Nourishing the environmental debate

‘Carbongate’ The Great Carbon Heist

   

Exclusive to Crikey – Possibly the greatest  Scandal of this decade “Carbongate” – the theft of billions of dollars in Carbon Credits.

Over the coming week Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will attend the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and be hailed as one of the world leaders on climate change action. The PM attends the meeting with Australia being one of a handful of developed countries to have met their Kyoto Treaty obligations. Australia’s Kyoto commitment was to limit the Nations Carbon Dioxide emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.

The Carbongate “Trick”

The “trick” is how Australia, with a rapidly growing economy over the last two decades, has been able to achieve this. Emissions from energy and transport have increased by 23% over 1990 levels. Australians might wonder how with our rapidly growing population and economy over the last two decades, as a nation we seemed to  be in a position to claim that we only increased our total emissions by 9%. Well, we haven’t. Our emissions have increased by 30% but thanks to the “carbongate” swindle we can claim it’s only 9%.

Here is the “trick” and it is not PM Kevin Rudd’s “trick”, it was actually the Liberal / National Coalition Howard Government’s master stoke. At the Kyoto negotiations in November 1997 Senator Robert Hill was able to negotiate into the agreement what controversially became known at the “Australian clause” .  Clive Hamilton documents the trickery of the Coalition’s bargaining that brought about the inclusion of the Australia clause in his book “Scorcher”. Indeed he devotes a whole chapter to it – Chapter 6 Drama at Kyoto. From page 72:

“As emissions from land-clearing had decline sharply since 1990, their inclusion in the base year would give us a cushion of ‘free’ emissions reductions. our fossil-fuel emissions would be able to increase to at least 120 percent of 1990 levels by 2010 while still coming in under overall target of 105 to 110% . The Australia clause represented a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol that a couple of Bulldozers with a chain between them could drive through.”

The brilliant “win” for the Federal Government at Kyoto was  only the first part of the “trick”. To make it work the Howard Government then had to stop private property owners land-clearing. Not only did they have to stop them but  as private property it had to be done at no cost to the Commonwealth. This in the face of the Constitution which states that if the Commonwealth takes a private citizen’s property for its’ benefit it must compensate the citizen on “just terms”.

The Howard Government then set about having the Carr and Beattie State Labor Governments introduce  Vegetation Management laws that effectively locked up 109 million hectares of privately owned land into the world’s largest privately owned carbon sink. The “trick’ is with the Native Vegetation laws being passed by State Governments Under the Constitution the State Governments have no obligation to pay private landholders compensation. Brilliant, they’d created the world’s largest carbon sink – at no cost to the Commonwealth.

With the “trick”  now in place Australia’s Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 22% when you add back in the 83.7 millions tonnes of CO2 that was not emitted from land that may have been cleared at no cost to the Commonwealth. This and this alone has allowed Australia to meet its Kyoto Protocol Treaty Obligations and in doing so has saved the Commonwealth tens of billions of dollars in compliance penalties by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Australian family farmers have never been compensated  for this Kyoto “free kick” that the nation and in particular the energy and transport industries have received.

That is how the Liberal National Coalition government effectively  “stole’ what has amounted to 83.7 million tonnes of Carbon Credits from private individual landholders and is the sole reason that todays Labor Prime Minister can be heralded as a true warrior of climate change with Australia having met its Kyoto obligation – cost free.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong being interviewed in Copenhagen on the ABC 7.30 report admitted that the only reason Australia was able to claim it had met its’ Kyoto commitments was thanks to the blanket ban on broad scale land clearing.

“I think what you’re referring to is the way we account for emissions from land clearing, which was agreed at the Kyoto Protocol. And Australia did respond to that. We did reduce our land clearing. We took active steps, particularly in Queensland, and Queensland is to be congratulated for fact that the reduction in land clearing in that state and also NSW has reduced Australia’s national emissions.”

The effected Australian family farmers are not celebrating their contribution.  The impact on the relatively few citizens who have been asked to bear this enormous burden should outrage each and every fair minded citizen of this country.

The lock-up of their land has caused great hardship and driven many devastated landholders to desperate measures including suicides. A symbol of the despair and desperation felt by those carrying the Nation’s entire Kyoto burden is New South Wales farmer Peter Spencer who is in the 20th day of a hunger strike on a two metre platform high up a 300 foot tower on his property just outside of  Canberra. See Video ACA interview with Peter Wednesday 9th – Dec – day 18 of Peters  Hunger Strike.

Peter says that Federal Government has declared his 5,385 hectare property a carbon Sink without compensating him. Peter had never wanted to clear his land, but under the vegetation management act the entire property is rendered off limits to any form of development.

These effected Australian farmers have been responsible for virtually the entire burden of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emission reductions but their efforts worth billions of dollars have not been recognized or financially rewarded.

These farming families have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 70 million tonnes since 1990 and by 2010 the saving will be about 83.7million tonnes. To put that into context that is equivalent to eliminating the entire annual emissions of New Zealand or Ireland. Over that same period of time emissions from energy and transport have continued to skyrocket.

Hide the takings

Peter’s hunger strike has gathered support from grassroots people from Australia, the US, UK, Pakistan and Malaysia. On the Peter Spencer Hunger Strike causes site over 150 people have been lobbying frantically to  get the mainstream media to cover the story and for politicians to intervene on Peter’s behalf.

Peter’s supporters have been bombarding State and Federal Labor, Liberal and National Party Politicians and the mainstream media to bring attention to his cause.

But Peter’s story is being stonewalled by the mainstream media and Politicians of all colours and creeds. So far they have managed to have Peter’s story covered by 2GB’s Alan Jones with a live interview with Peter Spencer and his barrister Peter King by mobile phone on Tuesday morning and one with Alastair McRobert who is at the property with Peter on Thursday morning and a 5 minute spot on Channel 9′s A Current affair on Thursday night (the video above).

Fairfax Media, News Corporation and the ABC have steadfastly refused to run the story except for The Telegraph which ran a small piece last Sunday on page 42 titled He’s the Darryl Kerrigan of Climate Change. There has been a small amount of coverage in regional media -  see a full list here. The group knows that the mainstream media is stonewalling the story because a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald was due at the property Tuesday   – but the story was pulled without any reason offered by the papers editor.

Peter’s supporters have contacted by phone or email or in many cases both, Andrew Bolt, Laurie Oaks, Miranda Devine, Paul Kelly, Kerry O’Brien, Tony Jones and every major metropolitan TV, Radio and Newspaper with no result. You can read all of there efforts on the Peter Spencer Hunger Strike group wall.

The response from politicians is equally frustrating. Liberal and National politicians for obvious reasons are ducking for cover, not wanting to get involved and saying it is a matter for the Rudd Government to sort out. The Prime Minister has referred Peter’s letter to him to the Federal Police. That is the extent of his response and Labor politicians State and Federal everywhere want nothing to do with the issue.

To his great credit one Federal Liberal Politician Alex Hawke the member for Mitchell was one of the earliest people to join and show his support.

Peter Spencer’s peaceful protest has the potential to embarrass a great number of politicians from all sides of politics , State and Federal, who have been  complicit in the “Carbongate” great Carbon Credit theft. They are all keen to “hide the takings”.

How is it that they can all condone the taking of billions of dollars of benefit for the nation from private citizens, yet look at paying the huge polluters billions of dollars of compensation to cut carbon emissions through the Rudd Government’s proposed CPRS? “Carbongate” – is truly an incredible blight on our democracy  and an embarrassment to our nation.

Peters supporter’s, the majority of whom are from urban areas and from all walks of life, are desperate as time runs out for Peter. This comment shows the diversity and the depth of feeling from one of Peters supporter’s:

Comment by Leith Carnie on December 10, 2009 at 1:11pm

“I would just like to say I am a Tree-Hugger. I am a part of an environmental activist group, I have close friends who sit in trees to stop them being logged and end up arrested etc (I’m even Vegetarian).

I’m not here to debate whether Peter should or shouldn’t have the right to clear his land (from what I’ve read he doesn’t!) I’m here because of the violation of Australia’s Constitutional Rights. I will back Peter’s Right to compensation via that constitution.

This is not about Tree-Huggers V’s Loggers for me. I will stand beside Peter all the way.
After this is over, and WE have won, if Peter decides to clear his entire property I may very well be lying in front of his bull dozer! ;-) But that is an entirely different kettle. The people of Australia should be together to defend our rights.”

There are hundreds of other such comments on Peter’s site, including heart felt messages of thanks and support from Peter.s family.’

60 Comments

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 51
    farmer
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    My worldview is that you put a fairly silly post in that has no relevance to farming, farmers, the environment, carbon, climate change, Peter Spencer etc etc

    To remind you

    “I’ll start up a factory of some sort and pour toxic waste into the local drinking water supply.
    And then when some busybody govt dept wants to interfere with my gods given right to do what I want and stops me poisoning the water supply, I’ll claim compensation.

    I’ll get my brother to set up a chicken farm, 10,000 or so chooks in a suburb, and when some local council tells him he can’t do that we’ll claim millions in lost revenue.

    Oh and my younger sister, she can claim compo because the govt won’t let her sell heroin at her corner store. Think of the money she could make!”

  2. 52
    fredex
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    You know, fellow farmer, you could just admit that you were wrong, twice, about me being a farmer, because it doesn’t fit into your world view.
    You could even apologise for the unwarranted slur ['disengenuous' etc].

    But you don’t.

  3. 53
    Sue M
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Ah fredex an “irrigation farmer” – no wonder you know so much about dry land salinity, seeing as most hold irrigation farmers as the major offenders here.

    I’m sorry for the concrete slur fredex, but not for calling your comparisons ludicrous and absurd…. I’m however not a farmer (didn’t realise you had to be on this forum) just have an interest in the rights of average Australians, sustainability of rural communities and the ability for Australians to produce food for our tables.

  4. 54
    fredex
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    “…dry land salinity, seeing as most hold irrigation farmers as the major offenders here.”

    I agree fully, absolutely,, as far as it relates to MDB irrigation and that is a considerable problem as it is in broadacre lands.
    And salinity is just one of many nasty side effects of devegetation.

    But my analogies were quite apt actually, they were showing that we, farmers and non farmers, have to accept laws like all members of our society and to cry for compensation in the instance under discussion seems extremely far fetched and has been couched in hysterical overblown hyperbolic language.

    As I said I do not expect compo for not destroying my remnant native veg patch and I have never applied for any funding for the approx 15,000 local native trees I and my family and friends have spent about 17 years planting by hand on our property to enchance its value and productivity.

    What I have found amusing, and distasteful, is the assumption that I must be one of ‘them’, you know, concrete surrounded vermin city slicker.
    It really is revealing of a sad mind set.

    But thank you for what I take as a conciliatory tone.

  5. 55
    Joanne
    Posted December 16, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    We’re talking about the Constitution and “just terms” here.
    It’s not an arena to take pot shots at farmers.

    Apparently its OK to flaunt the Constitution if farmers are the victims but maybe not if they want to take YOUR house to build a road.
    I had expected some more intelligent comment from crikey.

  6. 56
    Drew
    Posted December 16, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I’m all in agreeance for compensation but I get irked by comments such as “loss of the use of the landscape.” Who is to say that landscape must be “used” and utilised? We do Aussies think that as humans we must rape and pillage the land for all it has and leave only a dry hollow husk?

  7. 57
    farmer
    Posted December 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Fredex

    I was wrong – yes you are a farmer

    I would still contend it is disingenous of you to claim to be “someone in the middle of this” as an irrigation farmer with 300ha and a few ha of scrub cannot rely relate to the situation of Peter Spencer (done your research yet?) and even myself – we have over 1 million trees on our property that we manage for free on behalf of all Australians – we have no rights over these trees whatsoever yet we must maintain them – suffer the damages that can be caused by them (fires, feral stock, fence damage) and pay rates on the land that they are on.
    I wouldn’t of been in favour of compensation for my carbon credits from my trees in 1990 until this recent trend for “meat free monday” , “go veg save the planet” etc etc some of which is even coming out of the IPCC itself! .

    Then I get riled up – you cannot just count my emmissions after removing my offsets it IS NOT FAIR as the evidence is in and becoming irrefutable farming livestock is close to a carbon balance . No real surprise to anyone with common sense being a natural cycle and all but this conclusion does fly totally in the face of the messages being put out about agriculture at the present point in time.

  8. 58
    jack jones
    Posted December 16, 2009 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Mr Farmer, re landcare means that farmers leave the land in a better state than they received it. A few do, that’s right, a shedload don’t – The real value of landcare has been lost in the orgy of self congratlation around it promoted by agribusiness to evade reasonable regulation like landclearing. There’s some good in it, I personally know some great people, I also know a lot that are just not cutting it. Putting out press releases does not constitute changing land management. Have a look at the massive weed problems across much of arid and northern Australia caused by exotic pastoral grass introduction and continued promotion with no care for the wider impacts.Costs the taxpayer millions yet any attempt to list weeds as a problem usually meets with howls of protest from the ag lobby. In terms of pastoral properties, I could reel off a few..how about AACO, The Sultan of Brunei, previously the Packer family, the Holmes-a-courts, family farmers? Yep and Rupert Murdoch is just a small publisher, a bit of honesty doesn’t hurt here. Are there battlers out there? definitely. ARe there an organised group of extremely well heeled agribusiness and larger farmers-oh yeah baby, and guess which one funds the National Party?…Regarding drought assistance, what are we going to do with the increased drying due to climate change? Just put increasing numbers of farmers on the gravy train b/c they are now in “drought”? Fair enough, hand it out where its warranted. But there are many aspects of this which just has become a constant rort and in fact just increases the misery of marginal farming areas where no amount of free drought money from the taxpayer is going to make things viable. Its an endless hole to fill and we need to be honest with those people and stop propping up unviable farms. re soil carbon, I’m all for paying people to pump it back in when we can actually work out how to do and measure it properly, which is some way down the track. I am not in favour of handing over money to nutty right wing property rights campaigners who figure that in order to stop them damaging their own and our collective interests they should be paid. Had a look at the Murray lately?-there’s your property rights in full swing, water handed out to people who went for broke, have you calculated how much its going to cost to fix that mess? Im all for supporting equally the burden to do that, I’ll chuck in my taxpayer contribution, but buggered if I’m going to support maintaining people in unviable situations because it contravenes some right wingers ideaology to do otherwise.

  9. 59
    Joanne
    Posted December 17, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Drew

    It is deceptive and misleading to refer to “rape and pillage” and a “dry hollow husk”. Such inaccurate and emotive language lends nothing to credibility.
    Properties which are improved ie cleared are planted with waving wheat crops or grasses and all the problems variously cited as the results of clearing are exaggerated at best or jut plain wrong.
    To compare any other area to the Murray Darling Basin is mischievous in the extreme.
    All of you so called intelligentsia are doing nothing but spouting populist rantings against farmers with the little knowledge you have being a dangerous thing.
    Recent research has shown for example that there are greater amounts of Carbon sequestered in soil under pasture than under pine forestry (MLA). Not counted in the emissions debate.
    This science is NOT settled.
    You have all followed a red herring re the clearing of trees and made hardworking, struggling families struggle even harder.

  10. 60
    Sue M
    Posted December 18, 2009 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    I know how much you guys respect and admire Barnaby Joyce on Crikey – as do I because he’s a politician with the courage of his convictions. http://agmates.ning.com/group/barnabyjoyce/forum/topics/visiting-peter-spencer?xg_source=activity

    Well why Ruddie continues to sign away compensation to third world nations the negligence of fair compensation to Australians continues.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.