Polling conducted in mid-August found seven in ten (72%) Aussies think extreme weather events made worse by global warming in Australia (e.g. floods, bushfires etc.) are currently increasing insurance premiums, including 32% who say it’s significantly increasing premiums.

That level of concern looks set to worsen as almost three quarters (74%) of Aussies think extreme weather events will increase insurance premiums by 2020, including 39% who expect it will significantly increase premiums.

“Whether it’s the historic floods of Queensland or the terrifying mega fires that tore into the heart of rural Victorian communities, Australian communities are already feeling the impact of extreme weather, just as IPCC modelling predicted,” said Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International Climate and Energy Campaigner. 

“While the mining industry is patting itself on the back for having successfully removed the Mining Tax, it is clear Australian communities have made the link between fossil fuel emissions and extreme weather events that are devastating communities, here and across the globe.”

“That’s why Greenpeace is calling for the introduction of an extreme weather levy to be paid by the companies that are profiting from fossil fuels, the coal, gas and oil companies.”

The polling has also found three quarters (76%) of Australians disagree that fossil fuel companies should be allowed to pollute the air for free (excluding ‘don’t knows’, 86% disagree, 14% agree).

And two thirds (66%) of Australians agree the directors of fossil fuel companies that are found to have misled the public about the impact of pollution on global warming should be held legally accountable (excluding those with no opinion, 78% agree, 22% disagree). 

“These results send a very clear message the broader community is no longer willing to tolerate company executives who deal in spin and dissembling to talk down the impacts of climate change while profiting from its creation,” continued Minshull. “And makes it clear the issue of pricing carbon pollution is still one the community wants resolved.”

For further information contact

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International: international mobile 31646162025

Julie Macken Media Officer Greenpeace Australia Pacific: 0400 925 217.

“We now know that carbon emissions played a major role in the extreme heatwave of 2013,” said Greenpeace Climate Campaigner, Dr Nikola Čašule.

“And today - after the two hottest consecutive September days on record - we have also been warned by the Sky News Severe Weather Report that we are in for a scorching summer with above average temperatures and a ‘heightened risk of bushfires’.”

“It is irresponsible in the extreme for the Abbott government to leave Australian families vulnerable to the devastating impacts of extreme heat and fires when it has the capacity to take action.”

“The RET has already proved itself to be popular, effective and has had a real impact on our carbon emissions – all of which puts Australian families in a better position to deal with a future compromised by dangerous global warming.”

“That’s why we are calling on the Prime Minister to act in the interests of the community, not the fossil fuel lobby by retaining the RET and getting on the front foot in building a climate resilient Australia.”

The full report 'Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Pespective' is available here.

For further information contact:

Greenpeace Climate Campaigner Dr Nikola Čašule: 0428 769 307

Greenpeace media officer Julie Macken: 0400 925 217

Under the proposal, millions of tonnes of seabed would be dredged from the World Heritage Area and dumped on the Caley Valley wetlands – home to over 40,000 water birds.

“At the behest of a coal company, the Queensland Government has created a proposal to dredge the Reef and dump it in the Caley Valley wetlands in order to fast-track the controversial expansion of Abbot Point coal terminal,” said Greenpeace Reef campaigner Shani Tager.

“A colander has fewer holes than this dredging proposal,” said Ms Tager. “There has been no assessment on the impacts of dumping this acid sulphate dredge spoil on vulnerable species such as the Australian painted snipe, or endangered turtle breeding habitat.

“Adani, the Indian coal company behind the new Abbot Point coal terminal, has been holding the Queensland and Federal Governments to ransom over this development, threatening to pull out unless their demands are met. Greg Hunt has rolled over, again failing to stand up to Adani and its Reef wrecking agenda.”

Minister Hunt’s decision comes amidst financial uncertainty over the future of the new Abbot Point coal terminal. This week, some of the world’s largest investment banks ruled out financing the development.

“Despite all of the concerns by UNESCO, scientists and the Australian community, dredging for Adani’s proposed new mega coal port in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area will not even require a full environmental impact assessment. It’s an outrage,” Ms Tager said.

“Millions of Australians want to protect the Great Barrier Reef from coal developments. We need to let them know we will not take this lying down.”

Greenpeace’s submission to Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the revised dumping and dredging plans at Abbot Point is available here.
Queensland Government dredging and dumping proposal is available here
Queensland Government wetland proposal is available here

For comment, please call: Shani Tager, 0432 050 809
Photographs of the Caley Valley wetlands and Abbot Point available at: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19146 Username: photos Password: green

For interviews or more information, contact: Elsa Evers 0438 204 041

During Greenpeace’s three month campaign, more than one million people signed a petition calling on LEGO to stop promoting Shell’s brand because of its plans to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic. In stark contrast to Shell, LEGO’s policies include a commitment to produce more renewable energy than they use, phase out oil in their products and, in cooperation with its partners, leave a better world for future generations [3].

In its statement, LEGO argued the dispute was between Greenpeace and Shell. However, Greenpeace insists that while LEGO is doing the right thing under public pressure, it should choose its partners more carefully when it comes to the threats facing our children from climate change. Due to contractual obligations, LEGO’s current co-promotion with Shell will be honoured.

Ian Duff, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is a major blow to Shell. It desperately needs partners like LEGO to help give it respectability and repair the major brand damage it suffered after its last Arctic misadventure. Lego’s withdrawal from a 50 year relationship with Shell clearly shows that strategy will not work.”

“The tide is turning for these fossil fuel dinosaurs that see the melting Arctic as ripe for exploitation rather than protection. The message should be clear; your outdated, climate wrecking practices are no longer socially acceptable, and you need to keep away from the Arctic or face being ostracised by society.”

LEGO is the latest in a line of leading global companies to walk away from a relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In late 2012 Waitrose announced it has put its partnership with Shell on ice [4] and in the last month Microsoft, Google and Facebook all made commitments to end their support for ALEC, a controversial lobby group that campaigns against climate change legislation [5]. Only weeks ago, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it will begin pulling its investments in the fossil fuel industry [6].

In September, Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter accompanied Kiribati President Anote Tong to the Arctic to highlight its importance to countries on the climate change front line. "The Arctic may seem distant, but it's health is vital to all of us," said Ritter. "Lego's decision is yet another clear sign that the world is turning its back on companies such as Shell who are putting the Arctic - and our future - at risk."

Shell’s past attempts to drill in the Arctic have been plagued with multiple operational failings culminating in the running aground of its drilling rig, the Kulluk. The extreme Arctic conditions, including giant floating ice-bergs and stormy seas, make offshore drilling extremely risky. And scientists say that in the Arctic, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up meaning devastation for the Arctic’s unique wildlife [7].

But on 28 August 2014 Shell submitted new plans to the US administration for offshore exploratory drilling in the Alaskan Arctic [8], meaning it’s on course to resurrect its Arctic drilling plans as early as summer 2015.

In the past two years, a massive global movement has emerged calling for a sanctuary around the North Pole, to protect the Arctic and its unique wildlife from the onslaught of oil drilling and industrial fishing. More than six million people have joined the movement, and more than 1,000 influential people have signed an Arctic Declaration, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Emma Thompson and Sir Paul McCartney.

On 19 September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, met with Arctic campaigners to receive a global petition and said he would consider convening an international summit to discuss the issue of Arctic protection.

Contact for media requests: James Lorenz on 0418 408 683

Note to editors:

As part of the campaign, Greenpeace released a video LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome which reached nearly six million views. The video was temporarily taken down from YouTube because of a copyright complaint which was later withdrawn.

www.savethearctic.org

Report: LEGO is keeping bad company: no more playdates with Shell
Media briefing: Shell’s threat to the Arctic 

End notes: 
[1] Lego statement

[2] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014 
[3] LEGO’s values, see http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/sustainability/our-approach 
[4] You did it! Waitrose puts Shell relationship on ice, Greenpeace, 2012 
[5] Facebook set to become latest tech giant to abandon rightwing lobby group Alec, Guardian, 2014 
[6] Rockefellers go green: Rockefeller foundation divests funds in fossil fuel industries, Independent, 2014  
[7] Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, The PEW Charitable Trusts, 2010
[8] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014

Campaign for clearer seafood labelling by top enviro groups, chefs, academics, celebs

16 October 2015. Peak environment groups, top chefs, fishers, academics and celebrities are calling for more accurate labelling of seafood in Australia, with the launch of the ‘Label My Fish’ campaign in Sydney today.

The Label My Fish Alliance is demanding improved consumer protection laws to require clear labelling of all seafood, including what fish it is, where it is from and how it was caught or farmed. Clearer labelling in fish shops, takeaways and restaurants will help protect public health, boost the Australian fishing industry and preserve fish for the future.

Members of the new alliance include Greenpeace, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Taronga and Zoos Victoria and the SEA LIFE Conservation Fund, campaigning with Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans.  Prominent individuals backing the campaign include actor Richard Roxburgh, Quay Chef Peter Gilmore, MoVida chef Frank Camorra and NY Times best-selling ‘I Quit Sugar’ author Sarah Wilson.

A Senate Inquiry into seafood labelling is now underway, due to report on 4 December.

Greenpeace CEO David Ritter says,“Australia’s seafood labelling laws are weak and consumers are in the dark about what seafood they’re buying and eating. Most Australians think they’re purchasing Australian seafood, when the reality is we now import approximately 70 per cent from overseas.

“Simple measures, requiring labelling of what fish we are eating, where it is from and how it was caught, are long overdue and will bring Australia into line with the European Union.

“Recent research by Greenpeace shows, for example, that the Aussie ‘flathead’ we think we are eating may well be an imported, cheaper South American fish, of a completely different family, bottom trawled in Argentinean waters.  But there is often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to reveal the truth.”

Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans said,“Imagine a menu that offered ‘mammal and root vegetable’, or ‘bird and green leaf’. It would be considered ridiculous. In Australia you can simply write ‘fish’ on a menu, without much of a problem.

“Some seafood we eat damages our marine environment, is produced by people under unfair conditions and may carry risks to our health.  

“What we really need is to know just what's on our plates. Only then can we make decisions about what we put in our mouths, making choices that will also help protect our oceans.”

Pavo Walker, a commercial tuna fisherman from Queensland, said, “Not every seafood product on the market is a good choice for consumers.  Giving the public more information about what fish they're buying and eating will help our oceans and local fishers".

Australian Marine Conservation Society Director Darren Kindleysides said,“AMCS has been producing Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide for a decade now. It’s clear that Australians want to do the right thing and choose sustainable seafood, but our current seafood labelling system means they are generally fishing in the dark.

“Shark, sold as ‘flake’ and popular in fish and chip shops, could be anything from Australian caught gummy shark to a threatened species of shark.

“As the public cannot tell if they are buying from seafood producers fishing with an eye on the future, it’s harder for sustainable fishers to reap the market rewards.

“These simple and inexpensive reforms are long overdue. AMCS have been calling for improvements in seafood labelling for a decade. We now have a real opportunity to take our labelling laws into the 21st century, so the public can know at all points of sale what fish they are choosing, where is came from and how it was produced.”

Visit www.labelmyfish.com for more information, a background report (includes detailed case studies of poor labelling) and a growing list of high profile supporters.

Contact: Alison Orme Greenpeace Media 0432 332 104 - alison.orme@greenpeace.org

Case studies: the impact of weak seafood labelling laws on consumers

Flathead. ‘Flathead’ is popular in fish and chip shops, restaurants and retailed as frozen fillets.  But when we buy ‘flathead’ it may well be an imported South American fish, of a completely different family (Percophis brasiliensis).  The imported ‘flathead’ is much cheaper - up to $20 per kilo less. But there’s often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to indicate you’re not buying Aussie flathead, but a cheap imitation caught by destructive bottom trawling in Argentinean waters.

Barramundi. Australians rate barramundi as their favourite fish in restaurants.About 90 per cent of us believe the barramundi we are consuming is Australian yet over two thirds of the barramundi we eat is imported from Asia. 

Mercury in fish. Some fish contain high and potentially unsafe levels of mercury. Too much mercury can harm pregnant women and young children. For this reason government authorities recommend that pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and children restrict the amount they eat of certain species, including shark (flake), catfish and orange roughy. If Australians are not told which species they’re eating they are unable to act on warnings.

Orange roughy. ‘Orange roughy’ (Hoplostethus atlanticus) is very sensitive to overfishing and has been overfished in the past. Environment groups advise against eating it but conscientious consumers can’t do the right thing because it goes by a number of names on restaurant menus, including ‘deep sea perch’ and ‘sea perch’.

Squid and octopus. Australian squid and octopus fisheries are generally considered to have healthy stocks that can be harvested in a way that causes relatively little harm to the environment. Despite what many of us think though, around 80 per cent of the squid and octopus we eat is caught overseas. The product comes from fisheries which are often overfished, subject to inferior fishery management schemes and harvested in a damaging way - squid via trawling and octopus via bottom trawling - leading to bycatch concerns. But can you tell an Australian squid or octopus from its imported cousin? 

“Whitehaven Coal has done the near impossible,” said Greenpeace Climate & Energy campaigner, Nic Clyde. “They have managed to so alienate local farmers, the Traditional Owners of the Leard State Forest, large environmental groups, religious leaders, doctors and war veterans that an historic alliance is now working together to oppose the company and its product – coal.”

The report finds in an already difficult investment conditions, WHC faces four specific disadvantages:

1. WHC lacks a social licence to operate, guaranteeing ongoing opposition

2. WHC has become a focus of the national and global fossil fuel divestment campaign

3. WHC is a pure play coal company, with zero diversification to insulate against the structural decline of coal

4. The company’s green field Maules Creek mine is the largest new open cut coal mine currently under construction in Australia. In a carbon-constrained world the commercial risk for WHC is that established mines, with infrastructure close to ports and end use power plants, will have a competitive claim on markets.

“The fact that WHC’s CEO, Paul Flynn, refers to the divestment movement as ’green imperialism’ shows how little the company understands the situation it is in,” said 350.org CEO, Blair Palese. “The global divestment movement is highlighting the risks posed by a business-as-usual approach to the consumption of fossil fuels and of course the worst behaved companies fit that frame better than any others,” concluded Palese.

“Climate change is an essentially moral issue so it’s no great leap of the imagination to see why religious people are taking stand,” said Thea Ormerod, head of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change.

“WHC’s treatment of local farming community, the Traditional Owners and the way the company has sought to get away with clearing in winter, speaks volumes about its attitude to the community. Is it any wonder large sections of the community have withdrawn their support for such a destructive company,” concluded Ormerod.

“An open cut mine is hardly a fly-by-night proposition,” said Clyde. “And opposition to this mine and the company will continue into the foreseeable future. Investors have every right to feel deeply disappointed in this controversial company.”

On 2 November, 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release its Synthesis Report of the findings of its Fifth Assessment Report. The IPCC report will warn that “continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” It is this global dynamic that WHC needs to deal with.

The report, Whitehaven Coal: No Future is available here.

For further information contact:

Greenpeace Climate & Energy campaigner, Nic Clyde: 0438 282 409
CEO 350.org, Blair Palese: 0414 659 511
ARRCC, Thea Ormerod: 0407 526 342
Greenpeace media officer, Julie Macken: 0400 925 217

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Citi bank has baulked at funding Abbot Point. A further three banks, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, have expressed serious concerns about the impact the project will have on the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef and cast doubt over their future involvement.

The move by major U.S. banks follows similar statements by Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays and signals that the Adani Group and GVK may be unsuccessful in their bid to secure an estimated $26.5 billion in external financing necessary for the planned expansion of coal export facilities and associated mine and rail infrastructure at Abbot Point, on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

Australian NGOs - including the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Greenpeace, 350.org, Lock the Gate, GetUp, SumOfUs, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Birdlife Australia and Friends of the Earth - have congratulated the US banks, and called on Australia’s Big 4 to follow suit.

Sam Mclean, National Director of GetUp! said: "Today's news shows the campaign to save the Reef is a truly global one. It's incredible to think the biggest banks in the world will protect our Reef, but our own Australian banks won't. It’s time for them to step up.” 

Lucy Manne, National Co-director of The Australian Youth Climate Coalition said: "The big banks spend millions on marketing campaigns designed to attract young customers - but young Australians want to see the Great Barrier Reef and our climate protected."

David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As international banks back away from the controversial new Abbot Point coal terminal, Adani is scrambling for cash. The company is even considering selling some of its assets to fund the new terminal.”

Blair Palese of 350.org Australia said: “If the banks don’t distance themselves from these projects, then their customers and investors will distance themselves from the banks.”

Felicity Wishart, Great Barrier Reef campaign director with the Australian Marine Conservation Society said: "It’s now time for the Australian and Queensland governments to stop giving this project special treatment, stop the efforts to fast track it and acknowledge the serious environmental risk this port expansion poses to the health of the Reef.”

Over 2 million people worldwide have taken action to protect the Great Barrier Reef from coal developments.

For comment please contact:

Lucy Manne, AYCC, 0417 387 516, David Ritter, Greenpeace, 0407 997 657, Sam Mclean, GetUp,0499 319 385, Blair Palese, 350.org, 0414659511, Felicity Wishart, AMCS, 0408 222 746

For video or images, go to:

Images: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19146

username: photos  password: green

Video: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19188

username: photos  password: green

Use "Add movie to cart" to download zipfile

“The test for all action – or inaction – on climate change is:  will it see Australia contribute to the global effort to keep warming under two degrees above pre-industrial levels,” said Greenpeace Climate Campaigner Nic Clyde.

“The repeal of the Carbon Price at a time when climate change is already affecting Australia is an act of blind irrationality. The fact that we are seeing such sensible measures as the Renewable Energy Target, ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation also come under attack is simply extraordinary. It calls into serious question the Government’s willingness to meet their own 2020 reduction target.”
 
“Protecting the Renewable Energy Target should be a no-brainer. It’s an effective mechanism to cut pollution that also reduces consumers’ electricity prices,” said Clyde. “The target means billions of dollars in investment for Australia and thousands of new jobs.”

 “As the rest of the world moves to tackle climate change, Australia remains wedded to fossil fuels, particularly coal. As the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal and the world’s second largest thermal coal exporter by volume, we risk being left behind as the rest of the world moves to embrace clean energy.

 “Already, Australian coal mines are closing as the global coal market deteriorates. Australia must begin preparing for a future, and economy, after coal.

“A Carbon Price and clean energy policies such as the Renewable Energy Target will help drive the transition to a clean energy economy in Australia,” said Clyde.
 
Notes:
The Climate Change Authority was blunt in its assessment of a 5 per cent target: “a 5 per cent target for 2020 would not be a credible start by Australia towards achieving the below 2 degree goal.[1]

“If confirmed, this is good news for the local community, the tourism industry and the vast majority of Australians who opposed the plan to dump waste in the Great Barrier Reef Park”, said Adam Walters, Greenpeace Head of Research.

But Mr Walters warned that the threat to the Reef remained and called on Commonwealth Environment Minister Greg Hunt to act.

“If the reports are true, the cheapest, most destructive option for expanding Abbot Point may have been taken off the table - but the threat from coal industry expansion plans is still urgent.



“Expanding the port - with its associated dredging - will bring with it damaging dredge plumes, destruction of sea grass beds, impacts for wetlands, increased shipping and will drive the greatest threat to the Reef which is climate change.”

Walters also pointed to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the project.

“Since North Queensland Bulk Ports first sought approval for dredging at Abbot Point, the proposal has changed significantly.

“One of the associated three coal terminal proposals has been cancelled, GVK’s coal terminal has been delayed, and Adani’s proposal has doubled in size.

“Given the confusion and uncertainty, the only safe and sensible outcome for the Reef is for Minister for the Environment Mr Greg Hunt to cancel approval for the dredging project made under Commonwealth legislation.

“Coal mining remains the greatest long term threat to the Reef.  The coal industry still seems determined to cook the Great Barrier Reef by fuelling climate change,” Mr Walters added.

Video footage and photographs of Abbot Point terminal available here: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/ 

Username: photos Password: green

For images or more information, contact: Julie Macken, 0400 925 217 or Adam Walters, 0408 029 181

“It’s not often that any arm of government, Federal or State, puts the interests of the environment, farmers and the broader community before that of the coal industry,”said Senior Climate & Energy campaigner Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Nic Clyde.

A draft of Whitehaven’s previous Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) had sought special permission to clear “up to 163 ha of native vegetation” this year in order to create space to “ensure that as at 31 December 2014, there will be a sufficient area for coal extraction for six months”.

Whitehaven’s neighbour’s BMP (Boggabri) does not permit clearing outside of late summer / early autumn: “the removal of native vegetation which contains potential roosting/nesting resources for birds and/or arboreal mammals will be conducted outside known breeding/hibernation periods, during late summer or early autumn.”

Whitehaven’s nearby Werris Creek Coal Project’s BMP mandates that “clearing activities will be scheduled outside of periods of fauna breeding or hibernation/torpor.”

These unequivocal commitments are in stark contrast to the language Whitehaven has been trying to get past NSW Planning in revised BMPs.

Instead of providing a guarantee to do the right thing, and commit to no clearing outside of late summer / early autumn, the company chose to commit only to “predominantly”, and then “when practicable”, with a further “preferentially avoided as far as practicable”.

“We applaud the courage of the both the Minister, Pru Goward, and the Secretary of the Department of Planning, for intervening on behalf of fauna in the forest; for putting wildlife before the interests of this controversial coal company.”

“It was a scandal that WHC considered itself such a special case the government would just walk away from its own standards to accommodate the company’s demand. This is clearly a company under huge financial pressure. As we’ve seen over the last 3 years, the ASX is up 18 per cent versus WHC down 73 per cent. This means WHC has underperformed the ASX by 77 per cent.” concluded Clyde.

The Department restricted WHC clearing to between the 15 February and 30 April to avoid killing animals during the spring and early summer breeding and roosting periods, as well during winter’s hibernation months.

The plan includes a number of measures to ensure work to build the mine affects wildlife as little as possible, including:

• staging clearing so that only the minimum number of trees needed to allow mining planned for the next year to occur are cleared
• compulsory supervision by licensed wildlife carers and ecologists, who will have the wellbeing of the animals as their top priority
• banning clearing when temperatures exceed 35°C so animals do not have relocate to other trees in extreme temperatures
• carrying out detailed inspections of trees before they are removed to identify any animals that will be affected
• relocating any animals that could be disturbed by clearing
• radio tracking of relocated animals to provide a greater understanding of the effect of relocation on animals to benefit this and other future projects.

For further information:

Nic Clyde Senior Climate & Energy Campaigner Greenpeace: 0438 282 409

Julie Macken, media officer Greenpeace: 0400 925 217

Greenpeace welcomes the retention of the Climate Change Authority and the Fraser-led review of the viability of international emission trading schemes.

However, the proposed Direct Action Plan is a tragically inadequate response to the very real threat posed by climate change,” said Clyde. “Australia needs mandatory, deep cuts to our carbon pollution. The Prime Minister needs to come to grips with reality – a reality that includes the very real threat of climate change.”

“To contextualise the impotence of this measure, consider this: the government approved the Carmichael mine in Queensland knowing that carbon emissions attributed to this mine alone would cancel out all gains made from the Direct Action climate policy (which aims to reduce emissions by 131 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2020). The burning of coal from Carmichael mine would emit approximately 130 million tonnes of carbon dioxide for every year of the mine's 90 year life” said Clyde.

On the eve of the UN’s IPCC Fifth Synthesis Report, Australia is making history with an unprecedented attack on action on climate change. This includes:

• Being the first government to abolish a price on carbon
• Has abolished the Climate Commission
• Has abolished the country’s long-term emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050
• Beginning Renewable Energy Target negotiations with a position advocating an effective 60% cut to the mandatory renewables build over the next six years
• Legislating a 5% target, which the Climate Change Authority has described as not “a credible start by Australia towards achieving the below 2 degree goal”
• Has cut funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

“While all of this has been happening, Tony Abbott has become a self-styled cheer leader for coal, business as usual use of which – in the language of the IPCC – increases the ‘likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems’”.

Since Tony Abbott won government, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has declared that 2013 was among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850, with the warmth being “most extreme in Australia, which had its hottest year on record”.

For further comment:

Greenpeace campaigner Nic Clyde: 0438 282 409

Media Officer Julie 0400 925 217

It is reported that the Queensland Government plans to use the dredge waste for land reclamation and further port expansion.

“This is not a bandaid for reef dredging but salt in the wound,” said Greenpeace Head of Research Mr Adam Walters.

“The very idea that Queensland taxpayers should fund destruction of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by buying dredge waste to build an even larger port at Abbot Point is insulting.

“This Queensland Government has once again shown it is the enemy of the Reef and cannot be trusted as its guardian.

“Faced with community outrage at plans to dump on the Reef the Queensland government has proposed the next worst solution.

"It has been reported that the Queensland Govenrment is asking the Federal Environment Minister Mr Greg Hunt to approve the new scheme.

"Minister Hunt should reject this proposal as absurd.

“The Queensland Government must explain how a bigger port, damaging dredge plumes, seagrass destruction, increased shipping and coal driven climate change is in the interests of the Reef,” Mr Walters said.

Contact: Adam Walters Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0408 029 181 or Alison Orme 0432 332 104

During Greenpeace’s three month campaign, more than one million people signed a petition calling on LEGO to stop promoting Shell’s brand because of its plans to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic. In stark contrast to Shell, LEGO’s policies include a commitment to produce more renewable energy than they use, phase out oil in their products and, in cooperation with its partners, leave a better world for future generations [3].

In its statement, LEGO argued the dispute was between Greenpeace and Shell. However, Greenpeace insists that while LEGO is doing the right thing under public pressure, it should choose its partners more carefully when it comes to the threats facing our children from climate change. Due to contractual obligations, LEGO’s current co-promotion with Shell will be honoured.

Ian Duff, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is a major blow to Shell. It desperately needs partners like LEGO to help give it respectability and repair the major brand damage it suffered after its last Arctic misadventure. Lego’s withdrawal from a 50 year relationship with Shell clearly shows that strategy will not work.”

“The tide is turning for these fossil fuel dinosaurs that see the melting Arctic as ripe for exploitation rather than protection. The message should be clear; your outdated, climate wrecking practices are no longer socially acceptable, and you need to keep away from the Arctic or face being ostracised by society.”

LEGO is the latest in a line of leading global companies to walk away from a relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In late 2012 Waitrose announced it has put its partnership with Shell on ice [4] and in the last month Microsoft, Google and Facebook all made commitments to end their support for ALEC, a controversial lobby group that campaigns against climate change legislation [5]. Only weeks ago, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it will begin pulling its investments in the fossil fuel industry [6].

In September, Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter accompanied Kiribati President Anote Tong to the Arctic to highlight its importance to countries on the climate change front line. "The Arctic may seem distant, but it's health is vital to all of us," said Ritter. "Lego's decision is yet another clear sign that the world is turning its back on companies such as Shell who are putting the Arctic - and our future - at risk."

Shell’s past attempts to drill in the Arctic have been plagued with multiple operational failings culminating in the running aground of its drilling rig, the Kulluk. The extreme Arctic conditions, including giant floating ice-bergs and stormy seas, make offshore drilling extremely risky. And scientists say that in the Arctic, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up meaning devastation for the Arctic’s unique wildlife [7].

But on 28 August 2014 Shell submitted new plans to the US administration for offshore exploratory drilling in the Alaskan Arctic [8], meaning it’s on course to resurrect its Arctic drilling plans as early as summer 2015.

In the past two years, a massive global movement has emerged calling for a sanctuary around the North Pole, to protect the Arctic and its unique wildlife from the onslaught of oil drilling and industrial fishing. More than six million people have joined the movement, and more than 1,000 influential people have signed an Arctic Declaration, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Emma Thompson and Sir Paul McCartney.

On 19 September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, met with Arctic campaigners to receive a global petition and said he would consider convening an international summit to discuss the issue of Arctic protection.

Contact for media requests: James Lorenz on 0418 408 683

Note to editors:

As part of the campaign, Greenpeace released a video LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome which reached nearly six million views. The video was temporarily taken down from YouTube because of a copyright complaint which was later withdrawn.

www.savethearctic.org

Report: LEGO is keeping bad company: no more playdates with Shell
Media briefing: Shell’s threat to the Arctic 

End notes: 
[1] Lego statement

[2] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014 
[3] LEGO’s values, see http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/sustainability/our-approach 
[4] You did it! Waitrose puts Shell relationship on ice, Greenpeace, 2012 
[5] Facebook set to become latest tech giant to abandon rightwing lobby group Alec, Guardian, 2014 
[6] Rockefellers go green: Rockefeller foundation divests funds in fossil fuel industries, Independent, 2014  
[7] Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, The PEW Charitable Trusts, 2010
[8] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014

Campaign for clearer seafood labelling by top enviro groups, chefs, academics, celebs

16 October 2015. Peak environment groups, top chefs, fishers, academics and celebrities are calling for more accurate labelling of seafood in Australia, with the launch of the ‘Label My Fish’ campaign in Sydney today.

The Label My Fish Alliance is demanding improved consumer protection laws to require clear labelling of all seafood, including what fish it is, where it is from and how it was caught or farmed. Clearer labelling in fish shops, takeaways and restaurants will help protect public health, boost the Australian fishing industry and preserve fish for the future.

Members of the new alliance include Greenpeace, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Taronga and Zoos Victoria and the SEA LIFE Conservation Fund, campaigning with Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans.  Prominent individuals backing the campaign include actor Richard Roxburgh, Quay Chef Peter Gilmore, MoVida chef Frank Camorra and NY Times best-selling ‘I Quit Sugar’ author Sarah Wilson.

A Senate Inquiry into seafood labelling is now underway, due to report on 4 December.

Greenpeace CEO David Ritter says,“Australia’s seafood labelling laws are weak and consumers are in the dark about what seafood they’re buying and eating. Most Australians think they’re purchasing Australian seafood, when the reality is we now import approximately 70 per cent from overseas.

“Simple measures, requiring labelling of what fish we are eating, where it is from and how it was caught, are long overdue and will bring Australia into line with the European Union.

“Recent research by Greenpeace shows, for example, that the Aussie ‘flathead’ we think we are eating may well be an imported, cheaper South American fish, of a completely different family, bottom trawled in Argentinean waters.  But there is often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to reveal the truth.”

Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans said,“Imagine a menu that offered ‘mammal and root vegetable’, or ‘bird and green leaf’. It would be considered ridiculous. In Australia you can simply write ‘fish’ on a menu, without much of a problem.

“Some seafood we eat damages our marine environment, is produced by people under unfair conditions and may carry risks to our health.  

“What we really need is to know just what's on our plates. Only then can we make decisions about what we put in our mouths, making choices that will also help protect our oceans.”

Pavo Walker, a commercial tuna fisherman from Queensland, said, “Not every seafood product on the market is a good choice for consumers.  Giving the public more information about what fish they're buying and eating will help our oceans and local fishers".

Australian Marine Conservation Society Director Darren Kindleysides said,“AMCS has been producing Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide for a decade now. It’s clear that Australians want to do the right thing and choose sustainable seafood, but our current seafood labelling system means they are generally fishing in the dark.

“Shark, sold as ‘flake’ and popular in fish and chip shops, could be anything from Australian caught gummy shark to a threatened species of shark.

“As the public cannot tell if they are buying from seafood producers fishing with an eye on the future, it’s harder for sustainable fishers to reap the market rewards.

“These simple and inexpensive reforms are long overdue. AMCS have been calling for improvements in seafood labelling for a decade. We now have a real opportunity to take our labelling laws into the 21st century, so the public can know at all points of sale what fish they are choosing, where is came from and how it was produced.”

Visit www.labelmyfish.com for more information, a background report (includes detailed case studies of poor labelling) and a growing list of high profile supporters.

Contact: Alison Orme Greenpeace Media 0432 332 104 - alison.orme@greenpeace.org

Case studies: the impact of weak seafood labelling laws on consumers

Flathead. ‘Flathead’ is popular in fish and chip shops, restaurants and retailed as frozen fillets.  But when we buy ‘flathead’ it may well be an imported South American fish, of a completely different family (Percophis brasiliensis).  The imported ‘flathead’ is much cheaper - up to $20 per kilo less. But there’s often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to indicate you’re not buying Aussie flathead, but a cheap imitation caught by destructive bottom trawling in Argentinean waters.

Barramundi. Australians rate barramundi as their favourite fish in restaurants.About 90 per cent of us believe the barramundi we are consuming is Australian yet over two thirds of the barramundi we eat is imported from Asia. 

Mercury in fish. Some fish contain high and potentially unsafe levels of mercury. Too much mercury can harm pregnant women and young children. For this reason government authorities recommend that pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and children restrict the amount they eat of certain species, including shark (flake), catfish and orange roughy. If Australians are not told which species they’re eating they are unable to act on warnings.

Orange roughy. ‘Orange roughy’ (Hoplostethus atlanticus) is very sensitive to overfishing and has been overfished in the past. Environment groups advise against eating it but conscientious consumers can’t do the right thing because it goes by a number of names on restaurant menus, including ‘deep sea perch’ and ‘sea perch’.

Squid and octopus. Australian squid and octopus fisheries are generally considered to have healthy stocks that can be harvested in a way that causes relatively little harm to the environment. Despite what many of us think though, around 80 per cent of the squid and octopus we eat is caught overseas. The product comes from fisheries which are often overfished, subject to inferior fishery management schemes and harvested in a damaging way - squid via trawling and octopus via bottom trawling - leading to bycatch concerns. But can you tell an Australian squid or octopus from its imported cousin? 

“Whitehaven Coal has done the near impossible,” said Greenpeace Climate & Energy campaigner, Nic Clyde. “They have managed to so alienate local farmers, the Traditional Owners of the Leard State Forest, large environmental groups, religious leaders, doctors and war veterans that an historic alliance is now working together to oppose the company and its product – coal.”

The report finds in an already difficult investment conditions, WHC faces four specific disadvantages:

1. WHC lacks a social licence to operate, guaranteeing ongoing opposition

2. WHC has become a focus of the national and global fossil fuel divestment campaign

3. WHC is a pure play coal company, with zero diversification to insulate against the structural decline of coal

4. The company’s green field Maules Creek mine is the largest new open cut coal mine currently under construction in Australia. In a carbon-constrained world the commercial risk for WHC is that established mines, with infrastructure close to ports and end use power plants, will have a competitive claim on markets.

“The fact that WHC’s CEO, Paul Flynn, refers to the divestment movement as ’green imperialism’ shows how little the company understands the situation it is in,” said 350.org CEO, Blair Palese. “The global divestment movement is highlighting the risks posed by a business-as-usual approach to the consumption of fossil fuels and of course the worst behaved companies fit that frame better than any others,” concluded Palese.

“Climate change is an essentially moral issue so it’s no great leap of the imagination to see why religious people are taking stand,” said Thea Ormerod, head of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change.

“WHC’s treatment of local farming community, the Traditional Owners and the way the company has sought to get away with clearing in winter, speaks volumes about its attitude to the community. Is it any wonder large sections of the community have withdrawn their support for such a destructive company,” concluded Ormerod.

“An open cut mine is hardly a fly-by-night proposition,” said Clyde. “And opposition to this mine and the company will continue into the foreseeable future. Investors have every right to feel deeply disappointed in this controversial company.”

On 2 November, 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release its Synthesis Report of the findings of its Fifth Assessment Report. The IPCC report will warn that “continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” It is this global dynamic that WHC needs to deal with.

The report, Whitehaven Coal: No Future is available here.

For further information contact:

Greenpeace Climate & Energy campaigner, Nic Clyde: 0438 282 409
CEO 350.org, Blair Palese: 0414 659 511
ARRCC, Thea Ormerod: 0407 526 342
Greenpeace media officer, Julie Macken: 0400 925 217

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Citi bank has baulked at funding Abbot Point. A further three banks, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, have expressed serious concerns about the impact the project will have on the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef and cast doubt over their future involvement.

The move by major U.S. banks follows similar statements by Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays and signals that the Adani Group and GVK may be unsuccessful in their bid to secure an estimated $26.5 billion in external financing necessary for the planned expansion of coal export facilities and associated mine and rail infrastructure at Abbot Point, on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

Australian NGOs - including the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Greenpeace, 350.org, Lock the Gate, GetUp, SumOfUs, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Birdlife Australia and Friends of the Earth - have congratulated the US banks, and called on Australia’s Big 4 to follow suit.

Sam Mclean, National Director of GetUp! said: "Today's news shows the campaign to save the Reef is a truly global one. It's incredible to think the biggest banks in the world will protect our Reef, but our own Australian banks won't. It’s time for them to step up.” 

Lucy Manne, National Co-director of The Australian Youth Climate Coalition said: "The big banks spend millions on marketing campaigns designed to attract young customers - but young Australians want to see the Great Barrier Reef and our climate protected."

David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As international banks back away from the controversial new Abbot Point coal terminal, Adani is scrambling for cash. The company is even considering selling some of its assets to fund the new terminal.”

Blair Palese of 350.org Australia said: “If the banks don’t distance themselves from these projects, then their customers and investors will distance themselves from the banks.”

Felicity Wishart, Great Barrier Reef campaign director with the Australian Marine Conservation Society said: "It’s now time for the Australian and Queensland governments to stop giving this project special treatment, stop the efforts to fast track it and acknowledge the serious environmental risk this port expansion poses to the health of the Reef.”

Over 2 million people worldwide have taken action to protect the Great Barrier Reef from coal developments.

For comment please contact:

Lucy Manne, AYCC, 0417 387 516, David Ritter, Greenpeace, 0407 997 657, Sam Mclean, GetUp,0499 319 385, Blair Palese, 350.org, 0414659511, Felicity Wishart, AMCS, 0408 222 746

For video or images, go to:

Images: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19146

username: photos  password: green

Video: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19188

username: photos  password: green

Use "Add movie to cart" to download zipfile

Minister Hunt lashed out at Greenpeace in an interview on the Radio National Breakfast program this morning, suggesting that the independent organisation has been more critical of the current government than they were of the previous government. On two occasions, the Minister claimed that while Greenpeace criticised his decision to approve Australia’s biggest coal mine, Carmichael mine, Greenpeace said nothing when Labor approved the nearby Alpha coal mine.

“A quick google search with ‘Greenpeace AND “Alpha Mine”’ shows Greenpeace was in fierce opposition to Alpha coal mine,” said Greenpeace Program Director Ben Pearson. “A total of 2,190 google results come up with those exact words,” said Pearson.

One page on the Greenpeace website says: “The Alpha development is an environmental disaster, threatening our Reef, our climate and wildlife in the mining area.”

A further blog about the Alpha Mine on the Greenpeace website is titled “Mega mine, mega catastrophe.”

 “We know Minister Hunt is au fait with Wikipedia, but he should try using Google,” said Pearson, “especially before he starts discrediting independent organisations supported by tens of thousands of Australians on national radio.”

“Rather than attacking environmental organisations, we think Minister Hunt’s time would be better used protecting the environment he is employed to protect,” said Pearson.

“Greenpeace is a wholly independent organisation that does not accept money from governments, corporations or political parties,” said Pearson. “We rely entirely on the generosity of individuals who make monthly donations to support our campaigns precisely so that we can maintain our independence from political parties and campaign to protect Australia’s precious places regardless of the politics of the day.”

“Our most urgent priority right now is saving the Great Barrier Reef from destructive coal developments like that just approved yesterday by Minister Hunt.”

“Carmichael Mine will be the biggest coal mine ever seen in Australia.

“This mega mine and its associated infrastructure will impact a total of 60 threatened species, require over 3 million tonnes of sea floor to be dredged from inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, and produce over 130 mega tonnes of carbon emissions each year,” Pearson said.

Video footage and photographs of the Carmichael mine site and Abbot Point terminal available here: www.greenpeacemedia.org Username: photos Password: green

For images or more information, contact:

Elsa Evers
Greenpeace Media Advisor
Tel: 0438 204 041
Email: eevers@greenpeace.org.au

Polling conducted in mid-August found seven in ten (72%) Aussies think extreme weather events made worse by global warming in Australia (e.g. floods, bushfires etc.) are currently increasing insurance premiums, including 32% who say it’s significantly increasing premiums.

That level of concern looks set to worsen as almost three quarters (74%) of Aussies think extreme weather events will increase insurance premiums by 2020, including 39% who expect it will significantly increase premiums.

“Whether it’s the historic floods of Queensland or the terrifying mega fires that tore into the heart of rural Victorian communities, Australian communities are already feeling the impact of extreme weather, just as IPCC modelling predicted,” said Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International Climate and Energy Campaigner. 

“While the mining industry is patting itself on the back for having successfully removed the Mining Tax, it is clear Australian communities have made the link between fossil fuel emissions and extreme weather events that are devastating communities, here and across the globe.”

“That’s why Greenpeace is calling for the introduction of an extreme weather levy to be paid by the companies that are profiting from fossil fuels, the coal, gas and oil companies.”

The polling has also found three quarters (76%) of Australians disagree that fossil fuel companies should be allowed to pollute the air for free (excluding ‘don’t knows’, 86% disagree, 14% agree).

And two thirds (66%) of Australians agree the directors of fossil fuel companies that are found to have misled the public about the impact of pollution on global warming should be held legally accountable (excluding those with no opinion, 78% agree, 22% disagree). 

“These results send a very clear message the broader community is no longer willing to tolerate company executives who deal in spin and dissembling to talk down the impacts of climate change while profiting from its creation,” continued Minshull. “And makes it clear the issue of pricing carbon pollution is still one the community wants resolved.”

For further information contact

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International: international mobile 31646162025

Julie Macken Media Officer Greenpeace Australia Pacific: 0400 925 217.

“We now know that carbon emissions played a major role in the extreme heatwave of 2013,” said Greenpeace Climate Campaigner, Dr Nikola Čašule.

“And today - after the two hottest consecutive September days on record - we have also been warned by the Sky News Severe Weather Report that we are in for a scorching summer with above average temperatures and a ‘heightened risk of bushfires’.”

“It is irresponsible in the extreme for the Abbott government to leave Australian families vulnerable to the devastating impacts of extreme heat and fires when it has the capacity to take action.”

“The RET has already proved itself to be popular, effective and has had a real impact on our carbon emissions – all of which puts Australian families in a better position to deal with a future compromised by dangerous global warming.”

“That’s why we are calling on the Prime Minister to act in the interests of the community, not the fossil fuel lobby by retaining the RET and getting on the front foot in building a climate resilient Australia.”

The full report 'Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Pespective' is available here.

For further information contact:

Greenpeace Climate Campaigner Dr Nikola Čašule: 0428 769 307

Greenpeace media officer Julie Macken: 0400 925 217

Under the proposal, millions of tonnes of seabed would be dredged from the World Heritage Area and dumped on the Caley Valley wetlands – home to over 40,000 water birds.

“At the behest of a coal company, the Queensland Government has created a proposal to dredge the Reef and dump it in the Caley Valley wetlands in order to fast-track the controversial expansion of Abbot Point coal terminal,” said Greenpeace Reef campaigner Shani Tager.

“A colander has fewer holes than this dredging proposal,” said Ms Tager. “There has been no assessment on the impacts of dumping this acid sulphate dredge spoil on vulnerable species such as the Australian painted snipe, or endangered turtle breeding habitat.

“Adani, the Indian coal company behind the new Abbot Point coal terminal, has been holding the Queensland and Federal Governments to ransom over this development, threatening to pull out unless their demands are met. Greg Hunt has rolled over, again failing to stand up to Adani and its Reef wrecking agenda.”

Minister Hunt’s decision comes amidst financial uncertainty over the future of the new Abbot Point coal terminal. This week, some of the world’s largest investment banks ruled out financing the development.

“Despite all of the concerns by UNESCO, scientists and the Australian community, dredging for Adani’s proposed new mega coal port in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area will not even require a full environmental impact assessment. It’s an outrage,” Ms Tager said.

“Millions of Australians want to protect the Great Barrier Reef from coal developments. We need to let them know we will not take this lying down.”

Greenpeace’s submission to Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the revised dumping and dredging plans at Abbot Point is available here.
Queensland Government dredging and dumping proposal is available here
Queensland Government wetland proposal is available here

For comment, please call: Shani Tager, 0432 050 809
Photographs of the Caley Valley wetlands and Abbot Point available at: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19146 Username: photos Password: green

For interviews or more information, contact: Elsa Evers 0438 204 041