The environment movement has been united since 1972 on the fundamental issue of the polluter pays principle, stating that polluters must pay to clean up the damage they have created. It is the principle which underpins emissions trading schemes, and which drives the campaign in recent months to cut the massive subsidies to fossil fuels from the upcoming Budget.
By abandoning the polluter pays principle, WWF and the Climate Institute should be seen to have abandoned any remaining pretence of being part of the mainstream environment movement. But is this a split, or confirmation that these groups are not truly part of the movement?
WWF has long felt more comfortable rubbing shoulders with government and industry than with the environment movement they are supposedly part of, a position cemented with its decision to back the Howard Government’s EPBC legislation against the rest of the environment movement. The Climate Institute, while happy to be represented in the media as a leading environment group, has never perceived itself as such, having told people around Canberra that it sees itself as a ‘minesweeper for the Labor Party’.
Three key elements of the push these groups are announcing with the CFMEU Mining Division and the Australian Coal Association in Canberra tomorrow are for government to take the lead in technology demonstration, finding sites for carbon dumps, and covering the coal sector’s behind by taking on long-term liability for leakage.
The first of these is simply a rearguard action to distract attention from the fact that, globally, the “clean coal” dream is drifting further away from reality. The collapse of the FutureGen project in the USA is just the latest example showing that, years down the track, budgets and timelines are blowing out and still no-one is able to demonstrate that the technology can and will work. Meanwhile the renewables industry, with far less government support, is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, outcompeting geosequestration even when the playing field is skewed so badly against it.
WWF justifies its position by saying we “need to know” as soon as possible whether or not geosequestration will work. The Climate Institute pushes the bizarre line that we need “balance” in energy development, ignoring the fact that the multitude of technologies that make up “renewables” currently get far less support in total than the single technology of “clean coal”.
Under what perverse logic does the failure of an industry to perform qualify it for extra support? Many gigawatts of baseload-capable renewable energy are being installed around the world today, while the best estimates of the coal sector, that they could have a handful of commercial plants online by 2020, are being revealed as an exercise in wishful thinking. The urgency of dealing with climate change is such that we must put every bit of support we can into the technologies that can reduce emissions now, not pin our hopes on an unproven dream because it could save one industry.
The second two elements of tomorrow’s push — finding dumps and taking on liability — are exactly what the nuclear industry has long pushed for. They are the call of a dirty industry that wants to reap all the profits but carry none of the cost or risk.
Even if tomorrow’s announcement fudges the issue of who should pay for demonstration plants, this second position will breach the polluter pays principle. Indeed, the mere establishment of a taskforce, not to mention the fast tracking of legislative frameworks, focussed on this technology at the expense of others will breach the polluter pays principle. Just consider the boost the nuclear industry got from the Howard government’s Nuclear Industry Framework.
And finally, before people get too excited about a split in the environment movement, this disagreement is nothing compared to the tooth and nail fighting starting between coal, gas, energy generators, road users and every conceivable greenhouse emitting sector over who will get the lion’s share of revenue from the sale of emissions permits. Stand by for all the old grievances to come to the surface as ETS day draws near.
A refreshing contribution from the Greens` Senator, however I cannot see that the `polluter pays` principle laudable and just as it is, is being applied by this, or previous Governments. The real principle seems to be that `polluter pollutes, and people pay `, this of course maximises profits and `shareholder value`, and is quite in line with the long-time Government support for Big Business, whilst expressing platitudes in support of environment. The whole exercise is mired in hypocrisy and short-term political and economic considerations.
The carbon trading scheme and the `offsets` is seen by Business as a billion-dollar bonanza, a perfect way of having your cake and eating it too, whilst an opportunity to push nuclear technology is becoming more politically `acceptable`. Is there any wonder that Big Business is embracing these ideas with zeal? There is money in it! It is time for the social and environmental movements to stand up and be counted, at this time of Climate Crisis
“Status and Signals 2007-2008 Petroleum Safety Authority Norway ” at page 11 re “Storing up safety concerns” including ““Feasibility studies for CCS have so far focused on assessing realistic methods and economics,” observes Øyvind Tuntland, the PSA’s director for professional competence. “In other words, little attention has been paid to the safety challenges… ” Carbon dioxide is highly corrosive and raises the acidity of water, thereby posing a threat of deterioration for the materials it comes into contact with. “Corrosion could thereby be a highly significant …“Since high concentrations of carbon dioxide are toxic, leaks both on land and offshore could potentially have major safety consequences,” he adds.“It’s unclear at present how carbon leaks should be spotted, and the industry lacks reliable methods for achieving such detection.”Carbon dioxide can occur in gaseous, liquid or solid form, depending on pressure and temperature …it can enter a “super critical phase”.
Where would we be without Christine?
Brava Senator Milne!
The WWF have been a paid up lobby group for polluting industries for a long time. I find it hard to believe that they still have a membership after their unscrupulous and unethical behaviour during the Howard regime. The WWF accepted a large pile of money from the Howard government and afterwards came out with a policy of supporting nuclear power in Australia!
That period of the Australian body politic was full of cash for comment, I wonder what the coal industry has “donated” to this “environment group”. I suspect that they would have gone down the road that the Howard regime went and contributed generously towards research or a study that the WWF will carry out.
The book “Secrets and Lies” revealed corporate and government usage of groups to Greenwash odious policies.
I am waiting for the WWF to bend over for Logging of Old Growth forests and for scientific whaling, it would fit with their current and past behaviour.
Dr Suresh Pathy
Past Chairman of Doctors for Native Fores
Christine it might look like it’s drifting away, but with a diplomat, lawyer and rock singer in charge, all content free, with no clue as to what to do, they will grasp at whatever straw they can. And don’t forget the state governments with even less content and even fewer scrupals. They control the mining licences.