Greens MLC at press conference to support local climate change activists

Tomorrow, I'm going along to see a media conference at Newcastle City Hall at which current Greens MLC David Shoebridge, the lead candidate for The Greens NSW Legislative Council ticket for the March election, will be joining well-known author and academic Clive Hamilton, in support of the seven climate activists being pursued for $525,000 in ‘victims’ compensation’ by Port Waratah Coal Services (whose T4 coal loader expansion was recently supported by Newcastle's Labor member, Jodi McKay - see my previous post, "Greens give ticks and crosses for McKay on T4 coal call")

In a media alert for the press conference, David said:

"It is astounding that the NSW Police are being used as debt collectors for these multinational mining giants.

"The NSW State government should not be spending scarce state resources chasing peaceful protestors on behalf of global mining giants.

"For corporations like Xstrata and Rio Tinto to be playing the victim on climate change shows just how distorted the law is in NSW. These corporations are not victims they are directly profiting from damaging our environment.

"This law needs urgent reform to make it clear that the only victims who can claim compensation are people, not corporations," Mr Shoebridge said.

See the Rising Tide media alert here

Greens give ticks and crosses for McKay on T4 coal call

Media Release Media Release Media Release Media Release Media Release

Newcastle Greens

27 January, 2011

Greens give ticks and crosses for McKay on T4 coal call

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, today welcomed yesterday’s public response by the Member for Newcastle, Jodi McKay, to calls from the Newcastle community for a single, independent, one-stop-shop authority to act on complaints about dust, noise, vibrations and odour caused by local coal transport and loading operations, but condemned her advocacy for continuing Newcastle’s dependence on coal.

“I’m very pleased that Ms McKay has taken up proposals by Throsby basin communities for a single, independent authority to deal with local coal impacts, and I look forward to a further statement from the current Labor government (of which she is a Minister) and the Coalition Opposition that this will become a reality following the March election.

“But I’m very disappointed that Ms McKay and NSW Labor continue to actively advocate expanded coal exports through the Port of Newcastle, despite the overwhelming evidence indicating the contribution of these exports to climate change, and the clear need for a planned transition away from the Hunter’s dependence on non-renewable energy sources to a jobs-rich, carbon-neutral, renewable energy economy.

“Unfortunately, Ms McKay, NSW Labor and the Coalition have failed on the big picture challenge presented by climate change, and the need for a planned, structured, equitable and long-term transition away from our reliance on coal.

“Yesterday’s announcement by Ms McKay of her support for the Kooragang T4 coal loader demonstrates that it’s still business as usual for her as far as the continued expansion of the coal industry is concerned.

“Ms McKay and NSW Labor must recognise that the reality of climate change means that this approach is not sustainable, and that the sooner we begin the necessary transition away from coal, the less pain and the more opportunities such a transition will offer to local communities and the regional economy.

“Every extra ton of coal mined and exported is a step backward in making this necessary transition, and in meeting the challenge of climate change.

“Instead of supporting the projected additional 60 million to 100 million tonnes of coal that will be exported every year via the proposed T4 Kooragang coal loader expansion, Ms McKay should be supporting The Greens call for no further expansion of coal mining or coal loading infrastructure, and a strategy for a phased transition to jobs-rich renewable energy,” Mr Sutton said.

Jodi McKay caught out on bus loop proposal

The Member for Newcastle and Minister for the Hunter, Jodi McKay, was caught out in an interview on local ABC radio yesterday on her latest proposal for a Newcastle bus loop (see yesterday's posting).

In an interview with Paul Bevan (1233 Afternoons presenter), Ms McKay explained that her bus loop proposal would follow a "circuitous" route to "places of high visitation" around the larger Newcastle area (including the John Hunter, Westfield Kotara, Charlestown Square, etc).

At the same time, she continued to assert that her proposal was recommended in the AECOM Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP).

In fact, the TMAP proposal (as I explained yesterday) was for a much more restricted route that was solely confined to the Newcastle CBD (see map in yesterday's posting).

Here is an extract from the TMAP report that identifies the various locations that the proposed loop service would visit:

The proposed loop service provides access between the land uses within Newcastle City Centre, including:

• Wickham Railway Station and surrounds, such as future residential and commercial buildings;
• Civic Railway Station and surrounds, such as the existing TAFE, cinemas and hotel accommodation and future university and legal precinct;
• Honeysuckle Precinct north of the railway line, including the existing and proposed commercial office buildings;
• Newcastle Railway Station and Coach Terminal precinct, including hotels and restaurants;
• Civic and Cultural Precinct surrounding Newcastle Town Hall, such as the Civic Theatre; and
• Schools, parks and other activity areas within the City Centre.
  

[Transport Management and Accessibility Plan, Phase 1, Newcastle City Centre Bus Strategy, p.48]

Nothing there about anything outside the Newcastle CBD.

When pressed by Mr Bevan on the origin of her loop proposal, Ms McKay insisted that "it was in the TMAP...".

It isn't.

The TMAP report doesn't consider anything like the loop proposed by Ms McKay, and - contrary to her media release statement - makes no such recommendation.

When Mr Bevan suggested that the proposal was not costed, hadn't been tested, wasn't based on any apparent existing plan, and didn't seem to have the support of the government of which Ms McKay was a member, Ms McKay accused him of being "a bit negative".

Ms McKay told Mr Bevan that she had been "pushing for this since about June".

What exactly has she been pushing for?

The TMAP was released in October 2010. If the proposal that Ms McKay has been pushing for is the one recommended in the TMAP report (as she confusingly asserts), how did she know about this four months before?

If it's not the TMAP proposal (as the content of the proposal itself indicates), where did it come from, and why didn't she tell the community that she is supposed to be representing about it back then?

Hear the interview with Paul Bevan here.



Read the 1233 news story here.

Another loopy Labor transport proposal?

I note that 1233 news has been covering a media release from Jodi McKay advocating funding for a new bus loop service (read the website story here).

Ms McKay's media release says that Labor's newly announced expansion of free shuttle bus services to Sydney and the Central Coast should be extended to Newcastle.

Labor's strategy of having local Labor members (even Ministers) implicitly criticising the Labor state government says a lot in itself about Labor's re-election strategy.

However, Ms McKay says that her advocacy for a Newcastle bus loop is based on "a recommendation of the Newcastle City Centre Renewal Transport Management and Accessibility Plan".

This plan (the AECOM Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) commissioned by Transport NSW and released in October last year) advocated a bi-directional bus route around the CBD, starting from Stewart Avenue/Industrial Highway, and going along Honeysuckle Drive - Merewether Street - Wharf Road - Watt Street - King Street - Stewart Avenue (see map below from the plan). It would operate at 10 minute intervals at peak periods.



It would replace the current highly successful fare-free zone which uses existing spare bus capacity, and thus doesn't cost anything extra to run.

Confusingly, whilst citing the TMAP bus loop proposal as the basis for her media release, Ms McKay says the fare-free zone "is limited to Newcastle's CBD". In fact, the TMAP bus loop is also limited to the Newcastle CBD, and would actually service a smaller area than the fare-free zone it would replace (missing, for example, Newcastle beach and the Gordon Avenue park and ride facility, which are within the fare-free zone).

The proposed TMAP city centre loop is uncosted and its feasibility and comparative cost effectiveness (with the fare free zone) are untested. It's certain to cost millions of dollars, since it involves new buses and new associated operating costs.

The city bus loop proposal was proposed in the TMAP in the context of the proposed loss of the current Wickham to Newcastle rail service that would result from Ms McKay's previous proposal to terminate these rail services at Wickham.

The effect of the city bus loop proposal on total public transport patronage is uncertain, but - taken in the context of the loss of rail patronage and the loss of patronage that would ensue from abolishing the fare-free zone service - it is more likely to reduce than increase total public transport patronage.

Essentially, it's an unfunded and untested proposal, that will be very expensive, and might actually take us backwards in terms of achieving state public transport patronage targets.

From what I heard on 1233, I understand that the Liberal candidate for Newcastle, Tim Owen, is also supporting this loop service proposal.

Labor’s Newcastle mine subsidence task force too little, too late: Greens

Media Release Media Release Media Release Media Release Media Release

Newcastle Greens

Monday, 24 January, 2011

Labor’s Newcastle mine subsidence task force too little, too late: Greens

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, today branded Labor’s announcement of a state government task force to address mine subsidence in the Newcastle area as a piece of pre-election window dressing.

“Mine subsidence has been identified as a major issue confronting urban development and city revitalisation in Newcastle for many years, and Labor (including the Minister for the Hunter, Jodi McKay) has done nothing about it all that time,” Mr Sutton said.

“Newcastle CBD Taskforce reports commissioned in 2008 by the Hunter Development Corporation (for which Ms McKay is the responsible Minister) identified that stakeholder forums had nominated mine subsidence in Newcastle’s CBD as “a particular area where coordination and expediency was desperately needed” and “as a “fundamental infrastructure” issue that presented “a significant challenge to investment” [see 2008 Newcastle CBD Taskforce reports on HDC website].

“Despite this, the HDC’s final Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report in 2009 failed to propose any strategy to deal with this issue, and Ms McKay was silent about it then.

“The Greens (via Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne) pushed successfully for Newcastle Council to establish a Mine Subsidence Working Group in 2009.

“Now, with yesterday’s belated announcement of a state government taskforce, Ms McKay has the audacity to claim that mine subsidence in Newcastle is an issue that “no one else is prepared to tackle”, when the real issue for voters is why Ms McKay and NSW Labor have taken so long to respond to a problem that Ms McKay admits herself has been known for a long time, and was identified as such years ago by the agency for which she is the responsible Minister,” Mr Sutton said.

“Like so many other of Ms McKay’s recent announcements, yesterday’s announcement of a task force to address this issue has more to do with covering up years of Labor incompetence and inaction in the lead up to the March state election, and to defer any further commitment until after that election.

“With a change of government likely in March, the future of the task force announced yesterday is highly uncertain.

“If Ms McKay and NSW Labor had acted more quickly on this instead of wasting time on doomed fancies (such as cutting the Newcastle rail line), we could have already had a strategy, an appropriate planning framework, and a successful federal funding application for addressing mine subsidence in Newcastle,” Mr Sutton said.

See original Newcastle Herald story

Out of the Festive Fog!

From Christmas Day to New Year I was at the Woodford Folk Festival, listening to some of Australia's best musicians and comics, in between experiencing something of the deluge that is still inundating Queensland.

Amid the torrents of culture and rain, I managed to attend some excellent talks and discussions in the Greenhouse, including an eerily familiar account of the Queensland experience of coal seam gas exploration and mining, from Drew Hutton (prominent member of the Queensland Greens).

Their experience seems very similar to ours: little government regulation, scant and secretive assessment and approval processes, and a huge propaganda campaign by industry and government in support of coal seam gas), except that they don't have the marine version of the problem - yet.

Affected Queensland communities are on the verge of direct action via a "Lock the Gate" campaign against the gas exploration and mining companies.

Stay posted.

How green is gas?

This is an op-ed piece I submitted to the Newcastle Herald on 1 December (not yet published as at date of this posting).

Gas is often portrayed as a clean energy source that could play an important role in a transition from dirty fuels such as coal and oil to a renewable energy economy.

This portrayal is now being seriously questioned.

The clean energy claim is primarily based on the fact that natural and coal seam gas (which is mostly methane) produces much less carbon dioxide than coal or oil when burned for fuel.

Origin Energy – Australia’s largest natural gas producer – states in its 2010 Sustainable Energy Report that its gas-fired Darling Downs Power Station in Victoria emits less than half the greenhouse gases of a typical coal-fired power station with the same capacity.

The NSW Department of Industry and Investment website states that “changing from electricity to gas for applications such as water heating, space heating and cooking could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of four.”

Locally, this claim was repeated verbatim in a recent media release from the Hunter Business Chamber on the eve of a visit to Newcastle by Advent Energy CEO, David Breeze, to promote his company’s exploratory gas drilling 55km off Newcastle’s coast.

Given the massive expansion of the gas industry now hitting the Hunter Valley, such claims deserve closer inspection.

Like coal and oil, natural and coal seam gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Methane, which can leak in the extraction and transport of gas, is itself a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide currently produced by the burning of natural and coal seam gas is already a significant contributor to total greenhouse gas emissions, and this is expected to rise considerably over the next few decades.

In a recently published conclusion to a full carbon footprint assessment of the greenhouse impact of gas extracted from shale formations in the United States, Robert Howarth, Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University, urges “caution in viewing natural gas as a good fuel choice for the future”.

Professor Howarth says that “using the best available science, we conclude that natural gas is no better than coal and may in fact be worse than coal in terms of its greenhouse gas footprint when evaluated over the time course of the next several decades.”

The “clean fuel” claim for gas is also linked to the fact that it does not produce the range of chemicals and particulates associated with burning coal or oil.

However, a full production-cycle analysis reveals an environmentally darker side to gas, dramatically portrayed in the film Gasland, a nominee for this year’s documentary Oscar.

Modern gas extraction uses the controversial technique of “fracking”, involving high pressure hydraulic fracturing of the geological substrata (usually either coal or rock seams) that contain the gas.

Fracking uses large quantities of water and a chemical cocktail. The technique has raised a range of concerns about ground and water contamination, air pollution, subsidence, and the handling of waste. Off-shore operations present a slightly different set of concerns, mostly related to the impact on the marine environment.

The current surge in the development of the gas industry occurred earlier in the United States than here. This week, the New York State Assembly voted for a moratorium on further gas exploration to allow safety and environmental concerns about fracking to be properly investigated.

Communities and environmentalists in the Hunter are calling for the same approach here, before the region is locked in to yet another industry with dubious environmental credentials.

Laman Street trees saved by people power!

Outside city hall before last night's council meeting

Friends of the Laman St trees doing their thing last night

What a great feeling to be able to celebrate an all-too-rare victory for the community and common-sense at a Newcastle Council meeting last night, when councillors voted to save Laman Street's majestic avenue of giant figs from the chainsaw.

The current council is dominated by conservative "independents" (they call themselves this, despite accepting donations from vested interests, such as developers), many of whom were long ago - and all-too-willingly - captured by the council administration.

On 17 August, the council decided (by a 5-7 vote) to remove all 14 of the Laman Street figs "as soon as possible", refusing to consult any further with the community on a range of options for the future of the trees that the community had never had an opportunity to scrutinise and discuss.

In the ensuing period, the community learned that the council intended to circumvent the normal requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by using a section of the Roads Act intended to allow roads authorities to remove trees for road works or to remove a traffic hazard.

As far as I have been able to establish, this strategy had never been previously mentioned by council officers, and came to light just before the chainsaws were about to move in. To stop the imminent removal of the trees, the Parks and Playgrounds Movement lodged an injunction.

The ensuing case in the Land and Environment Court turned on the interpretation of the wording of s.88 of the NSW Roads Act. The council argued that the Act allowed them to ignore normal planning requirements, and the PPM argued that it didn't.

Eventually, the Court found in favour of the council's interpretation. The judge noted the contrast in the wording of that section of the NSW Act with the equivalent provision in the Victorian Roads Act, which would not allow a council to circumvent normal planning requirements to remove trees where there was no genuine immediate need to do so.

Because of the clear public interest nature of the case, the judge determined that each side should bear its own costs. The council's legal costs were around $150,000.

The Land and Environment Court decision on the interpretation of the NSW Roads Act (which has not been tested by appeal) was a landmark decision, indicating a need to change the NSW legislation to clarify that it is an emergency power, and to stop roads authorities from misusing it to get rid of trees where there is no genuine urgent need.

However, the legal proceedings did provide valuable time for further discussion between the community and councillors on the future of the Laman St trees, and eventually enough councillors were persuaded to change their minds about the need to immediately remove them, and to put in place a risk management and monitoring regime aimed at preserving them.

Of course, the intervening period has also demonstrated incontrovertibly - in the courtroom of nature and reality - that there really was no need to immediately remove the trees on the spurious risk grounds argued by the council, since not a single tree has fallen over or damaged anyone or anything during that time.

The original decision was an over-reaction, driven by an administration in panic mode, whipped up by a risk-aversion industry that itself often poses the greatest risk to valuable community assets.

I recall in my time as a Newcastle councillor in the 1990s that it was once seriously proposed to construct a chainmesh fence along all the elevated sections of Newcastle's coastline to prevent the risk of accidental or deliberate falls. Common sense prevailed, and the idea was quickly scotched.

In the case of the Laman St trees, it's taken longer for common sense to prevail. On the night it decided to axe the trees as soon as possible, the council voted against an alternative motion (from Greens councillor Michael Osborne) to consult with the community on all the available options, which had never previously been scrutinised or discussed by the community. It's a pity that the council's refusal to do this at this crucial moment in the decision-making process ended up causing so much community anxiety and costing Newcastle ratepayers around $150,000.

All this could have been avoided if the council had been prepared to engage more positively and genuinely with the community on the future of the trees, rather than preemptively ramming through a decision that hardly anyone in the community supported, and that pandered to an extreme and bureaucratically driven form of risk aversion.

It remains to be seen whether senior council staff will accept the new decision of the elected council, and change their approach to a more cooperative engagement with the community.

Congratulations to the councillors who eventually came through for the community.

For the record, last night's vote to save the trees was:

For:

• Graham Boyd (Independent),
  
• Sharon Claydon (Labor),
  
• Shayne Connell (Independent),
  
• Tim Crakanthorp,
  
• Mike Jackson (Labor),
  
• Nuatali Nelmes (Labor),
  
• Michael Osborne (Greens), and
  
• John Tate (Independent).

Against:

• Bob Cook (Independent),
  
• Mike King (Independent),
  
• Brad Luke (Liberal), and
  
• Scott Sharpe (Independent).

(Councillor Aaron Buman (Independent) was absent, but previously voted for removing the trees).

The biggest congratulations go to the amazingly talented and committed group of grassroots community campaigners who came together so effectively to save this wonderful asset (you know who you are).

Media Release: Greens candidate signs on to Unions NSW Better Services Agreement

Newcastle Greens

Thursday, 9 December, 2010

Greens candidate signs on to Unions NSW Better Services Agreement

Signing up to the Unions NSW Better Services Agreement, Thursday 8 December 2010

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, today signed the five point “Better Services Agreement” developed by Unions NSW, pledging support for a strong public sector, public ownership of public assets, better long term planning for services and infrastructure, workers rights, and government for the common good.

Mr Sutton was the first Greens candidate in NSW to sign the agreement, at a Unions NSW launch outside Newcastle Trades Hall Council at lunchtime today.

In signing the agreement, Mr Sutton congratulated Unions NSW for the campaign, and said he expected that all Greens candidates who had the opportunity to sign the Agreement in the run-up to the March state election would do so.

“The Greens see the principles behind the commitments in this agreement as fundamental to a healthy, democratic civil society.

“People in Newcastle and the Hunter know what it means to have to fight for adequate services and infrastructure, and for governance for the common good.

“Under successive Labor and Coalition governments, our community has suffered through decades of struggles over the privatisation of institutions and services such as the State Bank, GIO, the TAB, FreightCorp, electricity, prisons, and the NSW Lotteries.

“Unfortunately, the community can tick off precious few wins in that list.

“To their great credit, our local community won a long fight to stave off the privatisation of the Wallsend Aged Care facility by the current Labor government.

“Many of our public buildings and lands have been sold off or commercialised. Who can forget the sudden whim to privatise the Newcastle bus depot by the NSW Premier, John Fahey, in the ‘90s. And today, we have the former Royal Newcastle site as a sad recent example that this kind of threat to public land is still current, under both Labor and Coalition governments.

“Right now, the Labor government is pushing a major plan to privatise public assets along Newcastle’s coast, under the guise of a coastal ‘revitalisation’ strategy.

“After the March election, we face the prospect of government under the Coalition, which has already made rumblings about privatising Sydney Ferries (raising the obvious question of what would happen to our own Stockton ferry) and Sydney’s desalination plant (again raising obvious questions for the Hunter, given the local debate about desalination in the wake of the Tillegra Dam decision).

“The Better Services campaign provides an excellent opportunity to focus public attention on such issues as we approach the March state election, and I’m proud to be such an early signatory to it,” Mr Sutton said.

Click here to see the Five Point Better Services Agreement.

Media Release: New coal proposal shows need for new approach

Newcastle Greens

Thursday, 2 December 2010

New coal proposal shows need for new approach

The proposed development of new coal export facilities at the former BHP steelworks site would make Newcastle an even worse climate offender, and would further compromise the Hunter’s ability to diversify the regional economy away from its unsustainable reliance on coal, according to The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton.

As a Greens councillor and environmentalist, Mr Sutton initiated the Hunter’s first climate-based campaign to phase out the coal industry during the 1990s.

“It’s sadly ironic that news of this new proposal has emerged at the same time as the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, while hundreds are gathering at Lake Liddell in the Hunter to protest against further coal mining and exports, and while inner-city Newcastle residents are expressing strong concerns about the impact of coal freight on local air pollution and amenity, and the Mayfield community is up in arms about potential local traffic impacts from another proposed development on the former BHP site.

“In recent discussions about their proposed Mayfield container terminal, the Newcastle Port Corporation has admitted that coal already consumes so much of our rail network capacity that only 20% of the freight generated by its proposed container terminal development could be transported by rail, with the remaining 80% forced to use trucks. This would apply equally to the Buildev coal development on the adjacent site.

“This is a perfect example of how the current open slather approach to coal mining and exports is directly restricting our ability to create a more resilient, diverse and sustainable local economy,” Mr Sutton said.

“From both a local and global perspective, it’s just not good enough anymore for governments to simply abrogate their responsibility to the whims of the market-place.

“Our local, regional and global communities are now asking when is enough enough, and demanding government action to curb the runaway expansion of the coal industry.

“The Greens have long called for a just transition, comprising a gradual and planned phasing out of the coal industry, and associated economic restructuring and community redevelopment programs to assist affected local and regional communities to build a twenty-first century climate friendly economy.

“The Greens believe that it’s both more ethical and practical to do this in a planned, phased and systematic way, because the longer this transition is delayed, the more disruptive it will be when the need for change inevitably imposes itself.

“Starting the process now will allow us to take greater advantage of the economic and social opportunities that a transition economy offers.

“Rather than wasting precious time and resources on a proposal for new coal facilities at the former BHP steelworks site, the state government should immediately reject the proposal, and develop – in full consultation with the community - an integrated plan for the site based on sustainable job-rich industries that will contribute to a more diverse local and regional economy,” Mr Sutton said.