Multimillion Dollar Companies Backing Environmental Activists for Profit: Report
Many of the high-profile challenges by environmental activist groups against major projects are being backed by litigation funders—large, mostly foreign-owned companies that fund legal fees and other expenses in return for a significant share of any damages and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
A report by the Menzies Research Centre, Open Lawfare, claims the cost of delays caused by actions filed against various developments was $1.2 billion (US$809 million) in 2016.
However, between August 2022 and June 2024, this had rocketed to $17.48 billion and placed almost 30,000 jobs at risk.
Projects affected by environmental activism, August 2022 to June 2024
Project State Industrial output value ($m) Employment
Angus Place Coal Mine NSW 354.9 613
Baralaba South Coal Mine QLD 600.0 613
China Stone Coal Mine QLD 11,323.0 19,564
Glendell Coal Mine NSW 354.9 613
Hunter Valley Operations North NSW 845.0 1,460
Hunter Valley Operations South NSW 845.0 1,460
Mount Pleasant Coal Mine NSW 1,605.5 2,744
Narrabri Underground Mine NSW 709.8 1,226
Winchester South Coal Mine QLD 845.0 1,460
Total 17,483.1 29,784
At the same time, the revenue of Australia’s 25 largest environmental groups increased from $112.8 million in 2015 to $274.5 million in 2023, and their full-time staff had gone from 374 to 880.
Australia is the second-largest jurisdiction in the world for what the Menzies Centre calls “environmental lawfare,” behind only the United States. On a per capita basis, it has the largest number of climate-related lawsuits—127 such actions were launched in Australia from the 1990s to 2022.
The report contains detailed case studies of the effects of lawsuits on five recent proposals, including Waratah Coal’s development of a thermal coal mine in the Galilee Basin, dropped by the company in February 2023 after more than three years of litigation.
Additionally, there was the Santos’s Barossa Gas Project, a $5.8 billion plan that was finally given approval in January 2024, after nearly three years of litigation.
Also at risk is the $16.5 billion Woodside Energy Scarborough Gas Project in Western Australia, which the Australian Conservation Foundation claims would endanger the Great Barrier Reef on Australia’s eastern coastline.
“Australian courts increasingly serve as forums for activist groups to pursue ideological agendas,” the Menzies Centre claims, adding that “courts are increasingly asked to decide essentially ideological claims pursued by activists.”
It cites a case in which eight 16-year-olds from Victoria asked the Federal Court to prevent the approval of the Vickery coal mine extension in northern New South Wales because the minister owed them a duty of care to avoid personal harm to children by climate change.
Australians Concerned By Judicial Decision-Making
A survey commissioned by the Centre found that 82 percent of Australians were “somewhat” or “very” concerned that judges may be making decisions based on motives other than a strict interpretation of the law, with 26 percent in the latter category.
The class actions, the Menzies Centre claims, are largely underwritten by multi-million dollar, mostly foreign-owned litigation funders.
These companies pay the ongoing legal costs of a class action in the expectation of receiving a large portion of any damages awarded by the court. There are an estimated 22 such companies in Australia, 14 of which are owned offshore.
They derive margins of well over 200 percent on their investments, and their fees—together with those of a relatively small number of “no-win-no-fee” law firms—sometimes leave the plaintiffs with less than half the amount to which they would otherwise be entitled.
Matt Corrigan, General Counsel of the Australian Law Reform Commission, testified in 2020 to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services that there was “a legitimate policy question as to the use of judicial resources to secure small sums for individual group members while creating enormous returns to lawyers and funders.”
The government committed $10 million in funding for environmental “lawfare” groups between 2022 and 2026, which was confirmed in the 2024 Budget.
Santos Pursues Environment Group After Failed Case
One example of a failed case concerns the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), which represented some Tiwi Islanders, the plaintiffs, who opposed Santos’ Barossa Gas Project.
The EDO, which funded the case, was sharply criticised by a judge in the ruling for “coaching” witnesses, lying to plaintiffs, and giving evidence “so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed [on it].”
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek sought independent legal advice on the conduct of the EDO following the judge’s adverse opinion, but found it had not breached the conditions of its $8.2 million in federal funding.
However, Santos is preparing to sue the group for damages.
The energy company recently had a major win when the same judge ruled that the EDO must hand over communications with one of its witnesses and with other environmental organisations.
The gas company claimed the EDO was “itself an activist organisation and not merely the lawyer for the applicants in the proceeding” and that “the outcome sought by the applicants in the proceeding aligned with its own political or ideological objectives.”
Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam and Salmon Tasmania are also calling for the EDO to be defunded after it called on the federal government to “reconsider” whether the salmon farming industry has all the environmental approvals it requires to operate.
“Green lawfare is not limited to class-action cases; all over Australia, activist groups take advantage of laws that purport to protect the environment to block projects—including renewable energy projects—on ideological grounds,” the report said.
*************************************************
UK: Analysts Welcome Labour’s Onshore Wind Planning Reform But Question Prices Claim
Energy analysts welcomed the Labour government’s lifting of the “de facto ban” on onshore wind but questioned claims of reducing prices.
Plans unveiled by new Chancellor Rachel Reeves on Monday said the government is “committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030.”
She said that an “absurd ban on new onshore wind farms” in England has been scrapped and energy projects will be given priority in the planning system.
‘De Facto Ban’
Previous rules under the former Conservative government in 2015 meant that any application to build wind turbines needed to have the clear backing of the community.
In September last year, former Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities Secretary Michael Gove loosened the restrictions in a bid to accelerate onshore wind projects where there is local support despite views of “a small number of objectors.”
The Labour government characterised this as a de facto ban on onshore wind in England and said that those rules are now removed.
Om Monday net zero minster Ed Miliband posted on the social media platform X that this “government was elected with a mandate to take immediate action to boost Britain’s energy independence.”
“The onshore wind ban is a symbol of how bad decisions in the last fourteen years have put up energy bills for families,” he said, adding, “Today, it ends.”
Welcome Reform to Planning Rules
Chief Operating Officer and energy analyst at the Institute of Economic Affairs Andy Meyer told The Epoch Times by email that he welcomed the ease of planning rules, which he hoped would be also used to “radically reform” nuclear permitting.
“The lifting of this ban is a welcome reform to planning rules that should reduce the time and cost of one source of future energy supply. This is a good thing,” he said.
“Whether it reduces future energy bills however depends more on the generosity of any support package, and associated costs of grid connection and back-up when the wind isn’t blowing,” he added.
He said that recently the cost of onshore wind subsidies rose 66 percent, that National Grid wants to spend £30 billion over the next five years, and capacity spending is expected to more than triple by the end of 2028.
“All this before the added cost of Labour’s 2030 net zero grid acceleration plan,” he added.
He said that consistent planning reform for affordable secure energy would also see “the moratorium on fracking lifted, ditching the proposed ban on new North Sea fields, and radical reform of nuclear permitting.”
Utility energy analyst Steve Loftus told The Epoch Times that he welcomed Labour’s “vigour” in removing regulations that stop building.
“I only hope that they are as keen to deregulate other sectors to increase productivity. Nuclear for example,” he said.
“However, onshore wind is a poor quality source of electricity, with low load factors and high external costs that requires 100 percent fossil fuel backup,” he added.
Done in the Right Way
The energy industry and Green MPs said that Labour had “taken a step in the right direction.”
Industry body RenewableUK’s Chief Executive Dan McGrail claimed that owing to advances in tech in modern turbines doubling onshore wind would not mean twice as many across the British countryside.
“This shows that the new government is determined to act fast to tackle some of the longstanding barriers which have held the UK back on developing vital new clean energy infrastructure,” he said.
Green Party co-leader and newly elected MP Adrian Ramsay said: “Absolutely we need to see more renewable energy in the UK of various sorts, done in the right way, and so Labour have taken a step in the right direction with that today.
*********************************************
Why the World Needs Fossil Fuels
It’s summer, and the Sierra Club says: “This is climate change in action. We are living it.”
The United Nations’ secretary-general declares that “a fossil fuel phaseout is inevitable.” And The Lancet, a respected medical journal, insists that nations must swiftly transition away from hydrocarbons.
These groups call for reducing use of fossil fuels to tackle the climate crisis. But the downside of reducing fossil fuels is that poverty would rise, especially in emerging economies.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
In emerging economies, energy poverty deprives hundreds of millions of people of a decent quality of life.
Over 700 million globally lack access to electricity, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. About 2 billion still rely on solid fuels such as wood and dung for cooking, leading to around 3.2 million premature deaths annually from harmful pollutants.
In many regions, women and children spend an average of 1.4 hours every day collecting these fuels, and even more time cooking on inefficient stoves.
Energy poverty deprives emerging economies of opportunities to grow. Modern economies rely on cement, steel, plastics, and fertilizers, often termed “four pillars of civilization.” These pillars are essential for infrastructure (such as highways and factories) and basic goods (such as refrigerators and food).
Fossil fuels provide the high temperature needed for cement production, turn iron to steel, convert to petrochemicals such as ethylene and propylene to make plastics, and produce ammonia for fertilizers.
Therefore, in an energy-impoverished world, people want more fossil fuel.
Maggy Shino, petroleum commissioner of Namibia, speaking at the U.N.’s 27th climate change conference, called COP 27, perfectly summed up what many Africans think: “Africa,” she said, “wants to send a message that we are going to develop all of our energy resources for the benefit of our people because our issue is energy poverty.”
India, the world’s most populous country, with 1.4 billion people, understands the need for greater use of fossil fuels. India’s per capita energy consumption is merely 20% of China’s and 8% of America’s.
India’s fossil fuel consumption increased by 8% in 2023. For the first time, India used more coal than North America and Europe combined.
U.S. electric utilities have doubled projections for additional electricity needed by 2028, primarily driven by an explosion in the number of data centers. America will require an additional 38 gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to about 38 typical nuclear power plants, within the next five years to meet this demand.
Similarly, other modernized economies are experiencing increased energy demands because of technological advancements and growing digitalization.
To meet the explosive increase in global energy demand, fossil fuels and nuclear power remain the most cost-effective sources. Renewable energy sources, especially solar and wind, are not reliable on their own because they are intermittent and require fossil fuel backups.
Additionally, while solar and wind power primarily generate electricity, fossil fuels offer versatility by being suitable not only for generating electricity but also for transportation, heating, industrial processes, and materials. The belief that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels and meet explosive energy demand is unrealistic.
The International Energy Agency projects that global demand for fossil fuels will peak before 2030. However, that’s simply driven by wishful thinking rather than reality.
Instead, fossil fuel demand will continue to grow in the decades ahead as developing countries increase their energy consumption to alleviate poverty and as developed nations expand their digital economies, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence.
Americans shouldn’t fall into the misguided view that the age of fossil fuels is ending. In reality, fossil fuels are essential for both the developing and developed worlds, fostering prosperity and economic growth.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/07/08/gae-fossil-fuels/
**********************************************The theology of gas: LNG bad, LPG good
Keeping up with the Greenie religion
It is a little-known fact that liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is not included in Victoria’s natural gas (LNG) phaseouts, which means the clean, green gas will play a major role in Australia’s pathway towards net zero carbon emissions.
This is why Brett Heffernan, CEO of Gas Energy Australia, was optimistic about the potential of LPG in powering homes across the country.
“From our perspective, there’s nothing but upside,” he told The Epoch Times. “Not a lot of people know what’s happening in Victoria, and it’s fair to say the Victorian government isn’t singing it from the rooftops.
“But in terms of the ban on new gas connections that came into effect from Jan. 1, LPG is exempt.”
According to Gas Energy Australia’s website, “green gases will transform how we work, relax and play, ensuring families and businesses can continue to reliably and affordably use gas—renewable, zero-emitting gases—to 2050 and beyond.”
The industry already generates over $121 billion (US$81 billion) in economic activity, while fuelling 7 million homes.
LPG differs from liquefied natural gas (LNG) in its composition and contains double the energy content of natural gas, making it cheaper in many cases.
Government’s Bid To Phase Out Natural Gas
The CEO added that state governments—particularly the Victorian government—have “made it pretty clear that they see no future for natural gas in residential and commercial settings.”
“They see natural gas being used purely and simply for industrial uses, and as backup for electricity generation.”
Under the Victorian government’s Gas Substitution Plan, natural gas connections are banned in all new estates from Jan. 1 of this year.
However, the state Liberal opposition criticised this restriction as one that would only add to the national cost-of-living crisis.
“Premier Jacinta Allan and Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio are oblivious to the pain of Victorians during the cost-of-living crisis that Labor has made worse,” Shadow Minister for Energy David Davis, said as the new law came in.
“Their new gas plan will hit families and small businesses even harder, forcing up energy costs further, as Victorians pay the price for Labor’s mismanagement.”
What Does LPG Do?
LPG is a fuel gas that contains a flammable mixture of hydrocarbon gases, specifically propane, n-butane and isobutane. It is used in heating appliances, cooking equipment, and vehicles.
Clean, odourless, and colourless, LPG is typically 85-90 per cent methane, which contains less carbon than other forms of fossil fuels.
“And what that means is when you burn it, the only C02 that gets emitted is the C02 that you took out of the atmosphere to make it in the first place,” Mr. Heffernan said.
It Does Have Its Critics
Despite being a source of clean energy, not everyone is convinced that LPG is the way forward to power homes or cars.
Environment Victoria CEO Jono La Nauze stands against all forms of gas usage on Australia’s net-zero journey.
“Pretending gas is a climate solution is a throwback to the Scott Morrison era and is straight out of the gas lobby playbook,” he said in a statement.
“Gas is an expensive disaster for our climate and our health. We already know that burning gas at home has health impacts on the level of second-hand smoke and is responsible for 12 percent of all childhood asthma in Australia.”
While the Climate Council has echoed similar figures and has consistently opposed any future gas development in the country.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment