Adani and the loggers should watch out – we have a right to peaceful protest to protect our environment, The high court has drawn a line in the sand against laws which burden the right of Australians to peaceful protest.
The court made no judgement on Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman’s decision to flatten the Lapoinya state forest in northwest Tasmania against the wishes of the local community. But it struck down his Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 aimed at stopping people from protesting effectively against such forests being logged.
Lapoinya is a huddle of farms southwest of the Bass Strait city of Burnie. Its rolling hills have a patchwork of lush pastures, ploughed fields and copses of trees. At the heart of the district was the Lapoinya forest, a couple of hundred hectares of wildlife-filled rainforest, eucalypts and ferneries with the crystal-clear Maynes Creek, a key nursery for the world’s largest freshwater crayfish, running through it.
When Forestry Tasmania revealed plans for the forest to be clearfelled for the distant wood-processing factory owned by Malaysian logging company Ta Ann, the people of Lapoinya remained confident that common sense would prevail. They called on the state government to intervene and ran a colourful but respectful public campaign to prevent the logging.
Neither the premier nor his minister for forests visited or intervened. Instead, draconian anti-protest laws were enacted and by early 2016 the logging was imminent.
I was invited to a dinner by the community and afterwards treated to a concert by talented local youngsters, with songs devoted to forests. The Lapoinyan dilemma was excruciating: these good people would never be violent or attack logging machinery, but would not be silenced as a distant and indifferent administration in Hobart destroyed their iconic forest.
The locals prepared for a peaceful stand. If the public could see how beautiful the Lapoinya forest was then surely, even at this eleventh hour, the resulting political pressure would cause the government to back off.
The bulldozers and chainsaws arrived in January 2016, with a cavalcade of police.
While premier Hodgman assured Tasmanians his new laws were aimed at “radical” environmentalists and not “mums and dads”, the first two people arrested were a grandfather and a mother of two. That mother, also a neurosurgery nurse, was Jessica Hoyt. Her parents, Stewart and Barbara, have a farm adjoining the forest. In her teenage years Jessica, along with her siblings, had enjoyed riding along the forest’s bridle trail. The two were charged and faced first-offence fines of $10,000.
The next day, reeling from the destruction, Jessica took friends back into the doomed forest. She was arrested again while walking through the trees and ferns. This second arrest put her in danger of being jailed for four years.
A few days later, along with several others, I was also arrested after going back to Lapoinya to make video clips, intended for public distribution, about the sheer bloody-mindedness of the government’s operation. I was standing in an adjacent forest reserve. A bulldozer had backed off and the screech of the chainsaws and roaring thud of the trees coming down was close and confronting.
The incongruity of laws stifling such a reasonable protest against the destruction of the public commons, in a democracy with a long history of advancement through peaceful protest, was compelling. This was underscored when, after our arrests, I received a number of messages from experienced legal experts from around Australia suggesting the laws breached the constitution’s implied right to freedom of political expression.
Guided by Hobart solicitor Roland Browne and joined as co-plaintiff by Jessica, I engaged Melbourne barrister Ron Merkel QC to challenge the constitutional validity of the Hodgman laws in the high court. A public appeal by my foundation raised more than $100,000 to affray the costs, especially in case we lost.
On Wednesday the high court ruled that those laws do infringe the freedom to peaceful protest inherent in the Australian constitution.
“It is necessary to keep firmly in mind that the implied freedom is essential to the maintenance of the system of representative and responsible government for which the Constitution provides. The implied freedom protects the free expression of political opinion, including peaceful protest, which is indispensable to the exercise of political sovereignty,” they said. by the people of the commonwealth. It operates as a limit on the exercise of legislative power to impede that freedom of expression.”
The Hodgman government had breached the limit of legislative power. Tasmania already had the usual array of laws to prevent dangerous or damaging behaviour. It also had a Forest Management Act which, besides guaranteeing the public its time-honoured access to the forests, empowers the police to arrest people who interfere with logging operations. The draconian new laws were not necessary for that purpose. They were designed to stymie effective environmental protests, like that at Lapoinya, which could draw public support and be politically embarrassing. The high court found the laws out, noting the deterrent effect on peaceful protest of their provisions: “The combined effect … can bring the protest of an entire group of persons to a halt and its effect will extend over time. Protesters will be deterred from returning to areas around forest operations for days and even months. During this time the operations about which they seek to protest will continue but their voices will not be heard.” It is for premier Hodgman, a lawyer, to say; but just as he did not see the unconstitutionality of these laws, so I doubt he was their origin.
It should be a warning to the other environmental wreckers.
We are in a world of gross, rapid and escalating environmental damage. Corporations profiting from exploiting non-renewable resources face growing public scrutiny and antipathy.
They cannot win the argument for wrecking ecosystems, so their alternative is to wreck environmentalists. Elsewhere in the world, scores of environmentalists are being killed each year by rampaging profiteers. But Australia is a peaceful democracy and the effective option is to lobby weak governments to clamp down on protests.
The high court’s decision does not directly affect laws in states or territories other than Tasmania. But it draws that line in the sand and will be a benchmark for more challenges if other governments pass laws to protect environmental destruction from peaceful public reaction. More widely, it bolsters that right for people standing up for any good cause.
There are growing calls for governments, already falling over themselves to grant concessions to the coral-killing Adani coalmine proposal in Queensland, to enact more draconian anti-protest laws than those already in place. The extreme right voices making those calls had better go read this judgment for democracy.
The Lapoinya forest was razed, but it has proved to be a pyrrhic victory for the destroyers. Out of the peaceful but heartfelt stand of the handful of people in Lapoinya has come a high court ruling upholding the right to peaceful protest for every Australian
This is not an entirely new approach. Before the government decided to abandon the proposed Clean Energy Target it put a lot of effort into redefining coal as “clean”.
Those political objectives are: to provide a point of policy difference with the Labor Party; to meet the demands of the government’s backbench to provide support for coal-fired electricity; and to be seen to be acting to hold power prices down.
Meeting these objectives solves Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s immediate political problems. But it comes at the cost of producing a policy that can only produce further confusion and delay.
The government’s central problem is that, as well as being polluting, coal-fired power is not well suited to the problem of increasingly high peaks in power demand, combined with slow growth in total demand.
Coal-fired power plants are expensive to start up and shut down, and are therefore best suited to meeting “baseload demand” – that is, the base level of electricity demand that never goes away. Until recently, this characteristic of coal was pushed by the government as the main reason we needed to maintain coal-fired power.
The opposite of baseload power is “dispatchable” power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
Queensland councils to pay at least $31m for Adani coalmine airstrip
Townsville and Rockhampton councils may pay millions more if company’s bid to sew up deal with traditional owners fails, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 20 Oct 17, Two local councils are paying $31m to build an airstrip for Adani’s Queenslandcoalmine – and could fork out millions more if the energy giant’s bid to sew up a deal with traditional owners hits a stumbling block.
Townsville and Rockhampton councils last week announced they would spend $15.5m each on the airport – hundreds of kilometres away – in a deal to secure Adani’s guarantee of 2,200 construction jobs for their residents.
And Townsville has agreed to pay up to $18.5m if the airport is shifted to a second location outside Wangan and Jagalingou land, where Adani’s right to build Australia’s largest coalmine is tied up in a drawn-out legal battle with a traditional owners group.
Rockhampton, which originally put up $20m for the airport in a bid to gain Adani’s guarantee, may also invest up to $18.5m but this has not been made clear.
Despite the Carmichael mine having broad support in both communities, there is some backlash to ratepayers providing infrastructure for a transnational corporation.
An online petition by a Townsville ratepayers group member, Peter Newey, calling for council to scrap its decision, has garnered about 3,700 signatures in a few days. Cathy O’Toole, the federal MP for Herbert in Townsville, has also flagged local concerns about “giving ratepayers’ money to a multinational”.
Councillors from both cities voted in favour of paying for the airport for Adani’s workforce in closed discussions of confidential reports, recorded in minutes that did not mention the company……….
Rockhampton councillors met on 26 September for a confidential discussion about “economic development opportunities” and an update from council’s general manager of “regional development and aviation”.
The minutes make no mention of Adani but note a confidential report contained information “for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage”.
Councillors unanimously voted for their chief executive to “execute the terms sheets as discussed at the meeting” but did not put a figure on the cost to ratepayers.
On the face of it a twin-pronged system focusing on reliability and environmental outcomes could have appeal. But we just don’t know because the details of Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG), and even the basics of how it will work, have not been explained.As one clean energy advocate said on Tuesday: “We’re still trying to understand whether we love or hate the NEG”. Part of that hesitation is based around the oft-made assumption that it might be better to have something, rather than nothing. But that remains to be seen.
The mainstream media certainly embraced it, but analysts see red flags all over the place – it is potentially bad news for renewables, bad news for emissions, and bad news for prices. It is potentially Turnbull’s energy trilemma turned upside down.
Most of all, the proposal appears to be the most ill-considered, poorly detailed and potentially useless policy that anyone can remember – the work of Australia’s so-called “energy mafia” hungry to defend the power of the incumbent oligopoly, commercial interests and their ideology.
The emissions reduction target that the ESB was asked to work with – a 26 per cent cut in electricity emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 – is manifestly inadequate, for even Australia’s current climate commitment (it loads a lot of effort on to other sectors), but also to the ultimate goal of capping global warming well below 2°C.
Even Origin Energy recognises this, noting the cavernous gap between the Paris target and the current emissions trajectory, a trajectory made worse by the government’s hint that any emissions targets will be “back-ended” to 2030. Continue reading →
Abbot Point coal terminal: Westpac may not refinance Adani loan, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 12 Oct 17 Report reveals Adani needs to refinance $2bn of loans for Abbot Point coal terminal, which is more than it paid for it in 2011. Adani’s financing for its proposed Carmichael coalmine could face a further hurdle, with Westpac appearing to indicate it will not refinance its existing loan to Adani’s coal terminal at Abbot Point.
A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (Ieefa) revealed Adani needed to refinance more than $2bn worth of loans for its Abbot Point coal terminal in the coming year – an amount that is more than it paid for the port in 2011. That means the company has negative equity on the facility – owing banks more than it is worth.
Moreover, the two projects are entirely linked, meaning any bank that decides to support one project is supporting the other and taking a bet on its success: the Port’s financial viability depends on coal coming from the mine, and the mine will not be able to be built without the port operating.
The news that one of Adani’s major existing lenders is likely to withdraw support for Abbott Point therefore adds to ongoing doubts about the ability of the company to find financing for the controversial coalmine, and could jeopardise any potential loan it might get from the government’s $5bn Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
Westpac’s revelation came under questioning by Greens climate and energy spokesman Adam Bandt at a House of Representatives standing committee on economics.
In April Westpac released its new climate policy, in which it revealed it would only lend money to projects supporting existing coal basins – not ones that opened up new coal basins. It also said it would only lend to projects that supported mining of coal that had energy content “in at least the top 15% globally”.
Both rules would rule out Westpac lending to the Carmichael mine. But Westpac already lent hundreds of millions of dollars to Adani for its Abbot point terminal, and questions remained whether it would refinance that loan at the end of its term…….
Julien Vincent from financial activist group Market Forces said all eyes will now be on the refinancing arrangements with Commonwealth Bank, with whom Adani has borrowed more money for Abbot Point.
Former president Anote Tong compares Kiribati’s future to the sinking of the Titanic, ABC News By Sarah Hancock , 13 Oct 17 Anote Tong is the former president of the Republic of Kiribati and his island home, in the central Pacific Ocean, is already suffering from the effects of climate change.
Rising sea levels are causing land to be engulfed by tidal waters, driving people away from their homes and leaving them displaced.
Anote Tong is the former president of the Republic of Kiribati and his island home, in the central Pacific Ocean, is already suffering from the effects of climate change.
Rising sea levels are causing land to be engulfed by tidal waters, driving people away from their homes and leaving them displaced.
“What I have seen in my lifetime over the years has been villages, communities, who have had to leave … because it is no longer viable,” he said. “The sea is there and there is nothing. Everything has been taken away so they have had to relocate.”……..
“As a grandfather I have got to think beyond that, as a leader I have to think beyond what will happen today, and knowing what we know today, what will happen to the next generation,” he said.
Mr Tong compared Kiribati’s future to the sinking of the Titanic.
“We are the people who will be swimming,” he said.
Bishop slaps down Abbott’s climate speech, THE AUSTRALIAN Australian Associated PressDeputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop has slapped down Tony Abbott’s changing opinions on climate change following his controversial key-note speech to sceptics in London this week.
Ms Bishop, who is in South Korea for security talks, said the former prime minister was entitled to express his views on global warming but pointed out they were vastly different to when he was in power.
Mr Abbott supported the Paris Climate Agreement while he was prime minister, set national emissions targets and established the Renewable Energy Target.
“I think the question that has to be asked of Tony Abbott is why does he have a different view now than when he was prime minister,” Ms Bishop told the ABC on Thursday evening.
“He is entitled to change his mind, but I am sure that is why there is a deal of interest in what he has to say.”
Ms Bishop steered clear of questions about whether Mr Abbott was going to lose the next election for the coalition with his constant undermining of Malcolm Turnbull, or whether he ought be expelled.
The foreign minister’s intervention came after former Liberal leader John Hewson urged Mr Turnbull to stand up to Mr Abbott.
Dr Hewson believes the prime minister should call out his predecessor, especially over energy policy, which Mr Abbott focused on during his London speech.
“How long do you want to sit back and be beaten up, because that’s what (Mr) Abbott’s doing,” he told Fairfax Media on Thursday.
Mr Turnbull should draw a line in the sand in adopting a progressive clean energy target in the full knowledge that Mr Abbott would fight back, he said.
Dr Hewson thinks Mr Abbott would “make a bit of noise” and “a few that would back him”, but ultimately voters would appreciate the prime minister standing up for his beliefs.
Tony Abbott says climate change is ‘probably doing good’
Former Australian PM delivers speech in London comparing global warming action to ‘killing goats to appease volcano gods’, Guardian, Karl Mathiesen 10 Oct 17 Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has suggested climate change is “probably doing good” in a speech in London in which he likened policies to combat it to “primitive people once killing goats to appease the volcano gods” .
Abbott delivered the annual lecture to the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate sceptic thinktank on Monday evening. The Guardian and several other media outlets were blocked from attending the event but a copy of the speech was later circulated.
Abbott told the group the ostracisation of those who did not accept climate science was “the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages”. He also reprised his 2009 assertion that the “so-called settled science of climate change” was “absolute crap”.
Measures to deal with climate change, which Abbott said would damage the economy, were likened to “primitive people once killing goats to appease the volcano gods”.
“At least so far,” he said, “it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.”
“There’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide – which is a plant food after all – are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.”
When he was prime minister, Abbott said he took the issue of climate change “very seriously”. But since he was deposed as prime minister by his Liberal party colleague and bête noire Malcolm Turnbull in 2015, Abbott has returned to many hardline views he had tempered as leader……..
The GWPF is chaired by Nigel Lawson, who served as Margaret Thatcher’s treasurer. Lawson has been an outspoken critic of climate science and recently incorrectly told the BBC the global temperature had slightly declined in the past decade. The BBC was heavily criticised for leaving his assertions unchallenged.
John Hewson, who led the Liberal party from 1990 to 1994, said Abbott’s speech to Lawson’s group “sees him in like-minded, if disturbingly deluded, company”.
“Tony Abbott has had a long history of playing short-term politics, for his own political benefit, with the existential threat posed by a rapidly changing climate,” Hewson said.
“Abbott was effective in opposition – a man of nope rather than hope. His basic thrust is that if you can’t understand it, don’t believe it, or accept it. When it comes to climate, and the magnitude and urgency of the challenge, Abbott is prepared to deny the undeniable, and to ignore the risks and costs if left to future generations. History will undoubtedly judge Abbott and Howard and their small band of deniers harshly. When they could have acted on climate and emissions they failed as leaders, miserably.”Abbott’s speech – titled Daring to Doubt – contained echoes of his mentor and prime ministerial predecessor John Howard, who gave the same annual lecture to the GWPF four years ago. In 2013 Howard said climate “zealots” had turned the issue into a “substitute religion”.
Abbott, who trained to be a Catholic priest, called climate change a “post-Christian theology” and said the decline of religion in society had left a hole in which other forms of “dogma” could take root.
A Lancet study in 2015 supports Abbott’s claim that more people die from cold weather than hot. But the World Health Organisation has found that by 2050, climate change will cause 250,000 extra people to die each year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
Abbott went on to deny many of the central findings of the UN’s climate science body and claimed, without providing evidence, that climate records had been “adjusted” and data sets “slanted”…….
The Guardian asked repeatedly for an invitation to attend the event. Abbott’s spokesperson said the speech was “not considered a media event”. The Guardian understands the Times of London was invited to attend and excerpts of the speech were distributed to News Corp newspapers in Australia.
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel makes last ditch plea for clean energy target, SMH, James Massola, Cole Latimer, 9 Oct 17 Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has made a last-ditch plea to save the proposed clean energy target, even as the Turnbull government signalled it will reject the proposal by the end of the year.
South Australian premier Jay Weatherill responded on Monday to the apparent standstill, saying the states should “bypass the federal government and provide investment certainty for the electricity sector” by adopting their own target.
The Turnbull government asked Dr Finkel to review Australia’s electricity market to set a policy path that would ensure reliability in the electricity system while also providing clear policy settings to drive investment in generation – something the business community has been demanding.
But in the face of strong opposition from sections of the Coalition backbench to the clean energy target, the Turnbull government delayed any decision on the target while adopting the other 49 recommendations in the Finkel review.
Now, it appears all but certain the target is dead in the water. The expectation is that by the end of the year, an alternative policy proposal that will focus on energy affordability and reliability – and removes incentives for renewable energy – will be brought by Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg to the cabinet and party room for approval.
That proposal could be put forward as soon as next week, when Parliament returns, though government insiders said that was unlikely at this stage.
Speaking at the Australian Financial Review‘s energy summit on Monday, Dr Finkel said his proposal offered a mechanism to solve the energy crisis and was still needed, while arguing that going back to coal was not the answer as Australia was making the transition away from fossil fuel energy………
Abbott went for the whole canon of tired climate science denial talking points – carbon dioxide is just food for plants, the climate has always changed, it’s the sun –
Abbott’s speech was also chock-full of internal contradictions. He suggested a conspiracy to tamper with temperature readings, but admitted the globe was warming. He described carbon dioxide as a “trace gas” and dismissed its role in warming, but elsewhere thought warming (which might not be happening) would be good. And the “trace gas” is insignificant, but not when it comes to its ability to “green the planet” and help plants grow.
Tony Abbott titled his London speech on climate change “Daring to Doubt” – a challenge, if you will, to reject mountains of evidence and instead lick your fingers and shove them into the plug socket of denial.
But what would constitute bravery for a conservative politician like Abbott? Changing your mind when the evidence tells you you’re dead wrong, or saying what you’ve always said, using the logical fallacies that you’ve always used? One step is brave, the other is cowardly.
Nobody should be surprised that what we got was an absolute crap speech from a man who confessed he still thinks climate science is “absolute crap”. Continue reading →
Adani: Thousands turn out across Australia to protest against Carmichael coal mine, ABC News 8 Oct 17 A national day of action to oppose the proposed Carmichael coal mine has seen thousands of protesters turn out in locations across Australia.
Rallies in locations including Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, the Gold Coast and Port Douglas in North Queensland heard messages against Indian company Adani’s proposed mine in the Galilee Basin.
Adani has promised thousands of local jobs but opponents say the project will fuel global warming and destroy the Great Barrier Reef.
“If this mine does go ahead it drives us into a dirty future and Australia is a country that’s smarter than that,” said Simon Fosterling, a Bondi surf life saver at the Sydney protest, which attracted about 2,000 people.
Protesters spelled out ‘#STOP ADANI’ by standing in formation on the sand………
Sydney Stop Adani campaigner Isaac Astill called the construction of the mine an international issue.
“It’s going to be the biggest coal mine in the southern hemisphere at a time when our climate is crumbling,” Mr Astill said.
It’s an international issue and that’s why we’re seeing people around the world and in Australia coming out in their thousands to say no to Adani.”
About 2,000 people rallied in Melbourne’s Princes Park carrying placards reading ‘Coal=CO2!!!’ and ‘Protect Our Future’.
Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O’Shanassy said she hoped the “big day of action” would send a strong message that taxpayers did not want their money subsidising the project…..
At Miami on the Gold Coast around 200 people turned out to oppose the mine.
“We know how important this is and we know there’s a growing movement and more and more people are realising how desperately we need this to stop,” said Shane Primrose of the Stop Adani Gold Coast group…….
Thousands of Australians also participated in protests against Adani at 45 locations across the country
Most Australians don’t want work on the Adani Group’s coal mine to go ahead, a new poll commissioned by Australia Institute has found.
As per the poll findings released on Saturday and Sunday, even more Australians oppose the proposed government assistance of $1 billion to the Adani Group. The borrowed money would reportedly be used to build a railway line to nearby Abbott Point coal port.
The poll findings were published in Guardian Australia.
The survey, conducted by market research agency ReachTel, interviewed 2,200 people across Australia. While 55.4 per cent opposed the mine, 18.4 per cent of the respondents remained undecided.
Meanwhile, thousands of Australians on Saturday across 45 locations also protested against Adani’s mine, forming human signs reading “Stop Adani.” The protests were reportedly organised by Stop Adani Alliance, a community group comprised of at least 31 environment organisations aimed at keeping the Carmichael Coal Mine from operating. The group has cited destructive environmental impact that the proposed mine could have on the waters of the Great Barrier Reef as a primary reason behind its reservations about the mine.
According to the Australia Institute survey, the opposition to Adani’s mine cut across political persuasions, with the findings showing that majority of Liberal and Labor voters opposed the project. While the Liberals are in power at the national level in a coalition, a Labor government is at the helm in Queensland.
Nearly 65.8 per cent of those polled stated that Annastacia Palaszczuk, Premier of Queensland, the state where the mine is proposed to come up, should veto the $1 billion loan being mulled for Adani’s project.
The Adani Group has been saying that the mine would generate thousands of jobs and help the troubled economy of Queensland, a claim endorsed by both the state and national governments. Critics, on the other hand, say that the claims are overrated, and the mine would spell disaster for the environment besides hitting the tourism revenue.
Slow progress on key $12 million Queensland climate change policy, SMH, Tony Moore , 7 Oct 17, Progress appears slow on one of Labor’s key climate change policies to encourage coastal Queensland councils to formally adopt a 0.8-metre higher sea level to combat beach erosion and storm surge problems.
The state government cannot say how many of the 41 coastal councils in Queensland have formally adopted the higher sea level, despite two departments being given four days to answer.
However, funds from the $12 million set aside by the state government has now gone to 21 of the 41 oceanside councils to develop plans.
Gold Coast City Council last week formally adopted the higher sea level when they updated their Gold Coast City Plan last week, as part of Queensland’s Climate Adaption Strategy.
Fairfax Media believes Cairns and Townsville councils have adopted the 0.8-metre higher sea level but it remains unclear if Moreton Bay Regional Council has accepted the higher sea level.
The policy allows coastal communities to better prepare homes and businesses for sea erosion and storm surge damage from increasingly frequent storms and cyclones as temperatures warm by 2100.
Gold Coast City Council last week formally adopted the higher sea level when they updated their Gold Coast City Plan last week, as part of Queensland’s Climate Adaption Strategy.
Maps produced by Geoscience Australia for the Australian government show localised flooding in three scenarios: a 50-centimetre sea level rise, an 80-centimetre rise and a 1.1-metre rise.
The Geoscience maps show a considerable flood impact on the Gold Coast’s northern suburbs and in the canal estates…….
Earlier this year Local Government Association president Mark Jamieson said more than 30 Queensland councils would be gradually affected by rising sea levels.
“More than half of Queensland’s 77 councils will be exposed to coastal hazards in the future,” Cr Jamieson said.
“It’s vital that local governments work together to assess risks and identify practical solutions that will help coastal communities prepare for serious issues such as storm tide flooding, coastal erosion and sea level rise.”
That means that places such as Perth, Adelaide and various regional towns could conceivably hit that mark even sooner.
This trend is worrying, but not particularly surprising given the fact that Australia is setting hot weather records at 12 times the pace of cold ones. But it does call for an urgent response.
Most of us are used to hot weather, but temperatures of 50℃ present unprecedented challenges to our health, work, transport habits, leisure and exercise.
Humans have an upper limit to heat tolerance, beyond which we suffer heat stress and even death. Death rates do climb on extremely cold days, but increase much more steeply on extremely hot ones.
While cold weather can be tackled with warm clothes, avoiding heat stress requires access to fans or air conditioning, which is not always available……….
Reinstating climate and health research, health workforce training and health promotion are key recommendations.
There is much more to be done, and the prospect of major cities sweltering through 50C days escalates the urgency.
Two key messages arise from this. The first is that Australia urgently needs to adapt to the extra warming.
Heat-wise communities (or “heat-safe communities” in some states) — where people understand the risks, protect themselves and look after each other — are vital to limit harm from heat exposure.
The health sector must have the resources to respond to those who succumb. Research, training and health promotion are central.
