in the US that are charging more for the registration of these behemoth vehicles.
Quite a bit more.
In 2022, Washington D.C. became the first city in the US to pass legislation to raise registration fees for larger vehicles. Though the move was part of the District’s broader strategy to combat climate change, Mary M. Cheh, the bill’s lead sponsor on City Council, also frequently spoke about how dangerous heavy vehicles are in pedestrian or bicycle-related accidents. Starting in October 2023, the annual registration fee for a vehicle weighing over 6,000 pounds increased to $500. (Vehicles under 3,500 pounds like the Honda Civic remained at $72 per year to register.) Electric vehicles are discounted to $36 annually, at least for the first two years. After that, an electric vehicle owner will still pay less than the standard registration fee (the deduction is determined by the car’s weight). Here, too, exceptions are made for those whose vehicle is heavier due to the accommodation of a disability. The higher fees are expected to bring in $9 million in fiscal year 2024, which will be earmarked for improving road safety around schools.
New York State is considering similar legislation. State senator Andrew Gounardes is the lead sponsor of a bill that would incrementally increase registration fees on heavier vehicles so that by 2030, the owner of a Ford Explorer (curb weight: 4,345 pounds) would have to pay $680 every two years. In this proposed legislation, even electric vehicles that weigh over 5,000 pounds would be charged the higher fees, since — even though they don’t emit carbon — they are still as likely to kill pedestrians as their gas-powered brethren. (Smaller EVs would be eligible for a $1,000 credit.)
Proposed legislation in New York would incrementally increase registration fees on heavier vehicles. Credit: astudio / Shutterstock
Grabar thinks it’s unlikely that something like a higher parking fee — even one that’s three times higher — would disincentivize suburbanites from buying SUVs. After all, what’s $240 every so often when you’ve spent $50,000 on your car?
“But it could potentially change peoples’ day-to-day decision-making about whether to drive their SUV to a particular location,” Grabar says. “There is a significant externality to having somebody in a giant car driving around your downtown. Chiefly, that externality comes in the form of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities.” So to Grabar, the rationale should be more, “‘You want to drive into our congested, pedestrian-friendly city center? Well, that’s fine but you’re going to have to pay for it.’ And if that payment gets you to think twice about your choice to drive it downtown then that’s exactly the goal.”
Crushed by negative news?
Sign up for the Reasons to be Cheerful newsletter.
[contact-form-7]
Tony Jordan, the founder and president of the Parking Reform Network in Portland, Oregon, says that the new Paris law is good and necessary policy. “In the United States, we’re trying to get there but we’re so far behind,” Jordan says. He thinks that there’s great opportunity for progress at the state level, though, charging a higher vehicle registration fee for heavier cars the way New York is proposing. Some states, including Oregon, are realizing that as more residents switch to electric cars, the traditional funding source for road maintenance — gas taxes — is disappearing. As a result, Oregon is considering vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fees — and this could be calibrated to include vehicle size.
In New York, the proposed bill is focusing solely on vehicular violence, but Jordan thinks that’s a mistake. “It’s harder, for sure, to build campaigns around multiple issues, but there are many stakeholders whose issues are impacted by very large personal vehicles,” says Jordan. “I believe there’s a lot of power in coalition-building. And coalition-building pays dividends beyond any particular campaign.”
The post Can Cities Drive SUVs Off Their Streets? appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.
Taking Water for Granted
Water use has always been an indicator of social relations. In western societies, most treat drinking water as a simultaneously infinite and hyper-individualized resource. But plastic pollution and the climate emergency are forcing us to question our consumption habits....
Slow Progress Leaves High Seas Unprotected One Year On from Historic Agreement
The high seas remain unprotected one year on from an historic global agreement to create protected areas as just two countries have ratified it.
In a rare moment of international consensus and a significant victory for environmental campaigners, a year ago today the world’s nations signed a treaty pledging to protect waters lying outside of their national jurisdictions.
The agreement is seen as vital to meeting an international target to protect a third of oceans by 2030, however, governments – including the UK’s – are dragging their heels on its adoption, with campaigners saying progress has been “deeply disappointing”.
Just 1% of waters designated as the 'high seas’ are currently protected, leaving the rest – and the species living in them – at risk from activities such as illegal or over-fishing, deep-sea mining, and pollution from shipping.
The High Seas Treaty would create vast protected areas offering tighter regulations, but so far only Chile and the tiny island nation of Palau have approved the new regime – with 58 more countries required before it comes into force.
Simon Walmsley, chief marine advisor at the World Wildlife Fund UK, said that the treaty’s goals will “not be realised unless swift action is taken”. “The world cannot afford to delay ratification,” he added.
Reshima Sharma, a political advisor at Greenpeace UK, said: “The treaty must be signed into law by at least 60 countries and proposals for a network of ocean sanctuaries must begin without delay.”
It took 10 years of intense negotiations, followed by 38 hours of talks at the UN headquarters in New York, before an agreement was finally reached to protect the high seas on 4 March 2023. It was formally adopted in June.
A year earlier, nations attending the UN biodiversity conference had agreed to a general target to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030 – and the new treaty is seen as vital to achieving this goal.
The high seas were created by a global agreement in the 1980s and cover nearly half of the surface of the planet. The designation refers to oceans which lie outside national jurisdiction, meaning all countries can ship, fish or research in the waters.
According to the High Seas Alliance, they are ecologically vital and home to some of the largest areas of biodiversity on Earth, supporting huge numbers of marine species. However, only 1.2% are currently protected, leaving these animals at risk from a large range of threats.
Environmental groups have said that activity in the high seas, such as fishing or deep-sea mining, could be damaging to marine life or create pollution.
Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, said: “It will be impossible to achieve [the 30%] target without including the protection of the high seas, which is why this new treaty is essential.”
The treaty would establish new marine protected areas in the high seas, placing limits on fishing, shipping routes and mining activities. Such activity will be permissible, but only if it does not damage marine life.
“Once implemented, the treaty should help the global oceans to continue to buffer the impacts of climate change,” Walmsley said. This “will help the global oceans to be resilient enough to keep this buffering capacity and protect the planet’s largest carbon sink."
The treaty will not officially come into force until 60 countries have ratified it and made it law within their own nations. While more than 80 countries have signed the agreement, official ratification seems some way off at present, with just two having taken the next step.
The UK was among the first countries to sign and the agreement was opened for parliamentary scrutiny the following month. At the time, Development Minister Andrew Mitchell suggested in a statement that the legislation would be introduced following the next election.
Asked for the Government’s timetable in December, he was vague, saying: “Work is in hand on the legislation and other measures needed to translate the detailed and complex provisions of the agreement into UK law before we can ratify the agreement, which will be taken forward when parliamentary time allows.”
Sharma said delaying until after the election “is really disappointing” and that the UK needs to “show ocean leadership” as this is “crucial to help defend precious wildlife, to limit the climate crisis and to provide food security for billions of people”.
Hubbard also said this was “deeply disappointing” and that the UK "risks falling behind its allies around the world in committing to ratify the High Seas Treaty swiftly”.
Walmsley said he recognised that these processes take time, but urged the government to ratify “as soon as practicable”.
Once the treaty is approved and ratified by 60 countries, it will then come into force and the work to create the new protected areas of the high seas can fully begin.
Experts point out that there is some urgency to this. According to Greenpeace, the treaty should be ratified by next year’s UN Ocean Conference, in order to leave five years for the creation of the areas.
Some work towards the goal has started already, however, with countries laying down some necessary groundwork ahead of official ratification.
Walmsley said: “The good news is that countries have already started the preparation work needed for marine protected area proposals which will help implement requirements and deliver on protection and sustainable management in the high seas once the treaty is ratified.”
However, the 30% target could still be difficult to achieve unless agreement is reached in “record time”.
Campaigners said there needs to be more political urgency if the goal is to be met.
“We have seen if there is political urgency governments can move quickly – the Paris Agreement on climate entered into force within a year of adoption," Hubbard added. "We need this same level of ambition for this.”