Long-term research shows ocean acidification ramping up on the Reef
 The future is now: long-term research shows ocean acidification ramping up on the Reef
A new study has shown ocean acidification is no longer a sombre forecast for the Great Barrier Reef but a present-day reality AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/aiom-tfi102820.phpResearch News Ocean acidification is no longer a sombre forecast for the Great Barrier Reef but a present-day reality, a new study reveals. The study, published in the international Journal Scientific Reports, shows carbon dioxide (CO2) and ocean acidification are rapidly increasing on the Reef. Seawater CO2 has risen 6 per cent over the past 10 years and matches the rate of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, confirming the influence of atmospheric CO2 on seawater CO2 levels. “People talk about ocean acidification in terms of 50 years’ time, but for the first time our study shows how fast ocean acidification is already happening on the Reef,” said Dr Katharina Fabricius, lead author and Senior Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). The research, a collaboration between AIMS and CSIRO, drew on over a decade of observations collected as part of Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) to conclude that the Reef’s rich carbonate seafloor is not buffering against ocean acidification as previously thought. “Our research shows that acidification is rapidly changing the conditions that support the growth of coral on the Reef. It’s never been more important to address ocean acidification in plans to manage the Reef”, said Dr. Bronte Tilbrook, a Senior Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO who leads IMOS’ observational projects for CO2 and ocean acidification. Ocean acidification results from seawater absorbing excess CO2 that has been emitted into the atmosphere. The CO2 dissolves in the seawater where it changes the chemistry. This includes decreasing the water’s pH, and reducing the aragonite saturation state, which is critical for building the skeletons of reef-building coral and other marine organisms. Under reduced pH conditions, their calcium carbonate skeletons take longer to form and weaken, leaving them more susceptible to damage and erosion. While long-term data exist for CO2 and ocean acidification trends in open oceans, there have been very few long-term data on these trends in coastal waters around the world, including the Great Barrier Reef. Biological and physical processes like respiration create large fluctuations in CO2 in coastal areas, making the detection of trends more difficult. The study has filled this important knowledge gap by analysing 10 years of CO2, pH and aragonite saturation state data (2009-2019). These data were collected as part of Australia’s IMOS network at two long-term monitoring stations, located 650 kilometres apart at contrasting locations. The researchers found the minimum CO2 concentrations measured today were likely to already have passed the highest CO2 levels expected 60 years ago, even after accounting for the effects of temperature, nutrients, salinity, and daily and seasonal changes. “We know now that oceans are taking up about 23% of the excess CO2 from the air. They actually provide a service to humanity by slowing climate change. But the price to pay is that the seawater’s carbon chemistry is changing, and we didn’t know it was happening in dynamic coastal waters at such fast rates,” Dr Fabricius said. In another research first, AIMS and CSIRO scientists have used data from 1384 Reef sites to show coastal acidification’s negative impacts on three important indicators of Reef health:
The study, published earlier this year in the journal Global Change Biology, found these baby coral and coralline algae also decreased and seaweed increased as fine suspended sediment increased across the Reef — with the greatest sediment concentration and organism changes observed closer to the shore. The researchers highlighted effective water quality management as an achievable solution to reduce coastal acidification’s impact on the Reef. ### Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) is enabled by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). It is operated by a consortium of institutions as an unincorporated joint venture, with the University of Tasmania as Lead Agent. |
|
Scientific women get together in plan for marine protected area for Antarctica Peninsula
|
All-female scientific coalition calls for marine protected area for Antarctica Peninsula Plus other ways to help penguins, whales, and seabirds, EurekAlert, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, Research News 19 Oct 20, The Western Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming places on earth. It is also home to threatened humpback and minke whales, chinstrap, Adélie and gentoo penguin colonies, leopard seals, killer whales, seabirds like skuas and giant petrels, and krill – the bedrock of the Antarctic food chain.With sea ice covering ever-smaller areas and melting more rapidly due to climate change, many species’ habitats have decreased. The ecosystem’s delicate balance is consequently tilted, leaving species in danger of extinction.
Cumulative threats from a range of human activities including commercial fishing, research activities and tourism combined with climate change is exacerbating this imbalance, and a tipping point is fast approaching. Dr Carolyn Hogg, from the University of Sydney School of Life and Environmental Sciences, was part of the largest ever all-female expedition to the Antarctic Peninsula, with the women in STEMM initiative, Homeward Bound, in late 2019. There, she witnessed the beauty and fragility of the area, and the negative impacts of climate change and human activity on native species, first-hand. As part of the Homeward Bound program she learnt about the science, conservation and governance of Antarctica. In a new commentary piece published in Nature, Dr Hogg and her colleagues from the expedition outline these threats, and importantly, offer ways to counter them. More than 280 women in STEMM who have participated in the Homeward Bound initiative are co-signatories to the piece. A global initiative, Homeward Bound ‘aims to elevate the voices of women in science, technology, engineering mathematics and medicine in leading for positive outcomes for our planet’. Women are noticeably absent in Antarctica’s human history, which is steeped in tales of male heroism. Female scientists are still a minority in the region’s research stations. “Now, more than ever, a broad range of perspectives is essential in global decision-making, if we are to mitigate the many threats our planet faces,” said Dr Hogg. “Solutions include the ratification of a Marine Protected Area around the Peninsula, set to be discussed on 19 October, at a meeting of a group of governments that collectively manage the Southern Ocean’s resources,” said Dr Hogg. “The region is impacted by a number of threats, each potentially problematic in their own right, but cumulated together they will be catastrophic.” Decreasing krill affects whole ecosystem The Peninsula’s waters are home to 70 percent of Antarctic krill. In addition to climate change, these krill populations are threatened by commercial fishing. Last year marked the third largest krill catch on record. Nearly 400,000 tonnes of this animal were harvested, to be used for omega-3 dietary supplements and fishmeal. “Even relatively small krill catches can be harmful if they occur in a particular region, at a sensitive time for the species that live there,” said Dr Cassandra Brooks, a co-author on the comment from the University of Colorado, Boulder. “For example, fishing when penguins are breeding lowers their food intake, and affects their subsequent breeding success. A Marine Protected Area will conserve and protect this unique ecosystem and its wildlife, and we need to implement it now.” Climate change is fundamentally altering the Western Antarctic Peninsula:…… Three ways to protect the Peninsula 1. A Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation for the waters……… 2. Protect land areas ……… 3. Integrate conservation efforts……. ….https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/uos-asc101520.php |
|
Morrison government’s devastating cuts to Environmental research and teaching
‘Devastating’: The Morrison government cuts uni funding for environment courses by almost 30%, The Conversation, Dianne Gleeson, Professor, Science, University of Canberra, Ian Clark, Associate professor, University of South Australia, Stuart Parsons, Professor, Queensland University of Technology, 14 Oct 20, - agriculture, to address threats as diverse as water quality in the Great Barrier Reef, better retention of nitrogen fertilisers in soils and adaptation to climate change
- mining, for advice on site planning and restoration to ensure minimal environmental harm during and after the mine’s operation
- water management in rivers and wetlands, to respond to climate change and higher demand from growing populations…….
We need environmental experts
Australia’s recent, brutal experience with bushfires and drought shows just how badly we need world-class environmental expertise. As climate change grows ever worse, these experts will be critical in steering us through these challenges.
What’s more, the COVID-19 pandemic – linked to land clearing and more human-wildlife interaction – shows just what can happen under poor environmental management.
Australia is uniquely vulnerable to climate change, and in 2019, recorded its worst-ever environmental conditions. These university funding cuts affect the people with the answers to our pressing environmental problems – they are a blow to the future of all Australians.
Read more: A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10 https://theconversation.com/devastating-the-morrison-government-cuts-uni-funding-for-environment-courses-by-almost-30-147852
Australia a leader in the worst sense – biodiversity loss and risk of ecosystem collapse
Fifth of countries at risk of ecosystem collapse, analysis finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/12/fifth-of-nations-at-risk-of-ecosystem-collapse-analysis-finds
Trillions of dollars of GDP depend on biodiversity, according to Swiss Re report, Damian Carrington Environment editor @dpcarrington, Mon 12 Oct 2020 .One-fifth of the world’s countries are at risk of their ecosystems collapsing because of the destruction of wildlife and their habitats, according to an analysis by the insurance firm Swiss Re.
Natural “services” such as food, clean water and air, and flood protection have already been damaged by human activity.
More than half of global GDP – $42tn (£32tn) – depends on high-functioning biodiversity, according to the report, but the risk of tipping points is growing.
Countries including Australia, Israel and South Africa rank near the top of Swiss Re’s index of risk to biodiversity and ecosystem services, with India, Spain and Belgium also highlighted. Countries with fragile ecosystems and large farming sectors, such as Pakistan and Nigeria, are also flagged up.
Countries including Brazil and Indonesia had large areas of intact ecosystems but had a strong economic dependence on natural resources, which showed the importance of protecting their wild places, Swiss Re said.
“A staggering fifth of countries globally are at risk of their ecosystems collapsing due to a decline in biodiversity and related beneficial services,” said Swiss Re, one of the world’s biggest reinsurers and a linchpin of the global insurance industry.
“If the ecosystem service decline goes on [in countries at risk], you would see then scarcities unfolding even more strongly, up to tipping points,” said Oliver Schelske, lead author of the research.
Jeffrey Bohn, Swiss Re’s chief research officer, said: “This is the first index to our knowledge that pulls together indicators of biodiversity and ecosystems to cross-compare around the world, and then specifically link back to the economies of those locations.”
The index was designed to help insurers assess ecosystem risks when setting premiums for businesses but Bohn said it could have a wider use as it “allows businesses and governments to factor biodiversity and ecosystems into their economic decision-making”.
The UN revealed in September that the world’s governments failed to meet a single target to stem biodiversity losses in the last decade, while leading scientists warned in 2019 that humans were in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems. More than 60 national leaders recently pledged to end the destruction.
The Swiss Re index is built on 10 key ecosystem services identified by the world’s scientists and uses scientific data to map the state of these services at a resolution of one square kilometre across the world’s land. The services include provision of clean water and air, food, timber, pollination, fertile soil, erosion control, and coastal protection, as well as a measure of habitat intactness.
Those countries with more than 30% of their area found to have fragile ecosystems were deemed to be at risk of those ecosystems collapsing. Just one in seven countries had intact ecosystems covering more than 30% of their country area.
Among the G20 leading economies, South Africa and Australia were seen as being most at risk, with China 7th, the US 9th and the UK 16th.
Alexander Pfaff, a professor of public policy, economics and environment at Duke University in the US, said: “Societies, from local to global, can do much better when we not only acknowledge the importance of contributions from nature – as this index is doing – but also take that into account in our actions, private and public.”
Pfaff said it was important to note that the economic impacts of the degradation of nature began well before ecosystem collapse, adding: “Naming a problem may well be half the solution, [but] the other half is taking action.”
Swiss Re said developing and developed countries were at risk from biodiversity loss. Water scarcity, for example, could damage manufacturing sectors, properties and supply chains.
Bohn said about 75% of global assets were not insured, partly because of insufficient data. He said the index could help quantify risks such as crops losses and flooding.
Australian State laws have weak environmental standards
Major gaps’: no state meets national environment standards, The Age, Mike Foley, October 4, 2020 — State and territory governments should make major reforms to their environmental laws and increase compliance regimes to meet the national standards, new research has found.
The findings are revealed in a report from the “Places You Love” alliance of conservation groups, released on Monday, which found “not only does no state or territory law meet national standards, but in some jurisdictions, the environmental protections in state and territory laws have actually been weakened”.
This week the Senate is set to debate the federal government’s bill to hand approval powers for major projects to state governments, in a bid to remove bureaucratic duplication and speed-up project development to boost the economy.
Environment Minister Sussan Ley has pledged that any changes to The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will not reduce current level of environmental regulation…….
Ms Ley has been criticised by environment groups for rushing her bill through Parliament. It passed the lower house in August and could be enacted as soon as next week – ahead of a major review of the laws by former competition watchdog boss Professor Graeme Samuel, which is due by the end of October.
Professor Samuel said Australia’s “current environmental trajectory is unsustainable”. National laws were “not fit to address current or future environmental challenges”, he said, while for industry they are “ineffective and inefficient”…….
The EPBC Act was enacted in 1999 and created a list of “matters of national environmental significance”, including World Heritage areas, internationally listed wetlands and threatened species. While state laws do include some protections for these matters, federal government has wielded the most powerful protections for the past two decades.
The report found no state or territory legislation met the necessary suite of “national environmental standards required to protect matters of national environmental significance”.
Morrison government refuses to sign leaders’ pledge on biodiversity
|
Scott Morrison declined as 10-point plan calls for commitments considered inconsistent with government policy, Guardian Lisa Cox 28 Sept 20, The Morrison government has said it refused to sign a global pledge endorsed by 64 countries committing them to reverse biodiversity loss because it was inconsistent with Australia’s policies. Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern and Boris Johnson are among world leaders who signed the Leaders’ pledge for nature which was launched on Monday ahead of a major UN summit on biodiversity being hosted virtually from New York. The summit is working towards a Paris-style global agreement on nature. The federal government was invited to sign but refused because the 10-point plan calls for commitments that are inconsistent with Australian policy – including a greater ambition to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and reach net zero emissions by 2050…….. Apart from Australia, other countries that didn’t sign the pledge include the United States, Brazil, China, Russia and India. The pledge warns humanity is in a state of “planetary emergency” due to the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and climate change. It states that the decline of the natural world is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. “Nature fundamentally underpins human health, wellbeing and prosperity,” the pledge states. “We need to appropriately value nature and the services it provides as we make decisions and recognise that the business case for biodiversity is compelling.” Australia was recently singled out for mammal extinction in a UN report that found the world had failed to meet a single target to slow the loss of the natural world and preserve land and marine ecosystems. The pledge promises a stronger global effort to reduce deforestation, halt unsustainable fishing practices, eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies and begin the transition to sustainable food production systems and a circular economy during the next decade. Leaders promised to ensure “biodiversity, climate and the environment as a whole” were at the heart of responses to the economic crisis brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic. “Against the backdrop of Covid-19, which has crippled the world’s economies and pressured governments everywhere to begin the process of rebuilding and renewing, decisions made now will have ramifications for all of us and for generations to come,” the pledge states. Labor’s environment spokeswoman, Terri Butler, said the prime minister, Scott Morrison, should explain why Australia would not commit to a stronger effort to protect wildlife. “Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis, 3 billion animals have died or were displaced by last summer’s bushfires and 12m hectares of land burnt . But the Morrison government doesn’t think we have a problem,” Butler said. The Greens environment spokeswoman, senator Sarah Hanson-Young, said a global target on extinction, similar to the Paris target, was necessary to stem the rapid loss of biodiversity. She said Australia was “squandering an opportunity” to take a leading role after the bushfire crisis, which accelerated the loss of habitat and wildlife and has forced the government to consider new threatened listings for iconic species, including the koala. “Our biodiversity is under significant threat and with it our tourism industry and local economy,” Hanson-Young said. “Australia’s lack of commitment at this summit is shameful and ultimately will be bad for our economy, as well as our environment.”…….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/australia-joins-us-china-and-russia-in-refusing-to-sign-leaders-pledge-on-biodiversity |
|
Australians recorded frog calls on their smartphones after the bushfires – and the results are remarkable
Jodi Rowley, Australian Museum and Will Cornwell,
Frogs are one of the most threatened groups of animals on Earth. At least four of Australia’s 240 known frog species are extinct and 36 are nationally threatened. After last summer’s bushfires, we needed rapid information to determine which frogs required our help.
Australian government never intended to follow the advice of the review on environmental law
|
Coalition began writing landmark environment bill before receiving review it had ordered, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Wed 16 Sep 2020 Review of EPBC Act was delivered to government 11 days after process of drawing up legislation had begun, The Morrison government started preparing controversial legislation to amend Australia’s environmental laws before it had received a report from a formal review into whether the act was working.The environment department instructed the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to begin drafting the changes to the legislation on 19 June, 11 days before the government received the interim report of the review of Australia’s national environment laws.Labor, the Greens and environment groups say the evidence, provided in answers to a Senate committee, suggests the government never intended to adopt the expert advice of the review, chaired by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel. Samuel delivered his interim report, a once-in-a-decade statutory review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, to the government on 30 June. It found Australian governments had failed to protect Australia’s unique wildlife and habitats and recommended an overhaul of the laws to make the country’s systems of environmental protection more effective. Samuel recommended the devolution of approval powers to the states along with the introduction of national environmental standards and an independent regulator to enforce the law.
But the bill introduced in August was a near replica of failed “one-stop-shop” legislation introduced under former prime minister Tony Abbott. It contained no reference to any of Samuel’s other recommendations, including national standards. It passed the lower house last month after the government gagged debate…………. Basha Stasak, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Samuel’s report had warned against the approach adopted by the Abbott government in 2014, in part because it lacked legislated national environmental standards. “Yet before the federal government had even received Prof Samuel’s interim report, it was already drafting legislation to hand over environmental responsibility to weaker state regimes without national standards,” she said. Crossbench senators have indicated they will not support the proposed changes, in part because they include nothing to improve the protection of Australia’s ailing wildlife and natural heritage. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/16/coalition-began-writing-landmark-environment-bill-before-receiving-review-it-had-ordered |
|
Australia’s environmental law: the danger in moving powers to the States
‘We are relying on a pinky promise’: The problem with the Government moving its environmental powers to states, ABC , By national science, technology and environment reporter Michael Slezak, 13 Sept, 20
Just over a month ago — perhaps an eternity in the political news cycle — Environment Minister Sussan Ley welcomed a landmark review into our national environment laws by reaching across the aisle…….
After years of partisanship on what to do with the laws, Professor Graeme Samuel’s recommendations laid out a middle path. It delivered the deregulation sought by the Morrison Government, while protecting the environment with fundamental safeguards.
With that middle path laid out, Labor also came to the table, dropping their long-held opposition to deregulation.
Fast-forward just five weeks and the Government introduced amendments which, to a large degree, rehashed Abbott-era deregulation amendments, without yet introducing the fundamental protections recommended by Professor Samuel.
And partisanship is back at full throttle.
The Government rushed the amendment through the upper house, quashing debate. The crossbench and Labor called foul, and now conservationists have written to the United Nations calling for it to “express alarm” about the changes. And now the crossbenchers in the Senate appear set to block the bill.
How did we get here and where is all this going? And what could all this mean for the environment?
An old policy by a new name
For years, the Coalition has had one overriding reform planned for Australia’s environmental laws: devolving federal assessment and approval powers to the states.
When a proposed project — think a mine, farm or building — has the potential to damage matters of national environmental significance, it requires environmental approval from both state and federal governments.
Under Abbott, the devolution of federal approval powers to states was called a “one stop shop”. It’s been relabelled “single touch approval” under Morrison but it’s the same thing.
Graeme Samuel’s review recommended that devolution of powers to states proceed with some key safeguards to ensure the environment is protected.
Samuel called for an “independent cop on the beat” — a regulator that would function at arm’s length from the minister. That was immediately rejected.
But crucially, Samuel said the deregulation must be built on what he called “national standards” that would ensure state processes protected the environment. He described these as the “foundation for effective regulation”.
Minister Ley immediately accepted that recommendation.
But last week she introduced a bill to Parliament that devolved approval powers to states, without any reference to national standards.
Rather than allow a parliamentary debate of the matter, the Government rushed it through the House of Representatives, blocking debate, stopping crossbenchers from moving amendments to the bill and sent it straight to the Senate — although too late for it to be considered there this month.
Labor, the Greens and crossbenchers were furious, claiming that democracy was under threat. That anger seemed to jump to the Senate, with crossbenchers now looking to vote the bill down.
The missing national standards
The Minister still insists there will be national standards; that they will be legally enforceable; and they will be “Commonwealth led”. So why weren’t they in that bill?
In an interview with the ABC last week, Minister Ley said the Government already had a bill “ready” that would set up the framework for national standards and would introduce it soon………….
Does it matter?
Dr Megan Evans, an environmental policy expert from UNSW, says the law passed by the lower house gives the minister too much latitude to set the standards.
“It provides the Commonwealth with total discretion over the terms if entering into a bilateral agreement,” Dr Evans said. “This means we are relying on a pinky promise from the Government.”
Dr Peter Burnett from the ANU College of Law said “the mode of setting the Standards does make a difference”. According to him, it’s a matter of who will be able to enforce those standards.
“If they form part of a bilateral agreement between two governments, then it is likely that only the Commonwealth could take action against a state that did not comply with the standards, as only the parties to an agreement can enforce it,” Dr Burnett said.
If the standards were in federal legislation, then it is likely that third parties — like environmental groups — could challenge non-compliance by states in court.
And who’s enforcing the laws could make all the difference.
Of all the threatened species habitat cleared since the laws were first put in place, only seven per cent of it was even assessed under the act.
And according to the Auditor General, among projects that were assessed and approved by the Federal Government, 80 per cent were non-compliant or contained errors.
But how the Government will get these standards agreed to by states — without money on the table to help apply them — is still up in the air.
And this week in NSW, we saw just how fraught state environmental laws can be.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-13/environmenal-law-deregulation-states/12656318
Australia’s environmental scientists are being gagged
|
Research reveals shocking detail on how Australia’s environmental scientists are being silenced The Conversation Don Driscoll -Professor in Terrestrial Ecology, Deakin University, Bob Pressey, Professor and Program Leader, Conservation Planning, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Noel D Preece, Adjunct Asssociate Professor, James Cook University, September 9, 2020 Ecologists and conservation experts in government, industry and universities are routinely constrained in communicating scientific evidence on threatened species, mining, logging and other threats to the environment, our new research has found.
Our study, just published, shows how important scientific information about environmental threats often does not reach the public or decision-makers, including government ministers. In some cases, scientists self-censor information for fear of damaging their careers, losing funding or being misrepresented in the media. In others, senior managers or ministers’ officers prevented researchers from speaking truthfully on scientific matters. This information blackout, termed “science suppression”, can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. The practice is detrimental to both nature and democracy.
Code of silenceOur online survey ran from October 25, 2018, to February 11, 2019. Through advertising and other means, we targeted Australian ecologists, conservation scientists, conservation policy makers and environmental consultants. This included academics, government employees and scientists working for industry such as consultants and non-government organisations. Some 220 people responded to the survey, comprising:
In a series of multiple-choice and open-ended questions, we asked respondents about the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication.
About half (52%) of government respondents, 38% from industry and 9% from universities had been prohibited from communicating scientific information. Communications via traditional (40%) and social (25%) media were most commonly prohibited across all workplaces. There were also instances of internal communications (15%), conference presentations (11%) and journal papers (5%) being prohibited.
Ministers are not receiving full information’Some 75% of respondents reported having refrained from making a contribution to public discussion when given the opportunity – most commonly in traditional media or social media. A small number of respondents self-censored conference presentations (9%) and peer-reviewed papers (7%). Factors constraining commentary from government respondents included senior management (82%), workplace policy (72%), a minister’s office (63%) and middle management (62%). Fear of barriers to advancement (49%) and concern about media misrepresentation (49%) also discouraged public communication by government respondents. Almost 60% of government respondents and 36% of industry respondents reported unduly modified internal communications.
One government respondent said:
University respondents, more than other workplaces, avoided public commentary out of fear of how they would be represented by the media (76%), fear of being drawn beyond their expertise (73%), stress (55%), fear that funding might be affected (53%) and uncertainty about their area of expertise (52%). One university respondent said: I proposed an article in The Conversation about the impacts of mining […] The uni I worked at didn’t like the idea as they received funding from (the mining company)……….
The system is brokenOf those respondents who had communicated information publicly, 42% had been harassed or criticised for doing so. Of those, 83% believed the harassers were motivated by political or economic interests………… https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-shocking-detail-on-how-australias-environmental-scientists-are-being-silenced-140026 |
–
|
Morrison government rushing to make Austraia’s environment laws even weaker: a recipe for extinctions
‘Recipe for extinction’: why Australia’s rush to change environment laws is sparking widespread concern
Critics argue shifting approval powers to the states without an independent regulator will fail to protect the environment, Guardian, Lisa Cox– 6 Sept 20
Anger over proposed changes to national environmental laws is escalating, with legal, health and conservation groups urging that they not pass the Senate, with some warning it would increase the extinction rate.
The government rammed its legislation to change Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act through the lower house on Thursday night, prompting outrage from Labor, the Greens and crossbench.
WWF-Australia says the bill in its current reform is a “recipe for extinction” and lacks standards that would ensure strong protections for nature, as well as a commitment to an independent regulator to enforce the law.
“There is more than just wildlife at stake here,” Rachel Lowry, WWF-Australia’s chief conservation officer, says. “If approved, this bill will fail Australians at this critical moment in time because it fails to incentivise win-win solutions that stimulate our economy and protect the places and animals we love.
“Shifting approval powers to the states without an independent regulator to ensure enforcement would be the most damaging environmental decision to occur within Australia in recent decades.”
The government’s bill would amend Australia’s environmental laws, clearing the way for the transfer of development approval powers to state and territory governments.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, and the environment minister, Sussan Ley, have argued the changes are necessary to aid Australia’s economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.
The proposed changes passed the lower house on Thursday night after the government used its numbers to gag debate on the bill and amendments proposed by Labor and the crossbench.
No member of the government spoke on the bill, which still has to pass the Senate and will likely be debated during the October budget sittings.
Rachel Walmsley, the policy and law reform director at the Environmental Defenders Office, says the government is trying to avoid scrutiny.
She warns the bill has the potential to undermine the statutory review of the EPBC Act, chaired by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel, which is not due to table its final report until the end of October.
The key finding of Samuel’s interim report was that Australia’s system of environmental protections had failed and the decline of wildlife and habitat was unsustainable.
“It was a fairly atrocious process that, moments before adjournment, they rammed it through,” Walmsley says.
“The gagging of the debate, the fact they prevented voting on amendments and the fact no government MP stood up to justify the policy – it prevented proper parliamentary scrutiny.”
The Climate and Health Alliance, which is a coalition of Australian health organisations, has called on the Senate to block the amendments.
“Australia’s natural environment is declining on every possible measure. We lead the world in animal extinctions,” says the alliance’s executive director, Fiona Armstrong. “There is no economy without a healthy environment.
“The government is trying to rush through amendments to our environmental protection laws that would weaken them in favour of expanding gas and fossil fuel projects that harm the environment and threaten human health.”
The Law Council of Australia has called for the bill to be put before a parliamentary committee for inquiry and not rushed through the Senate.
The government and One Nation have blocked several attempts by the Greens to have a parliamentary committee examine the bill.
International obligations
The Law Council says the government needs to make sure it retains oversight of matters of national environmental significance if it enters into bilateral approval agreements with state and territory governments.
The council says this is particularly important for ensuring Australia still meets its obligations under some 33 international treaties and protocols to which it is signatory, including for world heritage sites…….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/06/recipe-for-extinction-why-australias-rush-to-change-environment-laws-is-sparking-widespread-concern
Environment Law: Scott Morrison’s government shows its disdain for ZaliSteggall and the cross-benchers
Independent MPs furious as government rams environmental law changes through lower house, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/independent-mps-furious-as-government-rams-environmental-law-changes-through-lower-house 4 Sept 20 The Morrison government has been branded a “bully in action” for pushing its environment law changes through the lower house without following usual process.
Independent MPs are furious with the Morrison government for throwing due process out the window and ramming controversial environmental laws through the lower house.
Crossbench MP Zali Steggall flagged amendments to the bill but the government refused to allow them to be voted on.
Instead, the coalition used its numbers to shove the bill through the lower house on Thursday night.
Ms Steggall described the government as a “bully in action”.
“The PM and every coalition MP made a mockery of due process for legislation and bulldozed environmental and water protection,” she said.
“And they were laughing while doing it. This is how they represent you. If you care, contact your MP.”
The changes to the national environment protection laws pave the way for states to take over approvals.
The states would have to abide by a set of national environment standards, which have not been developed.
The changes are in response to an interim review conducted by former competition watchdog Graeme Samuel.
Professor Samuel also recommended installing an independent environmental umpire, but the government has rejected that.
Independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie says the changes will water down environment protection.
“(The bill) hands decision-making to state and territory governments who have shown time and time again to be conflicted and incapable of protecting the environment,” he said.
“The passage of the amendment through the House of Representatives was also a chilling demonstration of the government’s complete contempt for democracy.
“Most members of the house were prevented from speaking, and foreshadowed amendments were blocked without debate. The government acted again like an elected dictatorship.”
Environment Minister Sussan Ley was quick to defend the changes after outrage over the process.
“There will be more reforms to follow,” she said.
“We will develop strong Commonwealth-led national environmental standards which will underpin new bilateral agreements with state governments.”
The bill is likely to be referred to a Senate committee for scrutiny, pumping the brakes on its progress.
Labor and the Greens oppose the legislation.
Australian government, masks its anti-environment action under the cover of Covid-19
|
And it does all this while lambasting the states for omissions and inefficiencies. Nowhere does it suggest devolving more power to these already incompetent entities. Of course this royal commission is largely focused on natural disasters rather than broader issues of environmental management and climate change, but its findings are telling in their precision: “Current arrangements do not provide a clear mechanism to elevate these matters to national leaders.” Is it possible that our national leaders don’t want these or any other tricky environmental matters elevated to them? What other conclusion can be reached when the government is trying with such energy to push through “new” legislation that greatly reduces its role in environmental issues? This is fundamentally the same proposal that Tony Abbott put forward as prime minister. It was defeated then, but the thought is that it might scrape through now under the cloak of Covid. That is the hard-nosed judgment of the same climate deniers and coal lobbyists who have run the Coalition all these years. And Scott Morrison’s hands remain as black as any. Since there is a full review of current environmental legislation being conducted by Graeme Samuel, which is due to deliver a final report in the blink of an eye (ie October this year) what possible justification can be given for ramrodding legislation into the parliament now?
Samuel’s interim report recommends “national enforceable standards” as an essential part of keeping the states honest in these matters. How necessary that is when, as Ken Henry so powerfully pointed out, the states have a complete conflict of interest in their receipt of royalties from projects and the fact that they are often the proponents of them. But there is no mention of these national standards in the proposal or of referring relevant conflicts to the federal government. …… The Australian government is the signatory to all our international commitments that relate to climate and the environment of which there are many, ranging from The World Heritage Convention to the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and at least half a dozen others. The states are signatories to none. What is the logic in devolving power to the states at a time when these agreements and the obligations therein are becoming increasingly important? None?.. The root cause of all this ill-conceived thinking is a failure to understand what an economy is. In the government’s view it is an entity unto itself – it seems to operate independently of the world in which we live, until events wrench us back to it. According to this theory, the environment is somehow in conflict with the economy rather than the integral, vital essence of it. ……… https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/under-the-cloak-of-covid-the-government-is-rushing-ill-considered-changes-to-australias-environment-laws |
|
Aussies call for tougher environment laws
ACF’s chief Kelly O’Shanassy has sent it to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his Environment Minister Sussan Ley, who are in the midst of tweaking the national protection laws.
The changes are in response to an interim review of the laws, but rather than strengthening environmental standards the first move is to cut red tape.
ACF’s petition calls on the government to create a “new generation of national laws to protect nature and funding to restore ecosystems to bring our wildlife back from the brink”.
In his interim review, former competition watchdog Graeme Samuel found the current laws were ineffective and Australia’s environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
He recommended an independent environmental watchdog, which has been rejected by the government.
Instead the first changes set the stage for states to take over environmental approvals.
They will have to abide by a set of national environmental standards, which have not yet been developed…….
Labor and the Greens oppose the government’s changes, and want Ms Ley to wait until Professor Samuel’s final report is handed down next month before changing the laws. https://www.denipt.com.au/national/2020/09/03/1566977/aussies-call-for-tougher-environment-laws
Murray-Darling River system; mysterious loss of more than 2 trillion litres of water
The mystery of the Murray-Darling’s vanishing flows, ABC By national science, technology and environment reporter Michael Slezak, Mark Doman, Katia Shatoba, Penny Timms and Alex Palmer 3 Sep 2020
It might be the biggest whodunnit — or what-dunnit — in Australia.
More than 2 trillion litres of water — enough to fill Sydney Harbour four and a half times — has gone missing from our largest and most precious river system — the Murray-Darling Basin.
And it’s happened in what was already one of the driest periods the basin has seen.
According to an investigation by some of Australia’s top water scientists, shared exclusively with the ABC, 20 per cent of the water expected to flow down the rivers from 2012-2019 was simply not there. That’s despite almost $7 billion being spent to protect the health of the system’s rivers and ecosystems that rely on them.
Was it stolen? Was it lost? Has climate change made it go up in steam? Or was it simply never there in the first place?
There are clues scattered up and down the rivers but one simple message is clear in the scientists’ findings. For the first time, they provide evidence that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan — the most expensive environmental program in Australia’s history — is delivering much less water than was expected.
And the implications could be huge……. EXCELLENT INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS HERE
…..“It’s a huge discrepancy to be missing a fifth of the water that’s meant to be in the rivers,” said Jamie Pittock from the ANU. He’s an expert in water management and a co-author of the Wentworth Group’s report.
“It means that there are all sorts of things that Australians value that won’t be sustained … like more water for towns … the floodplains, growing grass for sheep and cattle, in terms of biodiversity being conserved, waterbirds, red gum forests and conserving our fish.”…………
there are clues. Lots of them. We’ve seen water go missing up and down the river with clear explanations before. And looking closely at the new report, many of those explanations are consistent with the new data.
Clue one: tampered meters and criminal prosecutions
One possible explanation for the shortfall is that some of the missing water has been stolen.
An investigation by Four Corners in 2017 put water theft in the spotlight — much of it around the Barwon-Darling catchment in the Northern Basin.
Irrigators there, according to official figures, use 3 per cent of all the water taken from the entire Murray-Darling Basin.
But on top of those official figures, there has been significantly more water taken in that area. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority itself estimated that in the Northern Basin, as little as 25 per cent of surface water take has been metered.
Some of the water that went unmetered was stolen.
Peter Harris, who was named in the 2017 Four Corners, was this year found guilty of water theft just upstream from those gauges at Brewarrina.
Anthony Barlow, another person named in the program, was found guilty and fined $190,000, for water theft just upstream again.
Since the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) was formed in NSW in 2018, 15 additional charges have been laid in these locations across the state for water theft and related actions, according to an NRAR spokeswoman.
Emma Carmody, a lawyer at the Environmental Defenders’ Office, said the criminal prosecutions do not represent how widespread water theft has been.
“I’d actually go so far as to say that this situation pre-2018 was catastrophically bad in those northern catchments in relation to compliance and enforcement,” Dr Carmody said………..
Clue two: shadow take
Travel further upstream along the Macquarie River towards Dubbo, and you land in the internationally protected wetlands of the Macquarie Marshes………
In a landscape so flat, structures like roads, engineered channels and small levee banks can divert staggering volumes of floodwater — potentially shepherding it across a farmer’s fields where it is left to soak into the ground, or even pumped into dams.
This water taken by irrigators and graziers from the floodplains — rather than from the rivers — has hardly ever been measured.
Using satellite imagery, flood paths appear guided by seemingly innocuous structures, or completely cut off by others.
Richard Kingsford is a river ecologist at the University of New South Wales who has studied the Macquarie Marshes and the impacts of floodplain harvesting.
He says water that spills over floodplains often drains back into rivers, and interrupting its flow can have big impacts, including contributing to the missing flows.
“There are very few places where we have an accurate estimate of how much water is being taken from the floodplain. And to me, this has been a yawning gap in the policy,” he said…………
Clue Three: The cash splash
If we head all the way to southern NSW, we see a completely different clue.
Billions have been spent subsidising “efficiency measures” to help farmers save water there.
That can be done by upgrading old irrigation systems to deliver water directly to roots, or lining water channels, for example. Then about half of the water saved by the farmers gets handed to the government for the environment.
But according to some experts, the “inefficiencies” prior to the upgrades just meant some of the water used by irrigators flowed back into the rivers. The upgrades mean that “return flow” stops happening………..
In a report published in 2019, Professor Williams estimated that at least 280 billion litres of water per year might have been lost from the rivers — and are unaccounted for — due to this problem.
“That must be a major reason that we’re not getting the flow regimes that we need,” Professor Williams said.
The MDBA commissioned its own analysis of the issue and concluded the loss of return flows was reducing water in the rivers by 121 billion litres a year.……..
Clue Four: Climate change
There is one issue, however, that most experts do agree is a major reason for the missing water in the basin.
“The MDBA considers a changing climate to be the primary contributory factor,” said the MDBA’s Vicki Woodburn.
Since the basin plan was introduced, heat records across the area have been broken in four of the eight years. The last three years have been the hottest ever recorded in the basin.
According to the South Australian royal commission into the Murray-Darling basin plan, the MDBA “completely ignored climate change” when determining how much water needed to be saved.
If true, that means the overall target may have been set too low — that more water needs to be recovered from irrigation to save the river system.
But the same models used to set those targets have also been used to manage the rivers, and now to calculate how much water should be in the rivers. And by inadequately accounting for climate change, those models are likely over-predicting how much water is being recovered.
Climate change means more water is likely being lost between gauges, as it flows along — lost into the dry river beds and the hot air…………..
Clue five: The water was never there
In a twist worthy of any whodunnit, could it be that some of the missing water was simply never there in the first place?
According to the Wentworth Group, the government modelling used to predict how much water we should see in the river has some fundamental flaws which likely exaggerate the volumes.
For example, in 2018, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority found its modelling “has trouble predicting low flows”.
That meant that when water stopped flowing in the river, the model would still show water flowing — something that could have been particularly problematic over the past seven years when low flows were very common………….
What it all means
If there’s less water in the rivers than we ever planned for, what’s to be done about it?……………..
Professor Vertessy, who advises the MDBA, thinks this sort of shortfall could contribute to a rethink of the long-term water recovery targets. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0
“We may have to — I think everyone would accept that these sustainable diversion limits aren’t quantities which you ossify for posterity,” he says.
“They’ve got to be adjusted to fit in with the new climate realities and the social preferences of the day.”
And the scientists say whatever the response to the findings, something has to give.
“The current basin plan tries to pretend that we can do everything with a smaller and smaller cake,” says Professor Pittock.
“What this really means is that society is going to have to make some hard choices. How much irrigated agriculture do we want as a society versus how much do we want to retain by way of wetlands and ecosystems [or] of sites of cultural value to Indigenous people?” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
You can still send Submissions to them on that same page. Read Public hearings transcripts : the latest (28 August) is now available.
Join my fight to free Julian Assange and stop US extradition
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/julianassange/
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
EVENTS
WEBINARS – Details at YELLOWCAKE COUNTRY http://www.ccwa.org.au/yellowcake_country_webinar_series
18 November – Webinar – Maralinga to Mulga Rock the Spinifex Story Wednesday 5.30 pm (AWST) 7.30 pm (AEST) |
No nuclear waste dump in South Australia
ACT NOW: NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE https://www.conservationsa.org.au/no_place_for_nuclear_waste?fbclid=IwAR24tyFotCN96nobPpPuhGCqBMlW8zjPixIzmEj8ud8b_J7tRigzlXLpjJc
https://www.change.org/p/release-julian-assange-from-belmarsh-prison-before-covid-19-spreads
