My court case is scheduled for 26-28th March in Brisbane.
The main arguments of both sides have been submitted to the court and the James Cook University arguments will certainly make interesting reading when they become public during the hearing.
On a philosophical note, in my opinion JCU will lose the ethical argument even if they manage to win on some narrow legal definition.
If they win, it will mean that a judge has decided that a university has set up legally binding contracts that give them the power to effectively take away the right to intellectual freedom of an academic and silence him/her.
That would be something of a pyrrhic victory.
But without getting over-confident, I reckon the chances of us winning are considerably above average, so we will see.
For me the last few months waiting for the court case has been productively spent writing a book on the Great Barrier Reef.
It documents why it is actually in excellent shape, looks at all the supposed threats to the reef, and with one exception shows that they are massively exaggerated.
It documents some of the appalling “science” and explains how our science institutions, especially those of the Great Barrier Reef, have become so untrustworthy.
Thanks again for all the help, and we will let you know how it all develops.
Climate Change & Global Warming
Scott Morrison’s recent pivot on climate policy is unlikely to have a positive impact on Australia’s emissions profile because it fails to grapple with the underlying drivers of increased pollution, according to a new analysis by the Investor Group on Climate Change.
The IGCC, a group that represents institutional investors such as super funds, with total funds under management of about $2tn, has told its members Morrison’s “climate solutions package” won’t change the current trajectory of rising emissions because it is “small scale and unlikely to be a durable policy framework through time”.
“In the absence of this, policy uncertainty will be increased, the necessary investment in zero emissions generation will be delayed and upward pressure will continue on electricity prices,” the new paper warns.
The Morrison government is counting a 367-megatonne contribution from carry-over credits – an accounting system that allows countries to count carbon credits from exceeding their targets under the soon-to-be-obsolete Kyoto protocol periods against their Paris commitment for 2030 – to help meet the 2030 target.
The IGCC notes taht there is currently a gap between the targets that countries have set, and actions required to achieve the objectives of the Paris agreement.
“For investors this is concerning because the economic and social impacts of current projected levels of climate change risk investment returns and economic prosperity over the longer-term,” the paper says.
“The use of carryover to weaken Australia’s emissions commitments is also fundamentally at odds with limiting warming in line with the objectives of the Paris agreement and driving global momentum for coordinated, and increased ambition,” the paper says.
It says that if the ALP uses the same accounting as the government, factoring in a 367-megatonne contribution in its carbon budget, Labor’s 45% emissions reduction target would become a 35% target.
The safeguards mechanism – part of the Direct Action scheme, which is at the centre of Morrison’s recent climate redux – sets emissions “baselines”, or limits, for big polluters.
The mechanism is supposed to ensure pollution cuts paid for through the taxpayer-funded emissions reduction fund – rebadged by Morrison last week as the “climate solutions fund” – are not undone by a blowout in emissions in other parts of the economy.
Independent scientists must review alarmist “science” that is driving anti-fossil fuel policies John Droz America is in the midst of a cataclysmic battle – and yet you’ve likely heard very little about it.
It is vital that we take immediate action to support President Trump on an important initiative.
Their assignment will be to separate real, evidence-based science from agenda-driven political science.
Those who want a genuine scientific assessment of global warming / climate change claims fully support the PCCS.
Those who oppose a real scientific assessment of climate chaos claims are against the PCCS.
Not surprisingly, so far the most vocal and dominant voices oppose any scientific review of their claims.
The President’s decision is expected within the week, so please do this quickly.
I hope there will be a segment about the PCCS on Fox News, an article or editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and more sensible articles on other media outlets (like this, this, this, and this).
Get involved.
Move over wind farms.
Jeremy Corbyn has downplayed the Brexit crisis by claiming poverty and climate change are far greater priorities for Labour and the country.
“We are facing a climate crisis.
And fundamentally, the destruction of our climate is a class issue,” he said.
“We believe that the real divide in our society is not between people who voted yes or no for [Scottish] independence.
It’s not between people who voted to remain or to leave the EU,” he told party members in Dundee.
But he added: “Where he is completely wrong is we can’t resolve these issues with Brexit because Brexit makes delivery on them that much harder.
[There] is no such thing as a Labour Brexit or a jobs-first Brexit”.
Corbyn said Labour would commit his party to a target of reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, a goal many climate experts and campaigners say is not fast or ambitious enough to halt runaway climate change.
“We need to reduce our net emissions to zero by 2050 at the latest – it’s not just an ecological priority, it’s a socialist priority too.” Corbyn also addressed the antisemitism problems engulfing Labour, saying he was “utterly determined” to rid the party of the scourge.
“The only thing that can hold us back is if we were to turn our fire on each other rather than on the Tory government and the wealthy establishment interests they represent,” he told delegates.
This evolution has been made possible by the massive and successful efforts to increase its available land by reclaiming these lands from the sea and powered by increased fossil fuel energy driven economic development.
Singapore’s highly successful economic and energy evolution has predominately occurred during the same time period as the global climate alarmism propaganda campaign shenanigans which have been underway over the last 30 years.
Singapore’s land development growth through reclaiming land from the sea has increased the area of the city/state by about 25% or some 34,000 acres with plans underway for yet an additional land growth of 13,850 acres by the year 2030.
The growth of the industrial and manufacturing center created on the reclaimed land island of Jurong (photos center area) and the expanded and new harbor facilities (photos left side area) are clearly shown in the comparison photos below.
The creation of the huge Changi International Airport complex (photos right side area) on reclaimed land is presented in the photos below.
Singapore has two established long time period tide gauge measurement locations with the longest record going back to 1970.
These tide gauge measurement data reflect no coastal sea level rise acceleration and show a steady rate of coastal sea level rise of between about 8 to 12 inches per century at these locations.
Singapore has been increasing its primary energy consumption over the decade between 2006 and 2016 at an annual rate of 4.9% per year with 99.7% of this energy from fossil fuels.
Singapore’s electricity use is growing at about a 2.7% per year rate and is derived 97% from fossil fuels with natural gas being the primary fuel which is used in Cogeneration plants, CCGT’s, steam turbine and peaking power plants.
Singapore has increased its yearly CO2 emissions in the period from 2006 to 2016 at an annual rate of 4.5% per year.
We demand the world’s decision makers take responsibility and solve this crisis.
You have failed us in the past.
15 March Weekly Every Friday Monthly Once only Other Europe and the Middle East 351 strikes There will be 33 events in the UK Sweden, where the movement began, has 94 Children will join 58 strikes in Italy North America 44 strikes in the US and one in Mexico Protests organised in at least 16 US states South America 17 in Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru and Brazil Oceania 38 in Australia and one in New Zealand North America 44 strikes in the US and one in Mexico Europe and the Middle East 351 strikes There will be 33 events in the UK Sweden, where the movement began, has 94 Protests organised in at least 16 US states Children will join 58 strikes in Italy 15 March Weekly Every Friday Monthly Once only Other South America 17 in Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru and Brazil Oceania 38 in Australia and one in New Zealand Guardian graphic.
Source: fridaysforfuture.org “For people under 18 in most countries, the only democratic right we have is to demonstrate.
“To study for a future that will not exist, that does not make sense.” The letter says: “We are the voiceless future of humanity … We will not accept a life in fear and devastation.
We have the right to live our dreams and hopes.” Kampus helped initiate the letter, which was created collectively via a global coordination group numbering about 150 students, including the first youth climate striker, Sweden’s Greta Thunberg.
Taylor said: “The rapid growth of the movement is showing how important it is and how much young people care.
It is vital for our future.” Janine O’Keefe, from FridaysForFuture.org, said: “I’ll be very happy with over 100,000 students striking on 15 March. ‘Our leaders are like children,’ school strike founder tells climate summit Read more In recent days, she has sharply rejected criticism of the strikes from educational authorities, telling the Hong Kong Education Bureau: “We fight for our future.
But I don’t have time as we have to solve this crisis.
During a recent Q&A live-streamed on Instagram, apparently shot while she was pottering in her kitchen, the rising star of the Democratic party – and one of the few frontline politicians to get the scale of the environmental emergency – pulled no punches in telling viewers that unless we take urgent, radical action on emissions, there is no hope for the future.
“It is basically a scientific consensus that the lives of our children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it OK to still have children?” With this one question put to her 2.5 million Instagram followers, Ocasio-Cortez has stumbled into a highly contentious area.
Population has long been a controversial factor in the climate change debate; one recent study said the most effective thing individuals can do to address the crisis was to have one less child.
However, critics insist we should focus instead on overconsumption, and that putting the onus on individuals to address climate change obscures the systematic nature of the crisis.
Crucially, they say, it lets the real culprits – fossil fuel corporations and successive global governments’ inaction – off the hook.
And even if you accept the premise that having fewer children will tackle climate change, there is also the thorny question of exactly who should be having fewer kids: an American is responsible for 40 times the emissions produced by a Bangladeshi, but often those who advocate population reduction focus on women in the developing world.
Ocasio-Cortez is not encouraging people stop having children.
And as the leading advocate of the Green New Deal plan – which aims to radically transform the US economy by 2030 – she is one of the few politicians to be working on a plan that might just offer a way to avoid the worst impacts of this crisis.
But perhaps she is raising a more profound issue.
Faced with a future of social and political breakdown, flooding, deadly heatwaves and food shortages – and a world full of politicians in various states of denial – why shouldn’t young people question whether bringing children in the world is a good idea?
Nine activists from the environmental group Extinction Rebellion have been arrested after they glued themselves to the front of a central London hotel to demand that the petroleum industry end its “deeply immoral” behaviour in driving climate change.
Specialist police officers spent about two hours unsticking the protesters from windows next to the entrance of the InterContinental Park Lane hotel in Mayfair, which was hosting an oil and gas industry conference.
Police put up screens to conceal the protesters from view as the officers detached them.
We can’t just carry on like this.” Another said: “The petroleum industry has been complicit in the destruction of our environment and they have been making money out of selling products that are harmful and we need them to stop.” Extinction Rebellion (@ExtinctionR) Jeremy, 51, IT consultant, glued on to the Park Lane Hotel, where oil and gas industry leaders are gathering for International Petroleum Week “I’m here because I’m acting like the truth of the climate and ecological emergency is real”.
A Metropolitan police spokesperson said: “Police were called to reports of a protest at a hotel on Hamilton Place, W1.
Extinction Rebellion said oil and gas operators and investors should respond seriously to the climate crisis rather than meet to form new partnerships and discuss expansion.
We have to start talking about that.
They continue to put private profit over human life.
The fact that they are still talking about acquiring new fossil fuel reserves at this point in the climate crisis is not only deeply immoral, it is evidently criminal.
Similar events are planned by Extinction Rebellion groups in 30 other countries.
The bill creates ‘get-out-of-jail-free cards’ for ministers and exposes the environment watchdog to government influence, they said Britain’s draft environment bill would create loopholes around its guiding principles and too much government influence over its green watchdog, legal experts told parliament members on Wednesday.
The draft, however, creates “too many get-out-of-jail-free cards” around those environmental principles, Labour MP Mary Creagh, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, said in response to expert testimony.
EU principles say the polluter should pay and precaution and prevention of pollution should be taken at the source, and then rectified there.
Sign up here The concern in Britain is that the principles would be limited to the environment law, with a narrow requirement on ministers to apply them in policy-making – and room for exemptions.
“You can put the principles into the legislation in a way that gives pretty powerful influence,” said Tim Buley, a barrister at Landmark Chambers, pointing to the UK’s human rights and air quality acts.
“What you have here is not that, nor is it one or two steps away from that, it’s many, many steps away from that, because of the various ways in which the principles are downgraded.” The Office of Environmental Protection, meanwhile, may not be able to hold the government accountable the way the European Commission does with member countries, Conservative MP Neil Parish, chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said during a separate hearing.
According to the draft, however, the environment secretary (currently Michael Gove) would appoint the OEP’s chair and two to five other non-executive members.
There is also strong concern that the draft Environment Bill doesn’t extend to enforcing climate change policy.
The environment watchdog should therefore have the power to enforce climate obligations, as long as it first consults with the Committee on Climate Change, experts agreed.
Climate Home News’ reporting on Brexit is supported by a grant from the European Climate Foundation.
Vulnerable countries are backing governance reform at the Green Climate Fund, while emerging economies resist efforts to impose conditions on finance Developing countries are split over whether the UN’s flagship climate fund needs a voting system to break deadlock on policy and project decisions.
At present, all 24 members of the Green Climate Fund board have effective veto power.
The US used this in October to block a Chinese bid for a green development loan.
Several policy issues have been repeatedly deferred due to lack of consensus.
As the fund prepares to solicit a fresh round of contributions, a long-running debate flared anew at a board meeting in Songdo, South Korea on Tuesday.
Representatives of vulnerable communities joined rich world voices in calling for governance reform, to make money flow faster.
“In this context, the board has the responsibility to apply the most efficient decision-making procedures possible.
Decision-making should not become a barrier to the delivery of climate finance, which hurts not only the fund and its reputation, but more importantly the fund’s recipients and vulnerable countries the most.” US-China trade war spills into Green Climate Fund Saudi Arabia’s representative railed against any kind of voting system, arguing it would only weaken the developing world’s hand.
“The voting system will do nothing but put you in an inferior position,” Ayman Shasly told his peers.
“These governance flaws, they need to be addressed,” he said.
