FoE

celebrate 50 years of FoE!

roman August 17, 2022

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the first Friends of the Earth group in Australia, one at Adelaide University in 1972.

Next week is Sustainability Week at Adelaide Uni, so with the help of the students there, we’re talking about the early days of FoE in the Unibar — entry from the Cloisters, level 2 (ground level) — from 7pm Monday, August 22nd.

We invite Friends to join us for nibbles from 6:30pm. We’ll start the programme at 7pm.

7pm: Introduction and Welcome

then Early days at Adelaide Uni — slideshow by Roman Orszanski, followed by discussion.

7:30 Paul Downton via Zoom talking about a fragment of EcoCity at Christie Walk

8pm Jim Green talking about Chain Reaction and various Anti Nuclear campaigns

8:30 Film about the Barngarla traditional owners fight against the Nuclear waste dump

FoE, Old_Notes

Zoom talks Mon June 20: Jeremy Miller about adaptation to climate change

roman June 15, 2022

Jeremy Miller from AdaptWest talks about adaptation to climate change.

“I’ll aim to give an overview of what is happening across the regional climate partnerships and then focus on the heat mapping as a collaborative project that we have leveraged into different settings.
I’ll also talk to scenario planning and adaptation pathways and how these represent decisions in time.”

Zoom details:

Topic: FoE meeting
Time: Monday June 20, 2022 6:00pm Adelaide / 6:30 Melbourne

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83397402251?pwd=VzdNdU1PMVAzS3BvR1NaRzIwSkRzdz09

Meeting ID: 833 9740 2251
Passcode: FoE

Climate, FoE

Housing Crisis Requires Nordic Policy Solutions

roman May 6, 2022

From the Australia Institute, Nordic Policy Centre

The key driver of Australia’s acute housing affordability crisis is its over-reliance on just two housing options – private home ownership and private renting.New research from the Australia Institute’s Nordic Policy Centre shows that Nordic countries have a wider repertoire of policies, and Australia can learn from policies that are already in practice in Nordic countries.
Key Findings:

In Australia, the proportion of social housing is estimated to have fallen from over 7% of all housing in Australia in the early 1990s down to just 4% in 2019. That proportion needs now to be ramped up to double digits.

In Sweden, public housing is more than triple the proportion it is in Australia. Sweden’s housing co-operatives amount to 22% of the total housing stock, while in Norway this figure is 15% nation-wide, but 40% in the capital, Oslo.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark also have extensive co-ownership whereby individuals own, use, and control their own dwellings but shared spaces and property are owned jointly and managed collectively with neighbouring members of a housing co-operative, which improves affordability.

Finland’s ‘Finnish Housing First Principle’ views housing as a prerequisite that will enable solving a homeless person’s social and health problems, not the other way round.

Coupled with the nation’s belief in the notion that people have a right to decent housing and useful social services, this has seen an impressive reduction in homelessness and the current government has a policy to eliminate homelessness by 2027.

Finland currently has less than one homeless person per 1,000 people, compared to Australia’s nearly five homeless people per 1,000 people.

“If we are to have any hope of tackling Australia’s housing affordability crisis, policymakers must stop favouring investors over tenants and shift the priority in housing policy to supporting low- and middle-income earners who simply want a secure place to live,” said Professor Andrew Scott, convenor of the Australia Institute’s Nordic Policy Centre.

“It is no secret that housing is expensive in Australia. Buying a house is hard, and being a renter has many of its own problems. Housing policies in Nordic nations prioritise homes to live in, rather than houses as investments.

“The Australian Government should now require some of the collective capital in superannuation funds to be invested in affordable housing to ensure fund members can have an adequate retirement.

“This will strengthen the presence of ethical, not-for-profit private housing developers of the kind which in Denmark have created a rental co-operative sector which provides security of tenure and affordable housing for one-fifth of the nation’s population.

“Finland become the world leader in reducing homelessness due to their emphasis on ensuring homes for people on a basis of need. Australia could learn from Nordic nations who have shown firsthand how housing policy can work to reduce rising homelessness.”
see The Australia institute for the Full report and related articles

(more…)

FoE

Budget ignores environment…

roman April 5, 2022

The Sydney Morning Herald’s analysis (30 March 2022) of the budget from an environmental perspective paints a grim picture:

“5-Minute Budget” – eight policy areas covered but no mention of the environment.

Headline: “Fuel excise cut brings relief for six months”. Let’s help people burn fossil fuels but nothing to promote EVs.

“Where it goes” pie chart of the $628 billion total Commonwealth expenditure: the environment doesn’t feature in the pie.

“Top Spends”: $3.8b to halve the fuel excise and $1.9b over 5 years for a floods package – responses to flooding, that is, not prevention of.

Headline: “Extra $1.3b for net zero emissions by 2050” – financial support for the private sector to expand Australia’s gas resources and continue to flog the dead horse that is carbon capture and storage.

“Losers”: “Climate Change Mitigation – No major promises on how to get to net zero emissions by 2050” is one of four losers along with an increase in net debt, less foreign aid and nothing for people with a disability.

In a rather more detailed analysis, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) concludes the budget allocations show a strong focus on gas, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), and blue hydrogen, “all of which add to Australia’s and global emissions, not reduces them”. The CCUS scheme in the Pilbara will pump CO2 into oil and gas wells to produce more oil and gas, while blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas and produces more greenhouse gas emissions than simply burning the gas. Spending to tackle climate warming will decrease from $2 billion in 2021/22 to $1.3 billion in 2025/26.
see more from Peter Sainsbury at Pearls and Irritations

FoE, Old_Notes

Public comment on EPBC Act referral

roman March 19, 2022

Referral:
EPBC 2021/9128 — National Radioactive Waste Management Facility NRWMF, SA
Submission by Philip White, Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Introduction

In response to the question raised in the Minister for the Environment’s invitation for comments, the proposed action is a controlled action. It is acknowledged as such by the proponent, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA).

Establishing that fact may be the formal aim of this particular part of the assessment process, but, before the proposal can proceed, it must be subjected to a full public Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
It should not be approved based solely on documentation provided by ARWA, or anything less than an Environmental Impact Assessment, for reasons including the following:

The wastes that will be stored and/or disposed of need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years. The long timescale greatly increases the opportunity for foreseen and unforeseen environmental impacts.
The transport of radioactive waste over thousands of kilometres represents a serious environmental hazard. Besides problems related to mishandling, there is the potential for various types of transport accidents. Radioactive waste shipments are also potential targets of theft, terrorism, or even, as we are currently seeing in Ukraine, acts of war.
The fact that the Barngarla traditional owners are opposed to the plan makes it even more important that aboriginal heritage issues are thoroughly addressed.

Recommendations

1. The referral should be rejected because (a) it is clearly opposed by the Barngarla people, the Traditional Custodians, and (b) there are better alternatives that have not been presented for consideration.

2. If, despite the arguments in recommendation 1 for rejecting the referral outright, the Minister decides not to reject the referral, it should not be accepted in its current form, based on s74A of the EPBC Act, which allows the Minister to not accept a referral if it is a component of a larger action. This proposal is clearly a component of a larger action, as is acknowledged by the proponent ARWA.

3. If, despite the arguments in recommendations 1 and 2 above, the Minister decides to consider the referral in its current form, there should be a full public Environmental Impact Statement under the EPBC Act. It is a controlled action with significant potential environmental and cultural impacts.

See the full report: PDF

FoE, Nuclear, Old_Notes