I’ve just posted a piece at New Matilda’s COPThis! blog adding some historical context and detail to the Land Use loopholes reported in the Fairfax Press by Guy Pearse and Greg Borschmann, as well as the ‘Hot Air’ loophole Peter Wood has been carefully keeping track of.
And on a somewhat related note – some colleagues, led by the aptly named Regina Betz, are running the Copenhagen Prediction Market. It’s just for fun and research, but they’ve launched a loopholes prediction market to try to capture new announcements as they come to light. You can register from anywhere and it’s free to participate.
I think the implications of the force majure clause need some theoretical reflection too. They obviously support Ulrich Beck’s famous Risk Society thesis, but I’d like to offer a somewhat different interpretation. Mark recently referred to Bruno Latour’s provocation that ‘we have never been modern’ in an excellent Overland piece; As Latour himself, not to mention his students like Noortje Marres, have noted many times, the tumultuous politico-scientific imbroglio of Climate Change provides excellent evidence of this claim. I take Latour’s claim to basically mean that the sphere of an uncontaminated nature, represented by scientists equipped with the rhetoric of impartiality, is actually the sum of well articulated propositions, whose testing at various scales produces the stability in the natural and social world we take for granted at our peril. Truth, in other words, is not a function of detachment from the world – as Platonists would have it – but the result of tortuous engagement with equipment, data, financiers, skeptics, publics, governments etc. etc. Having heard a NASA scientist this week explain that he expected most northern hemisphere forests to switch from sinks to sources of carbon over the next decade if they hadn’t already, the nature/culture divide seems less tangible than ever. The force majure clause in the current Kyoto negotiating text seems to institutionalize this dissolution. There’s also the issue of the underlying social commitments embodied in modelling work as most of the key modelling work after Kyoto assumed this wouldn’t happen until mid-century.
Hey dk.au, no criticism, but I often find these posts super-confusing because there is a lot of assumed knowledge in a very small space. I’m not disagreeing with what you’re writing or anything, but there are several sentences in there that would well be worth dedicated posts of their own.
I find it hard to give a substantive responses because there are so many issues, I’m not sure which to address, or if I will ‘miss the point’, or if in giving attention to one point, I will miss some of its predicates, and thus make a silly argument.
One thing I will say, though: are there many platonists working in climate science? It seems antithetical to the approach that both scientists and advocates are taking. Indeed, it seems to be the only platonists in this respect are in the denialist camp, positing an either unknowable natural world, or an unknown world due to human failings.
A few months ago I remember Tony Burke, Minister for Agriculture, saying on Q&A that the government would not be considering soil carbon capture as a legitimate means of fighting climate change as there was not a scientific means of measuring it. Now we find the government hypocritically using it as their trump card at Copenhagen. When Rudd returns from Copenhagen next week – and I am sure that this will be mostly forgotten by then – responsible journalists need to press Rudd on the means by which soil carbon capture helps fight climate change. This morning’s Herald also notes that soil carbon capture is now suddenly also at the front of Tony Abbott’s arsenal in fighting climate change. It looks like there is a secret Labor-Liberal tryst over this issue.
The Greens also need to get active over this issue. If, as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists claims, Australia’s soil can potentially sequester all of Australia’s carbon emissions, why haven’t the Greens been calling for increased scientific investigation of soil carbon capture?
Tony Burke may not have been in the loop on this one, silkworm.
Offhand, I don’t know what the Greens policy is on soil carbon, but I think if it were credible, we’d support further investigation. I think there’s some argument about the Wentworth Group’s numbers, though.
I recall some 20 years ago the Norwegians spent $80 million on a CO2 scrubber to clean the LP gas as a condition of their supply contract to Germany. The CO2 was then pumped more than 1000 metres deep into the ocean but I cannot recall if the CO2 was in a liquid form for this sequestration.
Tim Flannery said on Lateline tonight the claim that soil alone can save us is lunacy. And furthermore that the Wentworth Group does not make that claim.
(He also said the Liberal Party are “a laughing stock” both domestically and internationally.)
Yes, I heard Tim Flannery too. I’m glad he’s bringing the issue into the spotlight, if only because soil sequestration has power for mobilizing hope about such a seemingly hopeless issue as climate change. I would also like to see more talk about population control. The decision to limit one’s family size is the single greatest measure one can take in reducing one’s carbon footprint. Kelvin Thompson has recently been advocating this.
silkworm @ 6 – population is a major factor which there has been little debate about. Whether we discuss per capita CO2 limits or per country limits it is important. Do we want the side effect of carbon targets that countries like Australia would be encouraged to restrict migration in order to meet their carbon targets?
Instead of per capita or per country carbon allocations should we be instead considering carrying capacity allocations based on land area and use?
Micronesia of behalf of AOSIS distributed a handout to the contact group on numbers describing in detail the impact of these loopholes. Hopefully i’ll have time to comment more tomorrow.
“Kelvin Thompson has recently been advocating this.”
Yes, silkworm. And I think he’s on his own, amongst pollies at least.
Most people still consider it churlish to raise the topic. That has to change.
More on the analysis of loopholes by the Alliance of Small Island States is here.
Some time within the next 12 hours or so the Kyoto ad hoc working group text will appear on the UNFCCC website. It will then be clear what the loophole situation is.
I think farmers could make a massive impact on carbon dioxide removal if given the incentives to do so.
The fact that Native Vegetation Controls (regrowth etc) have removed the right of farmers to profit from their land, and that these controls have allowed the carbon benefit already claimed by the Commonwealth to achieve Kyoto goals, leaves a very sour taste in many farmers mouths.
If we are to have carbon tading its high time the rest of society and the government paid for the benefits instead of stealing them and making a mockery of our Constitution.
This is why a farmer called Peter Spencer is on a hunger strike that now exceeds 23 days.
John, that’s a very odd chain of logic there. Firstly, land clearing controls were brought in by State governments progressively in the 80s and 90s, not by the Feds and not for carbon sequestration reasons but for other very good reasons, particularly the larming decline in biodiversity across the landscape. The small number of ractionary farmers who think they can continue to fuck up all of australia’s vertebrate fauna on really marginal country, despite having had two hundred years of a free go at it, can go and get stuffed as far as I’m concerned. And I say this not as some inner-city lefty who’s never done a days work, but as the son of farmers who’s planted many thousands of trees by hand.
As for the commonwealth “claiming” these benefits, that is only in a political sense. Agriculture is getting a very sweet deal out of proposed CPRS etc, they really should stop whinging (except they can’t help emselves) and consider the impact of loss of soil carbon and methane production on the long-term viability of their business.
Thanks Wilful,
I’m not suggesting I condone anyone as you say “fucking up the country”
What I also don’t condone is the sale of Crown land for farming and then the government resumes the property rights effectively returning it to the crown, politically claiming the benfits for Kyoto and then expecting the owner to carry the cost while transport and industry basically continues to pollute.
How would you like your house and land returned to the Crown (assumming you own one of course), your house is allowed to decay and the trees return; and you get nothing in return.
I think you have a warped view of property ownership. I suppose its OK to steal your property and you won’t winge will you.
wilful, for perhaps the first time on this blog John M has a point. My plan is to do a post on Roy Spencer this weekend. The broader point is that vegetation management laws have saved our arse in terms of Kyoto compliance. The fact that these laws are state laws is not accidental. The Commonwealth, had it legislated, would have had to provide compensation. The states don’t. Whatever you may say about the environmental benefits of such laws, in some cases they have destroyed the viability of farms as a business without any compensation whatsoever.
If you want to get a head start on the issue, here, then here and follow up this link with particular attention to comment 2 by still@downfall.
I grew up on a farm and the current Chair of Property Rights Australia is my brother. So I’ll be accused of taking a partisan position.
But please get yourself informed and wait until I can set the issue up as a separate post.
at copenhagen
the dictators prevail
leafless trees!
Vegetation management always has and always will be a State planning matter. This isn’t some Howardist cunning lawyer trick, it is in the Constitution. Victoria has had strict vegetation clearance controls since 1989, i.e. before the UNFCCC. South Australia I believe was even earlier. If farmers hadn’t gotten around to clearing it by the late 90s, I rally question what value it has had to them.
Australia’s record on the protection of biodiversity is completely abysmal.
Suggesting this is anything like taking my house away from me is absurd. Planning controls have always infringed people’s rights to use of their property without ultimately affecting their title. If my house was compulsorily acquired, under your scenario, then I would be fully protected by the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act.
Absolute rubbish Wilful,
The State Governments can remove any property right whenever they like. It is their choice to call it acquisistion. If they don’t call it acquisition you loose!!
Wilful,
Just look at what happens if your house is put under heritage listing without your consent. The block under it could have potential for subdivision.
Who do you think loses when this happens?
Mrs. Burn’s in Queensland has a scrub block she wanted to build a house on when she and her husband retired. Her husband died and clearing enough scrub to build a house was denied. This whole block became worthless; the Qld. Government removed enough property rights without acquisition to make it so. They chose not to acquire it and classify it as a flight path for bats, why acquire it when you can legally steal it.
Acquisition has become a choice for State Governments; they only apply it when they think they will not get away with the theft.
Go away and look at what is happening in the courts. The Tasmanian Dam case has opened the flood gates whereby the Government(s) can remove property rights and not call it acquisition. When enough rights are removed the value to the owner is destroyed and it is not classified as acquisition.
Farmers are and have been committing suicide over these thefts because their properties are becoming worthless pieces of farming land even though they were sold to farmers to farm.
Sorry John, I’m on solid ground here, houses do NOT get taken away from anyone without compensation. I’ve already referred you to the appropriate Act. You can continue to just make it up if you wish…
Planning controls have always existed wthout compensation, this applies to all of us, private property isn’t quite the sanctified beast you would have it be. And rightly so.
Again, this comes back to the common weal, to the conservation of biodiversity and catchment services, which are for all of us.
Farmers have been committing suicide for a long time, it’s a bloody tough life, yet you wont be able to demonstrate the link to recent law changes and this.
So Wilful,
You would be happy for the State Government to Heritage list you house, or find some ficticious endangerd species living under the floor boards(like Mrs Burn’s, there are no bats near her property as far as I’m aware) and remove the value of the land and house without compensation. Thats fine if thats what you want to accept. Good luck to you. I don’t accept it and never will.
The Australia Act 1986, introduced without the required referendum and modifying the effect of our Constitution, basically enables the removal of any property right.
You haven’t seen the full effect of this yet!!
These very important words brought forward by Gaudron and McHugh J.J of the High Court of Australia in the decision of Plenty v Dillion and hopefully one day the High Court will live up to these fundamental principles once espoused:
“If the courts of common law do not uphold the rights of individuals by granting effective remedies, they invite anarchy, for nothing breeds social disorder as quickly as the sense of injustice which is apt to be generated by the unlawful invasion of a person’s rights, particularly when the invader is a government official. The appellant is entitled to have his right of property vindicated by a substantial award of damages.”
Looks like the Howard Government was involved in “bucket-loads of extinguishments” of farmers title rights, eh?
Australia’s first vegetation management laws were enacted in South Australia [1985], later the Native Vegetation Act [1991].
The Native Vegetation Act restricts land clearance, but more importantly it sets up a mechanism that rewards engagement in restoration processes. I’m fairly sure there is a significant waiting list of people wishing to sign up for a Heritage Agreement, not least because the NRM boards fork out hundreds of thousands every year for fencing, weed and feral animal control. The monies for this is collected through a levy on all landholders, so urban dwellers are offering a significant contribution to this restoration process and the net gain that it offers to us in terms of carbon pollution mitigation. It would surprise me if other states did not follow suit in this regard, but I have not looked at the legislation yet.
Regardless, a true win for all concerned would be a situation where conservation land had some economic value to the landholder, and where restoring land was a practice that could derive an economic benefit. I’m ever the optimist on this, I think this would result in higher value for genuinely productive land, as well as a higher value for marginal land that is being actively restored. It also respects the knowledge-base in rural communities and offers a dignified way for people who’s properties are no longer viable to stay on their land.
Thus far the models in place for carbon offsetting in this way are dubious as to their worth for biodiversity, and in some cases continued dryland grazing may actually yield a better outcome for conservation. A LOT of work can be done there. It would be great to discuss this without demonising farmers, and without the urban greenie stereotypes that seem to prevail every time these issues are raised.
Oh, I should offer a disclaimer to that: 100% of my business turnover comes from restoration for conservation, so there is already an economic benefit to me from restoration work. What I meant is that it would be good if there were a more tangible economic benefit to the landholder, in terms of an income stream, rather than simply improving the resale value of their properties.
John Michelmore, I don’t know what state you are in but I think your example re: acquisition and compensation is simplistic. If you would like me to get some info on how much levy payers are contributing to improvements on rural properties I could probably find out.
fb, I must say I’ve never heard of anything like you describe in Qld. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there, but I doubt it.
fb,
Simplistic enough for you:-
“Nonetheless, the fact remains that s 51(xxxi) is directed to ‘acquisition’ as distinct from deprivation. The extinguishment, modification or deprivation of rights in relation to property does not of itself constitute an acquisition of property[90]. For there to be an ‘acquisition of property’, there must be an obtaining of at least some identifiable benefit or advantage relating to the ownership or use of property. On the other hand, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which an extinguishment, modification or deprivation of the proprietary rights of one person would involve an acquisition of property by another by reason of some identifiable and measurable countervailing benefit or advantage accruing to that other person as a result[91].”
Well, the National Party never met a tree it didn’t want to cut down.
Are you a member of the National Party, John Michelmore?
Brian, I admit that in my work I only see the peachy side of the equation. I’m sure there are landholders here that bemoan the Native Vegetation Act, the aspects that relate to regrowth have been problematic and have been tinkered with to a certain degree.
These days the Native Vegetation Act works in concert with the Natural Resource Management Act, and the allocation of levy monies is becoming better targeted, so landholders that are in areas that have been identified as having a higher ecological value are receiving quite a lot of assistance. There is no doubt that they are willing participants in this scheme because it improves land value. There are certainly landholders that are making a valuable contribution to restoration and receive little in the way of in-kind support because their properties are not in a target area. The system has its flaws.
I have no idea how it works in Queensland. To be honest that state seems like another country to me, it seems to have a particularly dogmatic and recalcitrant political culture that does not lend itself to workable compromises. If the political representation of rural Queenslanders is a true indication of that communities sentiments, as still@downfall suggested in another thread, then I have little sympathy for them. After all they delivered us the person who first used the phrase “bucketloads of extinguishment”, and he used that phrase to appease that constituency. In the end there may be some rough justice for those people who celebrated the removal of Aboriginal peoples ability to have their native title rights recognised.
John Michelmore. There is no explicit acquisition taking place, so I think the expectation for compensation is naive, but if you want to bark up that tree, go right ahead. If you think there will be broad support for people to be compensated for not breaking the law, then feel free to spend your energies on the property rights aspect of this. The issue has been explored in the courts already, but maybe you’ll turn up something that supports the notion of compensation – generally both the state and the commonwealth seem to have their arses well-covered on this one.
I think there are more productive things that landholders could be doing than seeking compensation, that would yield better long-term outcomes for all, and that would diversify farm income, but that would require them to be engaged in the climate change debate in a way many seem unwilling to be. Most just seem to embrace Barnaby style “it’s my way or the highway” belligerence.
BTW: Barnaby may find Mr Spencer’s situation a bit of a conundrum actually. As far as I can tell the only way compensation could be forthcoming is if there were to be a price placed on carbon.
“Well, the National Party never met a tree it didn’t want to cut down.”
Not everywhere, David. Heard of Landcare?
Happy birthday!
Landcare: see Joan Kirner.
Re-vegetation, I would argue that the National Party no longer represents the interests of farmers. It’d be the farmers doing the Landcare, not the Nationals