The Mercury focused on Bluescope Steel, which as seen in an earlier blog post, rejected the scheme saying it would “fundamentally affect our global competitiveness”. In a double page feature the Mercury runs a story called “Steel industry welcomes delay” and “Recession cause for carbon pause”. I think I can safely say that in the battle of economy vs environment, the economy has won -at least for this year.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran the story “Carbon bill burns as Rudd fiddles”. I think the suggestion that Rudd is fiddling his fingers is a bit harsh. It implies that he isn’t doing anything… Which i’m not sure is completely accurate. I think it’s more that he isn’t doing the right things. Industry (locally represented through Bluescope) has forced Rudd to reconsider his plans, with the threat of increased unemployment forcing him to loosen his resolve. Following on from other negative media coverage (see examples in a post below), it’s almost as if the media knew it was coming. I think you will remember my blog about the US Clean Water Protection Act or the comment following from my blog “Bluescope Afraid of Carbon Laws”. In both it was the industry which determined policy. I think within the current economic climate we are able to see where the priorities of the government/business sectors are.

I’m going to avoid making a judgement on the issue of climate change, but it’s obvious that Rudds been learning how to walk backwards as he holds up his hands to the men in blue-scope. But hey, they are “constructive steps in the right direction” (Statement to the Mercury, quoted in story “Steel Industry welcomes delay” 5/5/09).

Photo: G-online

I think Rudd is a little more dissapointed.

Maybe it will work out next time… Next year.

Many scientists, he said, had not considered the history of the earth when discussing climate change, or factors including the earth’s rotation, changing tides and solar winds.

It was also interesting that “The presses have started printing the third run of 5000 copies, after the first 10,000 sold in two days.”

The cover of the new book by Ian Plimer

“The report focuses on Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam.” The article discusses the economy alongside the environment in what appears to be a growing trend within the coverage of global warming.

The rise in sea levels might force the sprawling archipelago of Indonesia to redraw its sea boundaries, the report said. Diminished rice harvests, seawater seeping into aquifers and islands vanishing into rising oceans will be the main problems.

These changes would occur progressively over the next century, the bank has estimated, giving countries time to improve their flood control systems, upgrade their irrigation networks and take measures to prevent forest fires, which the report predicts will become more common.

It seems as if the environmental issue is framed in the light of economical issues.

The authors of the report urged governments to build infrastructure adapted to climate change, arguing that the economic crisis was not incompatible with combating and adapting to global warming.

Events such as Earth Hour also supported by the media (Fairfax -SMH) have helped raise concern and awareness for the cause. Previously, in recent history, the depletion of the ozone layer was a huge environmental event, and it all focused around mans impact on the environment. And now, we are faced with yet another struggle. It’s something we can only blame ourselves for, and something that potentially threatens humanities survival on planet earth…

But not everyone believes it exists.

Ian Plimer from the university of Melbourne argues that what we assume is climate change as a result of mans impact on the globe, is can actually be explained as a natural phenomenon. “[The] planet is variable, it always changes” he claims in a lateline interview uploaded to the Lateline vodcast on ABC last night.

Plimer claims that “they are looking at the atmosphere, they are not looking at the total system of the planet”. In his new book ‘Heaven+Earth’ he voices his his concerns in order “to give the public some information so that they can say I think I’m being lead away.”

It’s an interesting view, and one that differs from what the media seems to brand as an environmental event which is caused by humankind.

Looking at SMH’s environment page today, the articles reveal a common focus. There is a growing uncertainty for the future of Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Here’s a few extracts…

ETS ‘should be held off until recession is over’

Caltex Australia spokesman Frank Topham told the Senate inquiry in Sydney that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) shouldn’t come into effect until the economy recovers.

“We believe (the ETS) should not start effective operation until properly designed or until economic conditions return to normal,” Mr Topham said.

ETS crucial to international agreement: Wong

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the carbon reduction scheme is key to a global agreement to tackle climate change.

The Government has so far failed to win the support of key crossbench senators for its proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The Government’s climate adviser, Ross Garnaut, has also questioned whether the scheme was worth introducing in its current form.

Wong vows to press on with ETS plan

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has hit out at her critics, insisting she will not go “back to the drawing board” on emissions trading.

There are mounting calls for the Government to rewrite its emissions trading scheme (ETS) and delay the 2010 start date.

Might be best to dump ETS: Garnaut

The Government’s own climate adviser says it might be best to dump the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and “have another crack at it” later.

Scientists on attack over Rudd emissions plan

THREE of CSIRO’s most eminent climate scientists have told a Senate inquiry that the Prime Minister’s targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions will not achieve even a “limited” level of protection against climate change and are “much weaker” than the cuts developed countries need to make.

In a big embarrassment for Kevin Rudd and the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, the globally recognised scientists have made a joint submission to a new inquiry on the Government’s carbon trading scheme, which begins hearings today in Canberra.

Apparently things aren’t looking too good for the scheme…

The Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior.

Check the website here. Everything from valentines roses, chocolates, coffees, sustainable agriculture, tourism, climate control. If its got the rainforest alliance stamp, rest assured your doing your bit. It seems to have worked for Maccas…

COFFEE sales at McDonald’s have jumped 20 per cent since it started selling environmentally friendly coffee last year – proof that good deeds are rewarded with higher sales.

In May the fast food chain switched the coffee in its McCafe stores to beans from South American plantations certified by the New York environmental organisation, Rainforest Alliance.

But I find it interesting that:

The market for “ethical coffee” is heating up. Last year BP switched to Fairtrade coffee, which guarantees a minimum price per kilogram to growers. Alliance ensures coffee plantations adhere to strict environmental standards but stops short of guaranteeing wages.

That article is a little old, but it still gives some food for thought…

Visit the article.

Highlighting the relatively small size of the Australian steel industry Bluescope said that the framework of the CPRS “does not adequately shield these industries from the loss of trade competitiveness that will inevitably occur if Australia imposes a carbon cost ahead of other countries.”

Bluescope expressed its support of a carbon reduction plan but stressed that the current plan would not maintain the competitiveness of the Australian industry. The statement labelled the new carbon emission scheme as a “deadweight burden on the industry,” and stated that the scheme “needs – at a minimum - significant amendment”.

The new Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme threatens the economic viability of Bluescope steel in the Illawarra. Photo: William Thomson

On thursday the Illawarra Mercury ran a story called ‘Carbon scheme jeopardises Port Kembla steelworks: Bluescope’. It focused on the economical impact that the scheme could have.

“If our business becomes unviable in the global marketplace then the whole Port Kembla steelworks is threatened,” he said.

Mr Cornish’s comments represent BlueScope’s bluntest assessment yet of the impact of the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

He said “tens of millions” of dollars would be wiped from the company’s books in the first year if the plan came into effect.

In the same article Australian Workers Union branch secretary Andy Gillespie said that Bluescope “should just wait and see what is going to happen instead of putting the fear of Christ into the workforce”.

The next day another article was published called ‘Government blasts Bluescope over carbon claims’.

BlueScope Steel has been accused of overestimating the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on its business.

Unions and a federal MP expressed disappointment yesterday at the company’s decision to publicly declare that the scheme (CPRS) in its existing form would put the Port Kembla steelworks at risk.

I think the government is growing nervous about the implications of rolling out the new scheme. Throsby MP Jennie George labelled the presentation as mischievous and said, “it didn’t portray the full picture about our proposed (CPRS)”. Mrs George sought to clarify that the company was involved in ongoing discussions with the government. And like Andy Gillespie the day before, played down the claims of the company. 

Earlier in the week (Monday) the Illawarra Mercury also published an article called “Carbon scheme ‘threatens’ Illawarra jobs”. Federal member Wollongong MP Sharon Bird said that delaying the scheme was not practical.

She believes it is the global financial crisis, and not the emissions trading scheme, that is the biggest threat to the region’s jobs. She said the Government was well aware of the challenges facing industrial areas, but argued new green jobs can be created.

Similar things are happening across the world as the ‘green movement’ makes a push for environmentally friendly industries. In America New York’s plans to reduce greenhouse emissions may be amended so that local power companies will not suffer. The company Indeck filed suit against the state late January citing that “We believe in doing our part,” but “This has hit out bottom line.” Check out the New York Times for that article published last wednesday.

There appears to be a massive diffusion of responsibility across the globe. Not many people are willing to take the first step. And while the Australian government is striving to demonstrate international leadership, companies like Bluescope and Indeck have sounded out in opposition with fears of being economically disadvantaged. But unless fears over the economic recession coerces the general public into accepting slower progress, Nations, Governments and Businesses will have to act. Support for emissions schemes are growing…

Ecotourism is the latest attraction to those who want to have a minimal impact on the environment. I think the point Hubert Den Draak raises in his blog is incredibly valid.

We’d all like ecotourism to be popular, but if this means more tourists’ visiting more fragile environments, it also means they will adversely affect the local ecology simply on account of the sheer impress of numbers. Ecotourism does not work when it gets so popular it destroys the very environment it seeks to protect. An interesting paradox…

So how are we to become eco-friendly in our travels? Hubert Den Draak describes how he defines ecotourism below.

- Minimal negative impact (of any kind).
- Positive experience for both visitor and host.
- Direct financial benefits for conservation and the local people.
- Sensitivity to the host’s political, social and environmental situation

It’s all about minimising the impact man has on the environment. But like in some of my other blogs the issue of environment vs economy seems to come up. In order for ecotourism to prosper as business it needs tourists. And the more tourists, the more money it makes. But when does ecotourism become standard tourism?

I think that as soon as a profit mentality is developed, the environment suffers. In order for the ecotourism industry to survive the focus must be on ecology, and not purely on tourism…

Yep, its here again. Today, the last saturday of March between 8.30 and 9.30pm is earth hour. Organised by WWF it aims to raise awareness for climate change by drastically reducing energy usage for an hour across over 2 thousand cities worldwide. This year it aims to collect 1 billion ‘votes’ which will be used to pressure world leaders into taking action on climate change.

WWF want this historic, global event to send a strong message to our global leaders that, together, our small actions will represent a global vote for action on climate change

Interestingly last years media coverage by Fairfax Newspapers was challenged by other media institutions. Both Media watch and The Australian ran stories about how Fairfax reporters were pressured into writing stories which appeared biased and enhanced the image of Earth Hour (in connection with Fairfax). The Australian revealed how management of The Age had put pressure on Journalists to develop stories that favoured the newspapers business interests.

“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

Media Watch brought into question the ‘before and after’ photographs that were used to compare the difference in light during Earth hour 2008 by the Sun Herald. They appeared to be intentionally exaggerated.

The after picture is dramatically under exposed compared to the before picture. The exposure difference can be seen simply between the sky in the two images. They should be nearly identical, despite the lower ambient light.

— Email from Matt Cumming to Media Watch

This year, Fairfax continues to sponsor the event as stated in the article of which an exert can be seen below.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has backed the event, which is organised by WWF Australia with the support of Fairfax Media, publisher of the Herald.

Peter Fray, the editor of Sydney Morning Herald owned by fairfax, made it clear on tuesday where he stands in relation to earth hour. In the article below he strongly supports the cause of earth hour, associating SMH with a popular worldwide movement.

The organisers of Earth Hour, WWF in partnership with Fairfax Media and Leo Burnett, want to use this Saturday’s event as a global referendum: by simply switching off for an hour, you will be sending a message to world leaders that you want the Earth saved from the threats posed by climate change.

We at The Sydney Morning Herald will be doing all we can to ensure Earth Hour continues to thrive and connect with the community. We invite everyone across NSW and Australia to turn off their lights at 8.30pm on Saturday, join a global movement and make a real difference.

Media Watch also commented on the stories that The Age published last year as part of its coverage of the Earth Hour event…

The timing couldn’t be more urgent: On the heels of a 4th US Circuit Court decision that overturned greater environmental review of mountaintop removal actions by coal companies, scores of mining permits are flooding through the gates of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this month

The Clean Water Act ensures the safety of water local to the area in which mining takes place. It is important for those living and working in the area, as well as for the environment, so that it can maintain natural ecosystems.

The mining industry brings  a lot of money into the countries of the first world. The Bush Administration probably saw great financial gain in distorting the Clean Water Act. And as for the environmental effect… Well, it’s in a different country anyway… 

This isn’t the first time the mining industries environmental practices have been called in to question.

Below is a youtube video about a discarded uranium mine which is now contaminating the environment. It helps create a framework for understanding the impact that ignorant mining practices have had in the past. It’s a trip into history but reflects the profit mindset mining companies began with.

I’ve heard of mines in Papua New Guinea which dump excess copper waste into the river systems destroying everything further downstream… Take a look at this document which demands change to mining practices in PNG, it is signed by the landowners of mining sites in 2003.

For interest, here’s another article that helps to shed light on the less-than-acceptable standards the mining industry holds. 

BHP BILLITON is expected to meet its iron ore contractors this week to discuss safety issues after five deaths in eight months at its West Australian iron ore operations.

BHP has been singled out by the West Australian Government for the second time in five years over its safety record in the Pilbara, which compares poorly with that of its rival, Rio Tinto.

After the latest fatality last week the West Australian Mines Minister, Norman Moore, called BHP’s iron ore boss, Ian Ashby, into his office on Friday.

Published by SMH, the article focuses on workplace safety rather than environmental impact, but it’s interesting to have a look at. It took out third page in ‘Business Day’ today…

The media coverage of the mining industry includes revealing unwholesome standards, but I get the feeling that it’s not as deep and revealing as it could be…