PRA: Disadvantage and Discernment

Condensed from the Chairman’s report at Property Rights Australia conference August 2015

STAND YOUR GROUND!

This was the rally cry, the motto that former PRA chairman John Purcell came up with a number of years back. The times suited it as there was a wave after wave of the theft of property rights and you lived in expectation of the super wave at every election cycle. Possibly life for PRA was a little simpler back in the ALP Beattie government years leading into the handover to Peter Beattie’s deputy Anna Bligh. The enemy was environmentalists and appeasement to them by government for cheap political gain.

After lecturing landowners for many years about the precautionary principle the Bligh government vigorously told landowners that they had no choice but to accept another business called coal seam gas laid over their properties. This new business was allowed to operate under an adaptive management principle. A term the then PRA chairman Ron Bahnisch called, “oxymoronic.”

The precautionary principle over the years has suffered misuse by some (not all) in the opposition to any new development by taking too far an endless litany of “what ifs.”  Sustainability is a word that can be problematic due to it being used in contexts that are not measurable; definitions designed to suit an outcome and the goalposts are able to be shifted at whim.

Adaptive management was an absolute joke; the admission that we know that there will be problems, we don’t know the solutions but somehow we will work it out as we go along. It was the height of hypocrisy that same government that bashed landowners over the head for so long with a big environmental stick could turn around so quickly and direct departmental staff in the blinkered support of both mining, CSG and supporting infrastructure.

Former PRA Chair John Purcell receiving Life Membership from the then Chair, Joanne Rea at the 2012 PRA conference

******
PRA is developing a policy document called the No Disadvantage Principle. The disregard of people, their ability to make an income from their property, amenity of life, impacts that cause diminution of value, future external liabilities left to the landowner and reduced future use of the land – all these issues have continued on many fronts.

PRA calls on government to apply a No Disadvantage Principle test to all new legislation and policies that impact Landowners, particularly in relation to resource and environment impacts. If a community, industry or even an individual is placed at a disadvantage the policy or legislation should be amended and if this is not possible those affected should be fully compensated. No one should be left as collateral damage to what is thought to be at the time, “the greater good.”

Such a clear and unequivocal legislated rule would still allow economic development including mining and petroleum projects to operate, to generate wealth and jobs for the State and allow Government to legislate on environmental concerns for the public good but there would no longer be financially crippled victims sacrificed to achieve the desired goals.

*****
The polarising of the public debate in the area of mining and coal seam gas has proved very frustrating in recent years. It has suited the big players to throw insults at radical environmentalists on the one hand with a return taunt of “greedy multinational miners” which is played out in the metropolitan media. The debate may be city based but the physical location of projects is forgotten, on or near to rural property owners who on the most part are agricultural producers.

Let’s be clear PRA is no way anti mining. Resources are an important part of the economy. It has provided our society with the means to enjoy the standard of living we do today. Likely to be replaced as we advance into the future but we are dependent on mining for energy needs. What is often overlooked is the high end uses of oil & even coal for products that will ultimately prove far more valuable to us than burning up in an internal combustion engine. 

But make no mistake PRA will speak out against resource company’s actions and also against environmental organisations when the property owner’s rights are not respected.

Recent years has seen former adversaries saying very similar things about the coal seam gas invasion onto our properties. We may not be on the same path but we often find ourselves running a parallel path. This is occurring at the same time of increasing polarisation of the public debate.

In this new atmosphere PRA has to be very discerning. It is our role to stand up for the rights of landowners, not to make government happy, no matter its colour. PRA is by constitution apolitical. If there is an abuse of landowner rights we must speak up. We have witnessed CSG & some (not all) coal companies throw their weight around in callous disregard to the landowner and we have seen government make legislative changes that shifted unbalance in favour of resources blatantly further to their favour.

A steady hand & a discerning mind is needed. I see others in frustration shift to the thinking of the means justifies the end; it never does. One needs to be discerning about environmental groups who appear (& largely are) on the same page about CSG, but inevitably other agendas are crept in and promoted. There is also the increasing tiresome chatter of the eco-pessimist that from all developments the worst calamity is automatic.

Then we have another phenomenon to resist from those without direct connection to CSG localities where they assume because those “dam greenies” are saying something that it is automatically wrong and the CSG industry therefore are virtuous.

While it is certainly easy to find many examples of the extreme end of the environmental movement in their ‘the end justifies the means’ approach using alarmism, misinformation and even sabotage, it is simplistic to assume that everyone interested in environmental issues are deluded.

Those of us who are interested into the enquiry into the truth of a situation should resist the weakness that requires one to retreat to known absolutes and not allow new events to challenge one’s thinking. Sometime there are circumstances where you end up on a parallel course to others that are normally in opposition; it appears that some are so insecure in their own convictions that they create an artificial world of “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”. “

******

In conclusion, the call for discernment is for us, Property Rights Australia, its members and the board to make evidence based decisions and not be afraid to give voice to them no matter the company.

The call of recognising disadvantage is to government that by adopting the No Disadvantage Principle that no one is left as road kill on the highway of the common good.

NO DISADVANTAGE!

 

 

Previous published related article

Strength in Diversity

.



WWF: Seductive songs of sustainability

 

Last week the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef met in Brisbane and in various media leading members were at pains to give assurance that there was nothing to fear. It is interesting how the language has changed from the original roundtable meeting in Denver 2010, to the presumptuous launch of the Australian Roundtable [ See: here & here ] at Beef week 2012 that failed after grassroots resistance, to the current day. All in the effort to entice Australian beef producers to the GRSB sustainability principles.

In last week’s issue of the Queensland Country Life Ruaraidh  Petre, Executive Director, GRSB, in a lot of feel good words carefully avoided any mention of the roughly 15 other commodity roundtables both active and proposed and the instigator of them all WWF. Petre repeats the current GRSB mantra that its critics are fearful and adds the charge of conspiracy theorists.

 

Senator Ron Boswell on the facing page strongly warns against involvement with GRSB. Boswell is at the end of a long distinguished career. He has no need to whip up any fear campaign for re-election; this is more a question of legacy, a deep felt desire that an agreement perilous to the long term future of the beef industry does not slip in at the end of his watch. Boswell, as has Property Rights Australia, has done research beyond the confines that Petre and Cattle Council Australia would like to keep our attention. Our warnings are based on real data.

Then on the opinion page of last week’s issue are the words of incoming Senator David Leyonhjelm. He outlines the familiar course used in creating a commodity roundtable; once in place fees introduced, standards raised and governments pressured to make the code mandatory. Leyonhjelm writes that the beneficial promises made for sustainability certification will be mere noise and the downside of not participating, bluff.

 PRA urges beef producers to be very sceptical of the assurance that WWF is but one voice on the roundtable. WWF had gained ascendancy over the major players even before it was convened. The last resistance was supressed in the lead up to the soy roundtable. [See: here, here ]The campaign against soy was based largely on production in Brazil. Nowadays the environmental groups have so much control that Jason Clay from WWF’s Market Transformation Initiative can blazingly state in public that WWF will instigate a finance roundtable which will include principles for sustainable lending in Brazil first because, “that is where we have the most traction.” It appears the traction is so complete in Brazil that Greenpeace was recently reported as directing beef processors including JBS where they could or could not buy cattle from.

Beware that our industry does not become shipwrecked listening to the sirens singing seductive songs of sustainability.

Previous published related post
Are they awake?  

Holy Cow! Another Global Warming Myth busted.

(Originally published on Australian Climate Sceptics blog)

The word “Sustainability” has been hijacked with definitions developed by groups pushing various agendas including being used extensively to promote the Agenda 21 agenda to a point that we need to be wary of the use of the word.

Having said that, here is a pre-Christmas story from 

Cows’ Role in Global Warming Overlooked in Climate Talks

Cattle and other ruminants are probably the biggest human-related source of methane, a gas adding to global warming, and climate negotiators have paid too little attention to livestock, a team of researchers said. 

Cows, sheep, goats and buffalo produce “copious amounts” of methane in their digestive systems, Oregon State University wrote in an online press release, citing analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change today. One of the most effective ways to cut the gas would be to reduce the global population of ruminant livestock, the university said.

Yet there is a multitude (or should I say a stampede?) of information contradicting this. Googling "cattle carbon neutral" brings around a quarter million hits. E.G:-

US Grasslands Carbon Neutral: (The Land)

Cattle grazing systems on native grassland in the northern United States are reducing greenhouse gases, a new study reports. 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchers set out to get a local perspective on European conclusions that managed grasslands are greenhouse gas sinks—(although when methane and nitrous oxide emissions were taken into account, the greenhouse gas balance in the European sites was closer to neutral). 

The USDA study, reported this week in the Journal of Environmental Quality, came to a mixed conclusion. 

It confirmed that in the North Dakota study area, all grazing treatments sequestered significant quantities of carbon and minor quantities of atmospheric methane.

Climate breakthrough: cattle carbon neutral: (Qld Country Life)

A NEW report which shows that Queensland's cattle grazing industry is already all but carbon neutral and could provide a solution in addressing the State's overall carbon liability has been buried by the Bligh Government. 

It is understood the release of the 30-page report prepared by Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries has been derailed by Greg Withers, the Director-General of the Queensland Government's Department of Climate Change and Premier Anna Bligh's husband. 

The report, which examines the carbon footprint of the beef industry and the impact of vegetation clearing bans, has been peer reviewed by a number of the nation's top scientists, including the CSIRO's Dr Ed Charmley, QUT's Dr Peter Grace, and Meat and Livestock Australia's Beverly Henry. 

The authors of the report - titled Net Carbon Position of the Queensland Beef Industry - are respected QPIF scientists Dr Steven Bray and Dr Jacqui Wilcocks.

Ruminants not Kyoto villains  (link: pdf)

A Paper by Dr Gerrit van der Lingen published by the NZ Climate Science Coalition.  (NZCSC)

The New Zealand Government signed the Kyoto protocol on 22 May 1998 and ratified it on 19 December 2002. 

Perhaps there was some justification in 2002 before the bottom fell out of the falsified AGW hypothesis. (See also UK Met Office, Jo Nova)

All plants, including grass, require carbon dioxide to grow. Grass is eaten by ruminants and the carbon in it is used for the growth of the animal and for milk and wool production. A small part of the carbon from the grass is used to make methane through enteric fermentation. This methane is emitted by the animals into the atmosphere. It stays in the atmosphere for only about 10 years, after which it changes back to carbon dioxide, which in turn is being absorbed by the grass, which in turn is eaten by the animals, etc. It is basically a closed loop. However, some of the carbon is incorporated by the animals into skin, wool, meat and bones. Some of those are subsequently turned into durable animal-based commodities, such as woollen garments, leather products, even bone carvings. As long as such products are not incinerated, the carbon stays locked up. It is being sequestered.  

Consequently, ruminants act as carbon sinks. There is therefore no justification to include ruminant methane emissions in the Kyoto Protocol obligations.

Do the Alarmists check both sides of the debate or just go ahead and publish already busted alarm stories?