30 January 2009 

Ultimo, NSW, AUS/Oakland, CA, USA - The Australian Climate Justice Program and the US-based Earthjustice have sent a petition to UNESCO's World Heritage Committee requesting action at their next meeting to protect World Heritage sites from the global warming impacts of black carbon air pollution, which accelerates the impacts of global warming in high latitude and high altitude regions. Such glacier loss and the resulting sea level rise threaten many other World Heritage sites globally, especially those dependent on meltwater from glaciers, or those with coral reefs or near coastal lowlands.

Recent scientific studies have found black carbon, a component of soot, or fine particulate air pollution that comes from the burning of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass, is a key climate disruptor. Black carbon has a strong warming effect in the atmosphere and when it lands on snow, ice caps and glaciers. By reducing the reflectivity of these surfaces, black carbon causes widespread and faster melting, causing sea level rise and other climate changes.

Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere for only a handful of days, compared to other greenhouse gases which may remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years, reducing black carbon emissions may be among the most effective near-term strategies for slowing the amplified climate warming. Yet the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not address global warming caused by black carbon. The petition urges the World Heritage Committee to step into the breach to preserve World Heritage until the long-term effects of the UNFCCC process can be realised. The petition requests the Committee to place climate-threatened sites on the "List of World Heritage in Danger," to advance research and mitigation strategies to reduce black carbon, and to alert the UNFCCC and others about this threat to World Heritage sites.

"With immediate action, the World Heritage Committee can assist States Parties to reduce emissions of this pollutant and slow the rate of glacial melt and resulting sea level rise that threaten World Heritage sites such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park," said Keely Boom of the Australian Climate Justice Program.

"Because black carbon has an atmospheric lifetime of only days or weeks, reducing emissions has an immediate effect that can slow global warming in the near term," said Jessica Lawrene of Earthjustice. "As our petition outlines, such immediate actoin may be necessary to protect many World Heritage sites such as Waterton Glacier International Peace Park on the U.S./Canada border, the Ilulissat Icefjord in Greenland, and Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, where Mount Everest is located."

Read the petition here:

16 January 2009: The Australian Climate Justice Program, with the support of Greenpeace, has today lodged a complaint with the ACCC over use of the terms "clean coal" and "cleanest diesel" by Linc Energy Limited, which claims to be 'Australia's leader in Clean Coal Technology'. (1) The Environmental Defender's Office has assisted in the drafting of the complaint.

Linc Energy is in the process of developing and commercialising a coal-to-liquids process, using the 'Fischer Tropsch' method, and has a demonstration plant in Chincilla in Queensland. Linc Energy has promoted its diesel as the "world's cleanest diesel" and as having "low CO2 footprint".

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted lifecycle analysis of various alternative to petroleum based fuels, comparing the relative greenhouse gas emissions. The USEPA found that coal-to-liquid fuels, produced using the Fischer Tropsch method to convert coal gas to liquid, generate 118 percent more greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it would replace. (2)

Linc Energy is a relatively large public company in terms of market capital and is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

According to the complaint, Linc Energy may have misled and deceived investors and members of the public about the relative environmental and climate change advantages of Linc Energy's products, particularly Linc Diesel. If the complaint is upheld, Linc Energy could be required to stop using the terms "cleanest diesel" and "clean coal", and be ordered to provide a public statement about the real relative environmental impacts of Linc Diesel.

The Australian Climate Justice Program's Keely Boom said: "If the market is going to have any role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then it is essential that information about the environmental impact of new technologies is accurate."

"We are of the view that investors and members of the public may be misled by representations made by Linc Energy. Under the Trade Practices legislation, such behaviour is against the law and has serious consequences."

For further information contact:

Keely Boom, Australian Climate Justice Program

Email: keely@cana.net.au

(1) See the Linc Energy website here: www.lincenergy.com.au

(2) USEPA, 'Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use', April 2007

12 December 2008: A group of human rights lawyers and academics have urged the Australian Government to adopt a human rights approach to climate change by announcing a target of deeep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 40% or more by 2020 so as to provide global human rights leadership in mitigation action on climate change.

The intervention of the Australian human rights lawyers and academics comes on the eve of the Government's target announcement.

The group, which includes twelve barristers of whom six are Senior Counsels, have sent an open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today, warning him that the "Australian Government needs to avoid harmful emissions nationally" in order to fulfil existing human rights obligations."

Keely Boom of the Australian Climate Justice Program stated: "Australia is a net emitter with the capacity to reduce the risk that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases poses to human rights."

"While Australia has discretion in setting itse reduction targets, given the state of science and the human rights impacts that are highly certain to occur, its is arguable that such discretion is limited by the need for all developed countries to reduce absolute emissions as quickly as possible," Ms Boom explained.

"This groundbreaking activism by the legal profession is a call for the Australian Government to show human rights leadership on climate change"." Ms Boom stated.

"A 40% cut in absolute terms in consistent with what the science is telling us is necessary to avert dangerous impacts on the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, although some argue for even high cuts of 80-90% by 2020."

The open letter noted United Nations work on the human rights situation of Pacific Islanders whose states and territories are threatened with extinction due to the impacts of climate change.

The lawyers who signed the letter are among Australia's leading human rights barristers, including Senior Counsels Fiona McLeod, Brian Walters, Stephen Keim, Jane Needham, Norman O'Bryan and Douglas Murphy. They are joined by high profile barristers Kate Eastman, Matthew Baird, Adam Bandt, Chris McGrath, Aaron Fraatz and Dr Peter Cashman. Dr Cashman is also an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney.

Other signatories included leading academics, such as Professor David Kinley, who is Chair in Human Rights Law at the University of Sydney; Professor Barry W. Brook, who is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at The University of Adelaide; Dr Tim Stephens, who is a Senior Lecturer at the Sydney Centre for International Law at the Unviersity of Sydney; Dr Mark Diesendorf, who is Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales; Ben Boer, former Professor in Environmental Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney and Dr Jane McAdam, Senior Lecturer and Director of International Law Programs at Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.

For further comment:

Keely Boom (Legal Officer, Australian Climate Justice Program)

Mob: 0418884804

18 September 2008: In proceedings taken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Federal Court has declared that GM Holden Ltd made false and misleading claims in its "Grrrrrreen" campaign which promoted the environmentally friendly nature of its Saab range of vehciles.

Between 27 July and 1 September 2007, GM Holden, trading as Saab Australia, published newspaper and magazine advertisements across Australia promoting the Saab range of motor vehicles. The advertisements, under the headline statement "Grrrrrreen", contained the words and phrases, "Grrrrrreen", "Every Saab is green. With carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range" and "Shift to Neutral".

In the advertisements GM Holden represented that it had taken measures so that the carbon dioxide emissions from any Saab motor vehicle would be neutral over the life of that motor vehicle.

In the same advertisements GM Holden represented that in the first year following the purchase of a Saab motor vehicle, GM Holden would plant, on behalf of the purchaser, 17 native trees which would offset the carbon dioxide emissions for the life of that motor vehicle.

In fact, the carbon dioxide emissions from any Saab motor vehicle would not be neutral over the life of that motor vehicle, and the planting of 17 native trees would only provide a carbon dioxide emission offset for a single year's operation of the motor vehicle.

By consent, the Federal Court declared today that GM Holden contravened sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by engaging in misleading conduct. The court also ordered GM Holden to pay the ACCC's costs.

The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from GM Holden. GM Holden has undertaken to refrain from republishing the advertisements; retrain all its Saab marketing staff in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct int he context of 'green' marketing claims to make them aware of their responsibilities under the Act; and have the training reviewed by an independent third party and have the reviewer provide a report to the ACCC about the training.

The original complaint was made by the NSW Greens to the ACCC. The ACJP provided support for this complaint.

The World Heritage Committee has decided to adopt criteria proposed for assessing properties which are most threatened by climate change for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger, nothing that the emphasis of the corrective measures to be recommended should be on "adaptation" rather than on "mitigation".

Decision 32 COM 7A.32 of the Committee approved the amendments to the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Convention.

In June 2008, the Australian Climate Justice Program made a joint submission with the US leading International Environmental Law Project (IELP) to the World Heritage Centre. The submission, which was prepared by Erica Thorson of IELP, sought amendments to the Operational Guidelines to strengthen the application of the World Heritage Convention, incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation issues into the nomination process, enabe emergency nominations for those sites most at risk from the effects of climate change and enhance the reporting and monitoring aspects of management of these important places.

The Australian Climate Justice Program, in conjunction with the Climate Action Network Australia, also lodged the submission to the Australian Federal Government in June 2008.

The World Heritage Committee has identified over 120 cultural and natural sites around the world which are expected to be affected by climate change.

The Australian Climate Justice Program (1), with the support of Greenpeace, has lodged a complaint with the ACCC over HRL Limited's use of the term 'clean coal' in relation to its proposed new brown coal-fired power plant in Victoria. (2)

The proposed 400 MW Latrobe plant was promoted by HRL as a 'clean coal power plant' despite the fact that it would increase Victoria's greenhouse pollution by between 2.4 and 2.7 million tonnes each year according to new data released by Victoria Energy Minister Peter Batchelor (3). The coal proposal has already attracted $150 million worth of subsidies from the Victorian and Federal governments. (4)

According to the complaint, HRL has misled and deceived the public, in breach of the Trade Practices Act, by labelling what in reality is a heavily polluting proposal as 'clean'. The ACCC has launched an investigation and is writing to HRL to seek relevant documents. If the complaint is upheld, HRL could be forced to stop using the term 'clean coal', and publicly retract its previous statements.

The Australian Climate Justice Program's Phil Freeman said: "HRL's PR machine made sure the proposal was widely reported as a 'clean coal' power station. In fact the HRL project, if it proceeds, would be just as dirty as a black coal-fired power station, twice as dirty as a gas-fired power station and infinitely dirtier than a renewable energy alternative such as wind power.

"HRL's use of the term 'clean coal' is against the law and has serious consequences. Consumers are less likely to buy Greenpower products, and taxpayer funds are being stolen from renewable energy projects that really are clean. HRL is also using 'clean coal' as a smokescreen to try and slip a dirty and otherwise controversial project past the public and regulators."

Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham said: "It's ludicrous that HRL are calling a plant that would pump out 2.5 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution each year 'clean'. The use of the term 'clean coal' is not only misleading and deceptive - it's also a dangerous distraction from real action on climate change. Instead of putting $150 million into genuinely clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, the Federal and State Governments are conspiring with the coal industry to support the myth of 'clean coal'.

"This is just as wrong as tobacco companies calling mild cigarettes 'healthy'. The ACCC wouldn't let the tobacco companies claim that there were selling 'healthy cigarettes' so it shouldn't let polluters get away with using the term 'clean coal'. Commercial proposals to catch pollution from coal-fired power stations are decades away, if they ever eventuate. In the meantime there is no such thing as 'clean coal' and the law needs to catch up."

For further information contact:

Louise Clifton, Greenpeace media officer 0438 204041

Mark Wakeham, Greenpeace energy campaigner 0409 542753

Phil Freeman, Australian Climate Justice Program 0438 043049

Footnotes

(1) The ACJP uses the law to fight for climate protection (www.cana.net.au/ACJP). It is based at Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), and linked to the London-based international Climate Justice Programme (www.climatelaw.org).

(2) HRL & a Chinese Joint Venture partner plan to build a 400 MW brown coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria. The HRL Power Station would be fired with brown coal using IDGCC technology. While the IDGCC would (if successful) be regarded as an improvement on conventional brown coal fired power generation, it is no cleaner than black coal fired power generation and substantially dirtier than other forms of power generation such as gas and wind-powered generation. HRL has not announced any plan to de-commission an existing conventional brown coal fired power generation in conjunction with the commissioning of the HRL proposal.

(3) Hansard 21 June 2007 Victorian Legislative Council: Energy and resources: clean coal power. For the purposes of comparison, the proposal would put over 3 times more greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere than will be saved under the Federal Government's plan to phase out incandescent light bulbs in Australia (0.8 tonnes/year).

(4) The Victorian Government has committed to $50 million and the Federal Government $100 million to the $700 million project. In effect, 21.4% of the cost is being borne by taxpayers. Neither Government appears to have sought an equity share of the project (and any profits) in return for their investment. At the same time, HRL CEO Gordon Carter indicated that the project would be economically competitive: "the project would deliver lower greenhouse emissions at a lower power cost than any other existing coal-fired power technology in Australia." (HRL media release dated 17/11/06).

Climate change poses a direct threat to the World Heritage-listed eucalypt forests of the Blue Mountains and urgent steps must be taken to protect it, a petition to the World Heritage Committee states.

The petition calls for the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to be listed as ‘in danger’ and for urgent action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions. It is signed by the Climate Action Network Australia, Greenpeace, the NSW Nature Conservation Council and Friends of the Earth.

“Our iconic Blue Mountains could turn black if we do not act quickly to limit the impacts of climate change,” legal co-ordinator for the Climate Action Network Australia, Phillip Freeman said.

The petition highlights the fact that eucalypt forests in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area are among the most fire-dependant forest ecosystems in the world and that more frequent and intense fires as a result of climate change threaten the survival of many species.

“Climate change will increase temperatures and lead to more wildfires. If this happens, the natural beauty and scientific value of the Blue Mountains will deteriorate and this threatens its status as a World Heritage Area.”

An ‘in danger’ listing would result in a program of corrective measures being developed and implemented, including a plan to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The petition calls for Australia to introduce a price on carbon emissions, commit to reducing its greenhouse emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2020 and increase its renewable energy target from 2 per cent to 25 per cent by 2020.

Click here to download the Executive Summary of the Petition.

Click here to download the full Petition

Click here to download the Petition covernote

The ACJP is supporting QCC's appeal against the decision of the Queensland Land Resources Tribunal to recommend that the XStrata Newlands mine be approved without any conditions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The appeal was made to the Queensland Court of Appeal on 14 March 2007, and is listed for hearing by the Court of Appeal in Brisbane on 9 August 2007.

Click here for further information on the appeal

During 2003 and 2004 the ACJP ran a successful legal campaign against the Redbank 2 coal power proposal. The campaign was conducted with the support of 8 key environmental organisations (including WWF and Greenpeace). Following a sustained and coordinated campaign, the proposal was rejected by the NSW Government principally on greenhouse grounds. This was the first time that potentially adverse climate change impacts had been used to justify the rejection of a coal power proposal in Australia.

When the proponent company appealed the Government's decision in the Land & Environment Court, CANA joined the litigation. The company subsequently abandoned its appeal, and the proposal was defeated.