Wilderness Society

#E0E6F8;line-height:120%;">Really informative video inside, beautifully put together by trevorjbc, containing a variety of knowledgeable speakers in the field, and showing the landscape. Farmers and environmentalists don't want CSG mining, but the government is likely to face a backlash from the minerals sector unless it acts. Critics fear that fracking not only opens up cracks in the coal seam, but could also result in gas escaping into drinking water as it rises to the surface. It would be economically reckless and short-sighted for the supply of CSG to destroy valuable farmland, and compromise underground water supplies. There are fears from some landholders that the ban in Victoria will be lifted. (This article has been adapted from a comment).

Coal seam gas is a fossil fuel that is almost entirely made up of the greenhouse gas, methane. It's feared that large tracts of farmland will become unavailable for food production, forests and native bushland will be cleared and fragmented.

According to the industry, developing new supplies is absolutely critical if Australia wants to put downward pressure on energy prices. However, the gas industry want to drill more and more wells to meet their lucrative export contracts, and our prices will be linked with the much higher Asian market.

If it comes to a choice of harvesting underground coal seam gas, until it expires, or the long term integrity of our land, food and water supplies, then it would be counter-productive to prioritise the former over the latter.

The Pilliga is a vast expanse of bushland, located between Narrabri and Coonabarabran in western NSW. This iconic area of public land is under threat from the largest coal seam gas project ever proposed for New South Wales.

The Wilderness Society has been most concerned about the possible impact on the Pilliga forest and Channel Country region of Queensland's Cooper Basin. The government is prepared to relax environmental laws, or "green tape", for gas exploration.

Pilliga forest home to many threatened species, including the koala, Pilliga mouse, superb parrot and southeastern long-eared bat and regent honeyeater. A new ecological study of the Pilliga Forest in north-west NSW has found it is a “Noah's Ark” or refuge for many bird and mammal species that are declining across Australia.

Santos says it believes its CSG operations in the Pilliga can supply 25 per cent of the state's gas needs. More than 54% of Australia is covered by coal and gas licences or applications, and its clear that mining companies are riding roughshod over our governments and local communities. Dead animal bones in the bottom of a coal seam gas wastewater pond, according to the Stop Pilliga Coal Seam Gas movement,

Stop Pillaga Coal Seam Gas

The NSW government gave approval for the drilling in the woodlands in eastern Australia under stringent environmental conditions. The NSW government is hoping that a successful development by Santos of its coal-seam gas development in the Pilliga Forest in the northwest of the state will both satisfy some of the state's energy needs and demonstrate that coal-seam gas is not as environmentally harmful as its opponents claim.

If one checks the policies of the Australian Greens Party ('The Greens') on its website the non-environmental conservation ones are shown with a * (see below).

Of The Greens' 44 policies, some 28 are NOT directly about environmental conservation. Many policies are about Left social justice issues such as civil rights. Nothing wrong with caring for people, but what's happening to the commitment to care for the forests - The Greens bread and butter?

The benefit of taking on a broader policy platform is that The Greens have shrugged off the stigma and core criticism of being only a single issue party (an environmentalist ('green') only party. In doing so, The Greens have become more mainstream.

The problem is that the 'green' effort has been diluted toward human issues with Left socialist and civil rights agendas, which means 'The Greens' label has become a misnomer. 'Green' has become 'Pink'. Many of its policies are now human pink.

Many environmental conservation groups seeking active support from The Greens are invariable disappointed by the thin on-ground support. The Greens do not have a mandate on conservation politics. They don't even in many cases have a contributing presence.

The Greens origins in 1972 with the United Tasmanian Group started out supporting the Lake Pedder Action Group (LPAG) in trying to save Tasmania's Lake Pedder from being flooded for hydro-electricity.

Lake Pedder was eventually flooded. The Tasmanian Greens went on to save the Franklin River in Tasmania

and on to bigger and broader causes. Many of the current policies have now nothing to do with environmental conservation and in so doing have diluted their commitment to environmental conservation.

It's no wonder that many traditional Labor voters are now aligned this political party. Conversely, it is no wonder that The Greens' dilution of conservation has created a political vacuum in environmental conservation politics in Australia.

But you be the judge...

GREENS POLICIES

(as at Halloween 2010):

* = policy has nothing to do with environmental conservation

Agriculture & Natural Resources
o Genetically Manipulated Organisms
o Natural Resources
o Sustainable Agriculture

Care for People
o Childcare*
o Children and Young People*
o Disability*
o Drugs, Substance Abuse and Addiction *
o Education*
o Health*
o Housing*
o Immigration and Refugees*
o Indigenous Australians*
o Multiculturalism*
o Older People*
o Sexuality and Gender Identity*
o Social Services*
o Sport and Physical Recreation*
o Women*

Climate Change and Energy
o Climate Change and Energy
o Nuclear

Environment
o Animals
o Biological Diversity
o Environmental Principles
o Marine and Coastal Areas
o Population
o Waste
o Water and Inland Aquatic Environments

Human Rights & Democracy
o Community Participation in Government*
o Constitutional Reform and Democracy*
o Global Governance
o Human Rights*
o International Relations*
o Justice*
o Overseas Aid*
o Peace and Security*

Media, Arts & Science
o Arts*
o Media and Communications*
o Science and Technology*

Sustainable Economy
o Corporate Governance*
o Economics*
o Employment and Industrial Relations*
o Global Economics*
o Sustainable Planning and Transport.

I make four summary observations of The Greens as follows:

1. The original environmental conservation effort of The Greens has been steadily diluted and distracted as the Party has (1) sought more mainstream acceptance and (2) invited under its wing those with non-environmental conservation agendas - I have collectively branded these 'pink' - which is intentionally open to interpretation - 'pale Red', 'alternative lifestyle', 'liberal values', 'civil rights activists', but distinguishably human focused, not environmentally focused!

Hence much of The Greens polices are now grouped under 'Care for People', 'Human Rights & Democracy', and 'Media, Arts & Science.'

The Greens are suffering a classic 'quality for quantity compromise' and in seeking mainstream popularism have become a clichéd jack of all trades and master of none. Worse, they risk alienating their original environmental conservation ideological support base.

2. Scores of socialists and humanists disaffected within Australia's dominant Left-wing party - the Australian Labor Party (ALP) have become disillusioned by Labor's gradual Center-Right direction and by its corrosive factional politics. Many have defected to The Greens. In turn they have influence the direction of The Greens and the Greens in their conciliatory habit have modified their policy effort to adopt more and more 'pink' social justice agenda. With this 'accommodation' The Greens core environmental conservation focus is being diluted by increasing 'pink' 'Left-leaning', social justice policies.

3. The core driver of environmental degradation (including pollution, habitat loss, species extinctions) is the exponential human population increase and the unchecked encouraged consumerism per capita. More people in the same area causes more pressure on the environment - simple logic!

Climate change is merely a background broad incremental consequence; it is the consequence, not the driver of the environmental problems!

Brown and his Greens have sided with the population control lobby but only in vague in-principled support. Reason for the token support is that the new pink allegiances and policies adopted by The greens have inherently compromised the ability of The Greens to achieve a consensus on a population control policy that would be effective in reducing its environmental impact.

The Greens are now beholden to its 'pink' policies on social justice, yet have failed to recognise that both social justice problems and environmental problems are compounded by excesses in human population.

4. The genteel, academic and legalese make up of The Greens leadership has shaped a group think culture of idealistic passiveness with any change management specifying a conciliatory approach. A lack of effective principled 'balls' has meant a failure to take the conservation fight to the protagonists - the selfish property developers, property speculators, stock market, the banks, the growth lobby, the big corporate exploiters, the self-sustainable captains of industry and industrialisation.

Is it then any wonder, with The Greens beholden to a 'pink' agenda displacing their environmental conservation core, that conservation groups are disaffected with The Greens and that we are experiencing the emergence of a fresh wave of political groups fill the political void?

* Australian Protectionist Party
* Stable Population Party of Australia
* Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated of which I acknowledge being an active member.

Conclusion

If The Greens continue down their popularist vote grabbing 'pink' path, it is only a matter of time before the critical mass of environmental conservation disaffection in The Greens realises a need for an alternative genuine 'green' party to emerge. Personally, a political wing of The Wilderness Society has best chance of achieving that. There is logic in this assessment, but that is another article.

Last month, 30 January 2010, Tasmania's infamous corporate logger, Gunns Ltd, dropped its multi-million dollar defamation suit against environmental activitists protesting against its immoral pulp mill logging threat to Tasmania's old growth native forests.

On 29th January 2010 in the Victorian Supreme Court, before trial Gunns dropped its libel claim against the remaining 13 Tasmanian environmental activists and agreed to pay cost of $155,088 to the Huon Valley Environment Centre and local activists Adam Burling, Lou Geraghty and Brian Dimmick, who protested against the logging of private land near them.

Gunns company secretary Wayne Chapman justified the decision purely as "a commercial decision to avoid the need for a lengthy and expensive court case" saying the case had cost Gunns $2.8 million thus far in legal fees. [Source: 'Gunns payout ends case' by Andrew Darby, 30-Jan-2010].

Senator Brown said the pay-off to the last four defendants amounted to utter defeat for the company.

Gunns' defamation action was a blatant bullying attempt to silence and bankrupt its critics over Gunns immoral environmental destructon of Tasmania for selfish profit. Gunn's corporate bullying action has been appropriately likened to the unethical McLibel case in London in 1989 in which unethical multinational McDonald's Restaurants threatened to sue more than fifty organizations for libel over bad publicity about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, dodgy recycling claims by McDonalds misleading. The infamous law suit was labelled as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.and McDonalds stooped so low as infiltrating London Greenpeace and having sex with its staff to gather evidence.[Source]

"In all, the case probably cost Gunns over $4 million — and a lot of bad publicity. It was here that a key precedent was set: a political precedent."

"The whole case generated plenty of bad publicity for Gunns, it damaged their corporate reputation and worked to reignite the corporate campaigning that had triggered the original suit. Forest conservation groups in Japan, Europe and America began campaigning against Gunns' logging practices and targeting Gunns' customers in those countries, while the pulp mill itself became mired in controversy.

Gunns had little social licence left when the global financial crisis sabotaged early attempts to finance the biggest pulp mill in the southern hemisphere — even their bank, ANZ, agreed with critics of the pulp mill and declined to finance it. Gunns' current preferred partner in the mill, the Swedish pulp and paper company Sodra Ltd, is putting conditions on its involvement which will require Gunns to pursue a new model of engagement with the community. It is unlikely that this new model includes suing environmentalists.

The pressure of bad publicity, the risk to the pulp mill project and a court case with little left in it over a protest which took place seven years ago all combined to force Gunns to pull out of the case on the eve of the trial. Gunns stated that this was a "commercial decision to avoid the need for a lengthy and expensive court case". But it was always going to be a lengthy and expensive court case. The fact that Gunns agreed to pay a substantial sum to the defendants to end the case shows the pressure the corporation was under. It was, as a judge described the dropping of claims earlier in the case, a capitulation.

Gunns are still suing 13 other activists in an unrelated case after a protest at Triabunna woodchip mill in December 2008, but, like the Gunns 20 case, it seems unlikely that this case will ever get to court. Rather than dragging out proceedings unnecessarily — only to make another "commercial decision" — Gunns should take another step toward rebuilding its corporate reputation and settle this case."

"The settlement of the Gunns 20 case was a huge victory for those who support free speech and the protection of Tasmania’s environment. The world needs to know, however, that Gunns continues to sue Tasmanians who oppose their environmental vandalism,” said Gunns 13 spokesperson Warrick Jordan.

“The Gunns 13 are still being sued. While Gunns continue to sue ordinary Tasmanians, and continues to destroy High Conservation Value forests, their hopes of being seen globally as a good corporate citizen are a hollow fantasy.”[Source: Greg Ogle, 5-Feb-10, New Matilda]

For a synopsis of the case visit The Friends of Forests and Free Speech

Gunns' arrogant standover attitude is akin to the current Chinese junta engaging in standover tactics to dominate resource markets.

If Gunns desires to earn the right to be an Australian corporate citizen and continue trading in Australia, itt needs to rethink its arrogant attitude and comply with Australian civil, moral and environmental standards. Else its bullying will drive its Neanderthal narrow thinking into extinction. Then so like the demise of the cannibals in the film 'Van Diemens Land, this would be a good thing for Tasmania.