tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/green-tape-10145/articlesGreen tape – The Conversation2020-05-14T15:53:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1379412020-05-14T15:53:22Z2020-05-14T15:53:22ZEnvironmental regulations likely to be first casualties in post-pandemic recovery<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335025/original/file-20200514-77235-11cnurp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4997%2C3126&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/coal-mining-open-pit-miner-looking-535876870">Jaromir Chalabala/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-52313972">With cleaner air</a>, <a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/nature-takes-back-worlds-city-streets-emptied-by-coronavirus-outbreak">nature returning to urban areas</a> and <a href="https://lowvelder.co.za/620885/sharp-drop-in-rhino-poaching-amid-lockdown/#.XqqSAYJt8Pc.facebook">less poaching</a>, it seems that, at least for the time being, the pandemic has eased the human footprint on nature.</p>
<p>But what happens to the natural world when lockdowns lift and the pandemic peters out? The <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R46270.pdf">global economy is in trouble</a>, facing potentially its <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/imf-economy-coronavirus-covid-19-recession/">worst ever recession</a>. Governments are expected to prioritise a rapid return to growth, and one of the first casualties of this panic is likely to be environmental regulation, or “green tape” as it’s often called. </p>
<p>Where environmental regulations are seen to threaten or delay short term economic growth, <a href="https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/7391/">they are often weakened</a>. As governments seek to reduce budget deficits and unemployment, the pressure to dilute environmental protection, by exempting recovery efforts from proper assessment, will be severe.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/disaster-capitalism-coronavirus-crisis-brings-bailouts-tax-breaks-and-lax-environmental-rules-to-oilsands-135996">Disaster capitalism: Coronavirus crisis brings bailouts, tax breaks and lax environmental rules to oilsands</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Cutting green tape</h2>
<p>In previous economic downturns, governments have strived to <a href="https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/document/9960">weaken environmental legislation</a> by shrinking the role of public participation and reducing the time allowed for environmental assessments of new developments. Given how steep the economic downturn is likely to be post-pandemic, the scale and speed at which so-called “green tape” will be cut to try and revive growth is likely to be greater than anything previously experienced. In fact, it’s already started.</p>
<p>In India, environmentalists argue that the government is weakening the law on <a href="https://india.mongabay.com/2020/03/indias-proposed-overhaul-of-environment-clearance-rules-could-dilute-existing-regulations/">environmental impact assessments</a> to allow projects to go ahead without proper clearance or public consultation. Without properly assessing how hundreds of projects might affect the environment or consulting local people, the government is more likely to approve developments that are bad for nature and communities.</p>
<p>In Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers sent a 13 page letter to the federal government <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6830754/capp-justin-trudeau-laws-coronavirus/">asking for the suspension of dozens of environmental regulations</a> because of the pandemic. There have been similar requests to relax bird habitat monitoring <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-hydro-environmental-licensing-pandemic-1.5544740">because of COVID-19</a> in Manitoba. In Ontario, the government cited COVID-19 when it removed the need for public consultation <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-temporarily-suspends-environmental-oversight-law-citing-covid-19-1.5541875">before approval of some projects</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335027/original/file-20200514-77230-2pkkdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chestnut-collared longspur is classified as threatened in Manitoba, where its habitat overlaps with the energy industry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chestnutcollared-longspurs-calcarius-ornatus-on-national-439184041">RachelKolokoffHopper/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Australian commonwealth government meanwhile is looking to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/23/coalition-is-aiming-to-change-australias-environment-laws-before-review-is-finished">amend national environment laws</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/review-of-federal-environment-laws-will-cut-green-tape-and-speed-up-approvals">save AUS$300 million per year</a>. It has also stopped assessing the threats posed by potential developments to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/08/australian-government-stops-listing-major-threats-to-species-under-environment-laws">native wildlife</a>.</p>
<p>In South Africa, mining resumed in the third week of April 2020, while the rest of the country remained in lockdown. New regulations were adopted on <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202004/43227reg11087gon462.pdf">April 11</a> that suspended the usual environmental regulatory processes for the duration of the lockdown period.</p>
<h2>The future of environmental protection</h2>
<p>The environmental benefits that many people have noticed since the lockdown began may not just disappear post-pandemic. A bonfire of green tape could mean the situation for the natural world is considerably worse than before COVID-19. </p>
<p>Environmental protection measures were hard won over decades by campaigners and lawmakers. Weakening these controls could accelerate the degradation of ecosystems already wracked by climate change and other threats. Any changes in environmental legislation will, even if introduced as a temporary measure, undermine carefully negotiated gains and be difficult to reverse. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-green-tape-may-be-good-politicking-but-its-bad-policy-here-are-5-examples-of-regulation-failure-137164">Cutting ‘green tape’ may be good politicking, but it’s bad policy. Here are 5 examples of regulation failure</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Take the reaction of the Canadian government to the global financial crisis in 2008. Its first step was to exempt projects designed to stimulate the flagging economy from environmental impact assessments. Permanent changes to the federal assessment process followed, and the number of mandated environmental assessments fell from hundreds in 2007 to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2104336">a dozen each year from 2012</a>.</p>
<p>Not only does slashing environmental regulation invite lasting harm to nature, it also makes little economic sense. Far from strangling economic growth, legislation that safeguards the environment is actually <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/green-stimulus-can-repair-global-economy-and-climate-study-says">good for business</a>. A study from <a href="http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-05-building-back-better-green-covid-19-recovery-packages-will-boost-economic-growth-and">Oxford University</a> found that projects which cut carbon emissions create more jobs and deliver higher returns than traditional stimulus packages in the short and longer term. But hasty decisions to “cut green tape” now will have permanent consequences for the environment.</p>
<p>Environmental laws aren’t luxuries, they’re essential to human survival and a viable future. The pandemic is an opportunity to invest in accelerating the shift towards sustainability, not to abandon it in the name of short-term economic recovery at any cost.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meinhard Doelle receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan James Bond, Angus Morrison-Saunders, and Francois Pieter Retief do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As governments race to revive economic growth, expect a bonfire of green tape.Alan James Bond, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management, University of East AngliaAngus Morrison-Saunders, Professor of Environmental Management, Edith Cowan UniversityFrancois Pieter Retief, Professor of Environmental Management, North-West UniversityMeinhard Doelle, Professor of Law, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775902017-05-30T04:43:50Z2017-05-30T04:43:50ZAround the world, environmental laws are under attack in all sorts of ways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171298/original/file-20170529-25219-1yxaptf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In Montana and Idaho, endangered gray wolves are no longer safe outside national parks.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ronnie Howard/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As President Donald Trump mulls over whether to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, it is hard to imagine that he’s listening to the experts. US climate researchers are being so stifled, ignored or blackballed that France has now <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/climate-scientists-wary-trump-please-come-france-says-presidental-hopeful">offered sanctuary</a> to these misunderstood souls.</p>
<p>One might prefer to think of Trump as an outlier in an otherwise environmentally sane world. But alarmingly, there’s just too much evidence to the contrary. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0086">recent analysis</a>, led by Guillaume Chapron of Sweden’s Agricultural University, reveals a rising tide of assaults on environmental safeguards worldwide. If nothing else, it illustrates the sheer range and creativity of tactics used by those who seek to profit at the expense of nature.</p>
<p>The assaults on environmental protections are so diverse that Chapron and his colleagues had to devise a new “taxonomy” to categorise them all. They have even set up a <a href="https://github.com/gchapron/LegalBoundaries">public database</a> to track these efforts, giving us a laundry list of environmental rollbacks from around the world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169030/original/file-20170511-32593-888rhp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Kim / www.lab-initio.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One might perhaps hope that species staring extinction in the face would be afforded special protection. Not in the western US states of Idaho and Montana, where endangered gray wolves have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/us/politics/13wolves.html">taken off the endangered species list</a>, meaning they can be shot if they stray outside designated wilderness or management areas.</p>
<p>In Western Australia, an endangered species can be legally <a href="https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:29149P/$FILE/Biodiversity%20Conservation%20Act%202016%20-%20%5B00-a0-01%5D.pdf">driven to extinction</a> if the state’s environment minister orders it and parliament approves.</p>
<p>Think diverse ecosystems are important? In Canada, not so much. There, native fish species with no economic, recreational or indigenous value <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22722248">don’t get any legal protection</a> from harm.</p>
<p>And in France – a crucial flyway for Eurasian and African birds – killing migratory birds is technically illegal. But migrating birds could be shot out of the sky anyway because the environment minister ordered a <a href="https://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/oies-chasse-Segolene-Royal-loi-biodiversite-LPO-FNE-23779.php4">delay in the law’s enforcement</a>.</p>
<p>In South Africa, the environment minister formerly had authority to limit environmental damage and oversee ecological restoration at the nation’s many mining sites. But that power has now been handed over to the <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2010/40.html">mining minister</a>, raising fears of conflict between industry and environmental interests.</p>
<p>In Brazil, the famous Forest Code that has helped to reduce deforestation rates in the Amazon has been seriously <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/brazil-set-to-cut-forest-protection-1.10555">watered down</a>. Safeguards for forests along waterways and on hillsides have been weakened, and landowners who illegally fell forests no longer need to replant them.</p>
<p>In the Indian Ocean island nation of Mauritius, endangered species are protected by law, unless it is deemed to be in the “national interest” not to do so. Although an endangered species, the endemic Mauritius flying fox was <a href="http://www.batconafrica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IUCN-SSC-Position-Statement-Planned-Cull-Mauritius-Fruit-Bat1.pdf">annoying commercial fruit farmers</a>, so the government has allowed <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315716560_Can_we_protect_island_flying_foxes">more than 40,000 flying foxes to be culled</a>.</p>
<p>And in Indonesia, it’s illegal to carry out destructive open-pit mining in protected forest areas. But aggressive mining firms are forcing the government to let them break the law anyway, or else face <a href="http://go.nature.com/2jZiosD">spending public money on legal battles</a>. </p>
<h2>Shoot the messengers</h2>
<p>Campaigners should also beware. Under new legislation proposed in the UK, conservation groups that lose lawsuits will be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/11/legal-battles-to-protect-the-environment-easier-to-fight-in-china-than-the-uk">hit with heavy financial penalties</a>.</p>
<p>In many parts of the world, those who criticise environmentally destructive corporations are getting hit with so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation">SLAPP suits</a>.</p>
<p>In Peru, for instance, a corporation that was <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-peru-uk-landrights-idUSKCN0YO1WY">mowing down native rainforest</a> to grow “sustainable” cacao for chocolate routinely used lawsuits and legal threats to intimidate critics.</p>
<p>That’s before we’ve even discussed climate change, which you might not be allowed to do in the US anyway. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/3071/text">Proposed legislation</a> would prohibit the government from considering climate change as a threat to any species. No wonder researchers want to move overseas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169033/original/file-20170511-32588-173lmdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Kim / www.lab-initio.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the above examples show, essential environmental safeguards are being conveniently downsized, diminished, ignored or swept under the carpet all over the world.</p>
<p>Viewed in isolation, each of these actions might be rationalised or defended – a small compromise made in the name of progress, jobs or the economy. But in a natural world threatened with “death by a thousand cuts”, no single wound can be judged in isolation. </p>
<p>Without our hard-won environmental protections, we would all already be breathing polluted air, drinking befouled water, and living in a world with much less wildlife.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is an edited version of a blog post that originally appeared <a href="http://alert-conservation.org/issues-research-highlights/2017/5/4/the-assault-on-environmental-laws">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Laurance receives funding from several scientific and philanthropic organisations. He is director of the JCU Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, and founder and director of ALERT--the Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers & Thinkers. </span></em></p>Legislation designed to protect wildlife is being rolled back or ignored in all sorts of ways in all sorts of places, according to a new global database of attacks on green tape.Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/264432014-05-13T05:00:52Z2014-05-13T05:00:52Z‘Green tape’ cuts: industry wins, locals and the environment lose<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48313/original/yth534c4-1399949646.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Part of Shoalwater Bay in Queensland, where the federal government blocked a major new coal port in 2008 over its "clearly unacceptable" environmental impacts".</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freshwater_Bay_DN-SD-01-04615.jpg">Daniel E. Smith/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Deep cuts to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/arenas-axing-would-mean-end-of-tony-abbotts-support-for-renewables-says-industry-20140512-zrae5.html">environmental programs</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/environmental-job-cuts-risk-a-repeat-of-gladstone-failures-26491">staff predicted in today’s federal budget</a> aren’t the only “green” cuts that Australians should be concerned about. </p>
<p>The federal government is currently holding an <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=environment/greentape/index.htm">Inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, ‘green tape’, and one stop shops</a>, which looks set to completely change the way environmental regulation works across Australia. </p>
<p>Ultimately it risks creating a confusing array of rules and lower environmental standards, where the main winners will be mining and property development lobby groups. </p>
<p>The likely losers include local communities concerned about major new developments in their area; shared environmental assets that all Australians benefit from, including clean air and water; and unique animals, plants and habitats that, once lost, can never be brought back again.</p>
<h2>Handing more power over to the states</h2>
<p>The federal government has already embarked on a process of delegating project assessment and approval powers to the states, to establish its “one-stop shop” on environmental management. </p>
<p>It involves streamlining state and territory major project assessments, and the federal government handing over the final decisions on projects assessed under Australia’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999/about-epbc">main national environmental laws</a> to state and territory governments. (Read <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-one-stop-shop-for-environmental-approvals-19515">more here</a>.) A tight September deadline has been set for completing the process.</p>
<p>This “one stop shop” approach ignores the fact that the states have long proven themselves to be poor guardians of areas of national environmental significance. You don’t have to look far to find examples.</p>
<p>Take Shoalwater Bay, a heritage-listed area within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 70 kilometres north-west of Rockhampton. Although parts of the area are regularly used for military exercises, it remains one of the biggest areas of largely undisturbed areas Australia’s east coast, including being home to <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/water/topics/wetlands/database/pubs/44-ris.pdf">internationally-listed wetlands</a>, and rare and endangered species such as dugongs and sea turtles. </p>
<p>In mid-2008, Waratah Coal <a href="http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/govt-considers-first-new-coal-port-in-25-yrs">appeared to have the backing of the then Labor state government</a> for its proposal to build a new coal port and 500-kilometre rail line through the region. The proposal had been declared a significant project by Queensland’s Coordinator-General (who thereby undertook the project’s environmental assessment) and approved, notwithstanding anticipated impacts on species and habitats.</p>
<p>But in September 2008, the then Environment Minister, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-05/garrett-rejects-shoalwater-bay-coal-terminal/500786">Peter Garrett, stepped in</a> using federal environmental laws.</p>
<p>Without that <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2008/pubs/tr20080905.pdf">intervention</a> – which found that the project would have had “clearly unacceptable impacts on the high wilderness values of Shoalwater Bay and on the internationally recognised Shoalwater and Corio Bay wetlands” – the project would have proceeded.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/murray-darling-basin-plan-gets-off-to-a-very-slow-and-shaky-start-24732">Murray-Darling</a> river system is another a glaring example of how state self-interest is likely to trump public or national benefit unless there is an active and responsible role played by the federal government.</p>
<p>So why overhaul Australia’s environmental rules at all?</p>
<h2>The case for change</h2>
<p>The current federal “green tape” inquiry is based on the idea that Australia has too much environmental regulation, which is choking development. </p>
<p>That’s certainly the view of the mining and property development lobbies. While a 2012 NSW government survey found that the community considered regulation of those industries as <a href="http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/community/130265WC12Rpt.pdf">being “too lax”</a>, there has been a strong industry push to reduce regulation.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment/Green_Tape/Submissions">joint submission</a> by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) argues that there is duplication between Commonwealth and State government environmental regulation. Yet it does not refer to specific legislation where this is the case.</p>
<p>The joint APPEA, BCA and MCA submission also refers to a number of unnamed companies who have suffered long delays and had to produce thousand-page environmental impact statements and spent millions on environmental approvals. These contentions are not backed by independent analysis of the cost of environmental regulation and how this may have changed over time.</p>
<h2>A different view</h2>
<p>I’ve worked in environmental law for 15 years, including with the Environment Protection Authority, and still teach law at university. For more than a decade have been with the <a href="http://www.edonsw.org.au/">New South Wales Environmental Defenders Office</a>, part of a broader <a href="http://www.edo.org.au/">Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices</a> (ANEDO).</p>
<p>And it’s based on all of that legal experiences that I’d strongly argue – along with my ANEDO colleagues – that the industry and government push to reduce national environmental regulation will prove to be bad for local communities and our environment.</p>
<p>In 2012, an ANEDO <a href="http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/edonsw/pages/279/attachments/original/1380668130/121218Appendix1Reportontheadequacyofthreatenedspeciesandplanninglaws.pdf?1380668130">audit of threatened species and planning laws</a> found that “no state or territory biodiversity or planning laws currently meet the suite of Federal environmental standards necessary to effectively and efficiently protect biodiversity”.</p>
<p>And in March last year, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/epbcfederalpowers/report/%7E/media/wopapub/senate/committee/ec_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/epbc_federal_powers/report/report.ashx">a federal senate inquiry</a> also found no substantive evidence that the existing regulatory arrangements were imposing unnecessary costs on business.</p>
<h2>Conflicts of interest</h2>
<p>If you’re still not sure where you stand on the handover of federal powers to the states, then just consider the conflicts of interest. </p>
<p>State governments may stand to gain tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments if they approve major mining or coal seam gas projects. And in major infrastructure projects like port expansions or highways, the state may be both the proponent and approval authority. </p>
<p>Alternatively, if a major project requires the approval of the federal government, there is an extra level of checks and balances, reducing the risks of such conflicts of interest. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff is the Executive Director of Environmental Defenders Office NSW, part of a national network of independently constituted and managed community environmental law centres across Australia. He is a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW. Jeff is the Chair of the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law, and is also a member of the Steering Committee for the Climate Institute and the Special Purpose Assessment Committee for the Contaminated Land Management Program administered by the Environmental Trust.</span></em></p>Deep cuts to environmental programs and staff predicted in today’s federal budget aren’t the only “green” cuts that Australians should be concerned about. The federal government is currently holding an…Jeff Smith, Chair, Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/260312014-04-30T04:24:23Z2014-04-30T04:24:23ZIs ‘underground coal gasification’ the new fracking?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47262/original/mqdftvjt-1398751312.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could UCG be the best way to clean up coal?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/denverjeffrey/7286972528">Jeffrey Beall/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3987161.htm">Recent news</a> that a gas project in Queensland has been charged with environmental harm has put the spotlight on underground coal gasification, or UCG. </p>
<p>Linc Energy’s Chinchilla project was a pilot UCG project which was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/linc-energy-calls-it-quits-on-ucg-project/story-e6frg9df-1226753791059">completed in October 2013</a>. Following a nine-month government investigation, the project now faces a potential fines of A$2 million over alleged “<a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/4/20/energy-markets/linc-energy-face-court-over-coal-plant">serious environmental harm</a>”. The company has vowed to fight the charges, and claims <a href="http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/linc-energy-dumps-coal-gasification-project">regulation favours</a> the rival coal seam gas industry. </p>
<p>UCG, like coal seam gas (CSG), is an unconventional method of extracting gas from coal seams. It is also considered a “clean coal” technology — offering a way to continue exploiting coal resources while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While it is estimated that Australia has reserves of <a href="http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/fact_sheets/coal_seam_gas.html#history">1 trillion cubic metres</a> of CSG reserves, there may be 12 trillion cubic metres of UCG. </p>
<p>Despite trialling the technology since the 1980s, UCG has so far failed to achieve the environmental standards needed for commercialisation. So, what is UCG, and are concerns about environmental impacts justified?</p>
<h2>What is UCG?</h2>
<p>Coal gasification is a technology for producing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas">synthesis gas</a> (a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) from coal before it is burnt. This “syngas” can be processed further for fuel or chemical products.</p>
<p>Unlike fracking, which involves pumping fluid into coal seams to cause fractures, in UCG the entire process takes place underground within the coal body. Coal is ignited by injecting oxygen into the coal seam. The combustion converts carbon in the coal to CO<sub>2</sub> and heat. This heat drives secondary reactions between CO<sub>2</sub> and water to produce carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen gas (H<sub>2</sub>) and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>). The gases are extracted through a production well, leaving tar, solid char and bottom ashes in the cavity. </p>
<p>These gases can be used to generate electricity, and the hydrogen can be used to power <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-hydrogen-fuel-making-a-comeback-22299">fuel cell vehicles</a>. </p>
<p>UCG is considered a “clean coal” technology. When coupled with electricity generation, <a href="http://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Eskom%20coal%20gasification.pdf">UCG produces</a> 25% less greenhouse gases, 80% less nitrous oxides, and 95% less sulphur oxides per megawatt hour than traditional coal-fired power generation.</p>
<h2>UCG in Australia</h2>
<p>In Australia there are very good prospects for UCG development, particularly in abandoned or exploited CSG fields. </p>
<p>UCG projects were initiated in the 1980s. There have been three pilot projects, all in Queensland — Linc Energy’s Chinchilla project, Cougar Energy’s Kingaroy project, and a study program between Carbon Energy and CSIRO at Dalton. </p>
<p>During its life-time the Chinchilla project successfully produced gas for electricity generation — considered the western world’s ground-breaking UCG achievement — and liquid gas for fuel. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/cougar-fined-over-leak-of-carcinogenic-chemical-at">water contamination</a> from Cougar Energy’s project forced the project to close in 2011, and with pilot stages complete, the Queensland government on the recommendation of an independent scientific panel has <a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/extreme/derm_2013.pdf">refused approval</a> for commercialisation until the industry can prove that UCG projects can be safely decommissioned and prevent groundwater contamination. </p>
<h2>Environmental impacts</h2>
<p>The major environmental concerns for UCG stem from subsidence, water contamination and greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>However these issues can be resolved by targeting deeper coal seams; most current UCG projects focus on shallow reserves. Subsidence decreases with the depth of the coal seam, and deeper coal seams are less likely to be in contact with aquifers. </p>
<p>UCG cavities deeper than 800 metres could also be used for CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration, where cap rock and overburden layers can restrain the CO<sub>2</sub>. </p>
<p>Australian and New Zealand UCG projects are regulated under respective Mining Acts. Currently, these are not detailed enough to commercialise UCG. </p>
<p>But in Alberta, Canada, deep UCG pilot projects are ready for commercialisation, and suitable regulation has been provided by the Albertan mining regulator.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>Deep coal deposits are the future for UCG. Coupling UCG with electricity generation and carbon capture and storage is a environmentally safe and economic method for exploiting unconventional coal resources. </p>
<p>In Australia, the coal deposits of Queensland are the most suitable for such projects, and should be an area for further research and development. With 100 years of effort and investment in the technology, we now need governments to update regulation to encompass UCG. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mohammad Rasul does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent news that a gas project in Queensland has been charged with environmental harm has put the spotlight on underground coal gasification, or UCG. Linc Energy’s Chinchilla project was a pilot UCG project…Mohammad Rasul, Associate Professor, School of Engineering and Technology, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.