Misleading and Deceptive leaders and The climate change misinformation campaign

 

 
Tony Abbott addressed the Institute of Public Affair’s, “I want to assure you,” he said, “that the coalition will repeal the carbon tax, abolish the Department of Climate Change, abolish the Clean Energy Fund. ”

Instead the Legislature twice refused to allow the Executive’s Bill to Abolish the CEFC, to become law. The Executive attempted for two years to alter the CEFC investment mandate, to undermine the purposes of the Act by revoking a provision of the CEFC Act 2012. The fact is any change to the CEFC Act 2012. Must be to the original Act. Altering the CEFC Act to achieve the executive’s underhanded purpose for its’ political donors can only be done by going back to the Senate.
LNP Ministers have schemed with Coal and Oil corporations, to support Coal electricity generation and attack Alternative Energy, by remove all possible funds supporting from the CEFC.
Treasurer Hockey created a disruption so great that the alternative energy collapsed by 88%, reflecting a similar executive incursion into the Car Manufacturing sector. Prime minister Turnbull caused similar disruption during the 2016 election campaign by pledging a total amount $6.5 billion, left in the CEFC account to other LNP causes.
As he ‘Reallocate funds’ by disrupting and ignoring the directly expressed objectives of the Act. ‘Invests to increase the flow of finance into the clean energy sector.’ Also ignored the were the external affairs powers (section 51(xxix) of the Constitution), in order to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Climate Change Convention, by investing in the development of renewable energy and low-emission technologies.
Recently, the cabinet created a third investment directive, to modify the intent of the CEFC Act and in doing so has exceeded its authority, ignoring the need to return to the Parliament to get the proper authority from the Legislature thereby committing Misfeasance by benefitting the Coal & Oil energy sector, but causing a deficit to the Alternative energy sector of an 88% collapse in investment.
Ministers Hunt and Cormann have asserted, power to issue new Investment Mandates is implied in section 64(1) the Act, yet they continue to ignore the express limits placed on them by the Legislature, making mandates, that direct how and where the CEFC does or does not invest its resources.

A collusion to effect World Government subsidies of $5.6 Trillions per annum (according to the IMF calculations), to create the illusion of low unit costs, and to manage, resist and delay the growing threat, of investment in renewable energy competition, to the dominance of what was known as the ‘Seven Sisters’.
There certainly has been a ‘climate hoax that continues today.’ It is the decades’ long campaign by the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to deceive the public by distorting the realities and risks of climate change.
The level of, malfeasance and misfeasance and corruption in Federal and State Governments will someday be addressed by courts as a matter of urgency. The High Court and Federal Circuit Courts, are ultimately the only Judicial bodies with the constitutional authority to address these executive levels of wrongdoing.
Malcolm Turnbull has been subsidising the fossil fuel industry with (the IMF estimates) $1,712 per Australian a year or $41 billions of taxpayer funds.

This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.

The IMF calculates that Australians subsidisations to the Fossil Fuel Industry account for hidden adverse costs spread out across the states and the ATO, that ultimately, permanently come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim MDPhD recently stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said.
In July 2016, Nicholas Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of world GDP each year.
The IMF indicates, that if governments stopped world fossil subsidies $5.6 Trillions per year, it would benefit government 3.8% world GDP a year.

The origin of this saga is Hockey and Cormann Attempting to change the Investment Mandate of the CEFC to ‘repurpose’ the corporation avoiding the need obtain amendments which have been made, suggested and passed by the Senate, and to which the House of Representatives agrees.

The fundamental rule of interpretation is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it, and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole.

It is abundantly clear, the Parliament that produced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, intended the Act not be easily diverted or altered by new directives inimical to its purposes.

The Rule of Law
The High Court is given jurisdiction in matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. This jurisdiction cannot be altered or taken away by Parliament. It confers on the High Court the power, by making certain forms of order that historically followed judicial review of executive action, to compel officers of the Commonwealth to act according to law. The expression ‘officer of the Commonwealth’ includes the Prime Minister and Ministers, and all public servants. The effect of the provision is, no one is above the law. Thus government officials must exercise their powers according to law. If they do not, then, in the last resort, the High Court may order them to do so The Constitution, which is the basic law, itself declares that the government must obey the law, and gives the High Court the jurisdiction to compel such obedience.
That jurisdiction cannot be removed or modified except by constitutional amendment.
Parliament, if acting within the limits of the powers assigned to it by the Constitution, may change the law.
The executive government must obey the law. That is what the rule of law means.”


Coal is not cheap, reliable and affordable.

Coal is, across the board, exceptionally subsidised, political corrupting and malignant.

Lowering business taxes is really just another subsidy offered to control a government policy. For instance, the price is governed by where direct and indirect outlays and subsidisations are concealed.

The price of electricity is an intrinsic deceit of government and a political choice these days to prolong the use of Coal as a squalid deal by both conservative parties and their generous donors.

The level of, malfeasance and misfeasance and corruption in Federal and State Governments will someday be addressed by courts as a matter of urgency. The High Court and Federal Circuit Courts, are ultimately the only Judicial bodies with the constitutional authority to address these executive levels of wrongdoing. The Government made commitments to meet its self-imposed targets to the United Nations and in the latest Paris Climate Change Agreement, which it has demonstrated it has no intention to honour.

The same IMF financial forensic methods applied to the price of coal-generated electricity, must but does not account the cost of ‘Black Lung’ in miner’s and pollution related disease and many thousands of preventable deaths among the general population and workforce.

 

Coal is not cheap and has not ever been ‘cheap and affordable,’ t

Taxpayer money is handed to the Fossil fuel Industry in the form of subsidies.
The fossils fuel industry donates to the Liberal and National Party, the IPA, the Sydney Institute, the Menzies Centre Et al., in turn the LNP Looks the other way as international corporations remove profits by ‘paying HQ for research and any other dodgy scheme the ATO allows, they do these things, without paying Australia a fair tax, while they plunder our resources.
Ultimately, the LNP is funded with taxpayer receipts which started out as subsidies.

There is a Royal Commission in this.

The American Petroleum Institute

The following is a record, over the past forty years of how, the Hydrocarbon industry has used its vast resources to maintain dominance in the provision of energy.
You will read in the American Petroleum Institute (API) documentation, how the major players, even after they had been made aware, of the reality and inherent dangers of rapid climate change by their very own scientists, still with that knowledge, from the 1980’s these self-serving corporate villains, continued to maintain climate change doubting tactics.

Corporations, because of the growing treasure they are accumulating and the political power they have gained, including annually (IMF Forensic calculations) $6 trillions of subsidies are paid by world governments to keep the provision of a unit of fossil fuel energy, at an apparent but illusionary moderate price to the consumer.

Governments’ in reality, adjust price by adding to subsidies like taxation forgone; or limiting worker injury compensation and free-trade treaty deals where fossil fuel costs are reduced or exclude in relation to transport costs. Ultimately consumers, will come to the realisation that these subsidies come out of the very taxes they pay and should have been allocated toward health, housing, education and food security.
Instead, the taxes the citizens pay, are addressing the climate and polluting damage done by corporations, with the complicity of national political insiders, entangled in a web of deceit. Strategic distractions of sowing doubt and confusion, have been part of international complicity that has held government hostage to the purposes of the Coal & Oil giants; even to the excess of waging war to protect International Oil Associations assets.
At the same time Malcolm Turnbull has been subsidising the fossil fuel industry with (the IMF estimates) $1,712 per Australian a year or $41 billions of taxpayer funds.

This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.
The level of, malfeasance and misfeasance and corruption in Federal and State Governments will someday be addressed by courts as a matter of urgency. The High Court and Federal Circuit Courts, are ultimately the only Judicial bodies with the constitutional authority to address these executive levels of wrongdoing. The Government made commitments to meet its self-imposed targets to the United Nations and in the latest Paris Climate Change Agreement, which it has demonstrated it has no intention to honour.
The Prime Minister already, in the July 1st 2016 election announcements he had re-allocated
$5.6 billions of  taxpayer monies, theoretically appropriated from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to use as a Liberal Party Slush Fund.  Australia’s greatest by far, historic election war chest ever.[i]

The CEFC is a corporate Commonwealth entity operating at arm’s length from Government to maintain transparency, under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).
The CEFC has access to funding of $10 billion comprising annual appropriations to the CEFC Special Account of $2 billion every 1 July from 2013 to 2017 inclusive, in accordance with section 46 of the CEFC Act.

During the recent election campaign Prime Minister Turnbull professed to have the authority to redistribute CEFC renewable energy funds as he :
Misappropriated $1billion from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to fund his brand new creation, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF). Prime Minister Turnbull then repossessed $800 million from the, yet to be authorised by parliament, CEIF $1billion back to treasury reducing the budget deficit with renewable energy funds to make up for the loss of $800 million the Parliament had deducted, post the July 1, 2016 election from the aborted ‘Arena shut down.’ [ii]
These funds were planned to assist the growth of renewable energy to protect future generations against threatening climate change.

The PM is pilfering the future from the yet unborn and treating the CEFC, as a hollow log to empty when he wishes to balance the books, without the authority of the Parliament to do so.[iii]
The PM also ‘seized’ a further $1billion of renewable energy funding to finance a new ‘Better Cities Fund.’
Since a further $1 billion appropriated from the CEFC to clean up the Barrier Reef. 
Mainly this money has financed the beef and sugar industries to bankroll ‘run off’ concerns those industries were already undertaking. [iv]

Remember, the CEFC was established by the 43rd Parliament with the expressed and mandatory objective to catalyse increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector.
The CEFC invests in accordance with the legislation, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 (CEFC Act) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate.

When Tasmania’s Bass Strait under-sea cable failed just before the election the PM’s agile answer was to pledge
$1.5 billion for a second Bass Strait undersea cable link to the mainland.[v]
$100 million was set aside to prevent the closure of the Steelworks in Whyalla SA.
The University of Tasmania’s Northern Campus in Launceston received a pledge of $150 million to be extricated from the CEFC. [vi]

Prime Minister Turnbull is saying to Tasmanians and UTAS, ‘you can have an expanded Northern Campus or a renewable energy industry, but you cannot have not both.

Effective and efficient energy prices are central to the definition of energy subsidies. The efficient consumer price for an energy product (for example, gasoline or coal) consists of three components:
The cost of supplying the product to the consumer (or opportunity cost), a “Pigouvian” (or “corrective”) tax reflecting the environmental costs (or externalities) associated with energy consumption, and (less important) a consumption tax reflecting the need to tax all consumption to raise revenue.
The efficient producer price for an energy supplier is simply the supply cost since efficient taxation requires that only final consumption by households is taxed.

Supply cost

The supply cost is the opportunity cost to a country of supplying the energy product to consumers (that is, firms and households). For internationally tradable products, such as petroleum products, the supply cost is the international price of the product adjusted for transport and distribution costs. For goods that are not internationally traded (“non-traded”), the supply cost is the domestic cost of production (“cost-recovery price”), with costs evaluated at efficient prices.
For example, as happened in South Australia recently if electricity is produced using natural gas purchased at a price below its export price, then the efficient cost-recovery price should be based on the export price of natural gas.

Pigouvian taxation

When the consumption of a good by a firm or household generates an external cost to society, then efficient pricing requires that consumers face a price that reflects this cost. In the absence of a well-functioning market for internalising this cost in the consumer price, efficiency requires the imposition of a Pigouvian tax, a tax levied to correct the negative externalities (negative side-effects) of a market activity. These ideas are also known as an Eco tax (or green tax shift). Intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities.
This issue is especially pertinent for energy consumption since the consumption of fossil fuels generates a range of external costs including:
Outdoor air pollution from fine particulates that result from fossil fuel combustion (either produced directly or indirectly from atmospheric reactions of other emissions), the main environmental damage of which is elevated risks of mortality for populations exposed to the pollution. (See) Smog 1952 in London.

 

Air pollution includes damages from SO2, NOx, PM2.5, and VOCs. Fugitive BTX vapours of Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene and other unburnt Hydrocarbons are ignored as a cost to the nation’s health, still the fossil Fuel industry is forgiven but the IMF forensic examination of costs means, ultimately the taxpayer picks up the tab.

CO2 emissions 
resulting from fuel combustion, which, along with other greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, can pose very serious risks for the future stability of the global climate system.

For gasoline used in transportation, damages include global warming from CO2 emissions, local air pollution, and traffic congestion and accidents. For all other energy consumption, only damages related to CO2 and local air pollution are considered. For diesel used in transportation, damages include global warming, local air pollution, traffic congestion and accidents, road and bridge damage by heavy-axle trucks. Bridges built to last 50 years are now having a short life span of 30 years’ due increase axle loads on multiple trailers.
Broader externalities associated with the use of road fuels in vehicles, such as traffic congestion and accidents (most important) and road damage (less important).
Although motorists may take into account (“internalise”) some of these costs in their driving decisions, for example, the average amount of congestion on the road, the risk of injuring themselves in single-vehicle collisions, they do not take into account other costs such as their own contribution to congestion and slower travel speeds, injury risks to pedestrians and cyclists and occupants of other vehicles, and the burden on third parties of property damage and medical costs (van Bentham 2015).

“The natural environment – the land we live on, the air we breathe, the water we drink – even this can become voiceless, so that the earth’s cry for justice can go unheard. Now is the time to act, so that the natural environment is able to meet human needs rather than be sacrificed to the god of the economy.”

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE: A VOTE FOR THE VOICELESS, 2016

 

  • Yet, Australia’s Minister for Energy and the Environment, Joshua Frydenberg is seeking a deal with the states to lock in a permanent Coal/Gas base loads; this probably explains why the executive want to misappropriate CEFC funds.

All of this based on Hockey’s trying to rewrite an act he had not been able to abolish, to an extent he could (he thought) amend endlessly to make an Arms Lengths Corporation bow to his will.

Climate impacts are intensifying around the world and fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for their climate damage. Companies should immediately stop funding climate deception and publicly acknowledge the long-term goal of the Paris Climate Agreement and its implications for a swift transition to global net-zero emissions. [vii]

An in-depth analysis of eight leading fossil fuel companies finds that none of them has made a clean break from disinformation on climate science and policy. Read the Climate Accountability Scorecard.

It’s time to hold the corporations behind the climate deception accountable for their actions and for the harm of their products. Join the call to stop climate disinformation by telling one or more of these companies that the decades of deception must stop. [viii]
ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson (now, President Elect Trump’s Secretary of State) continues to misrepresent climate science by casting doubt on its accuracy in public statements, even though ExxonMobil’s own scientists confirm the science. He must, instead use his leadership role at ExxonMobil to get the company on the right track to help meet the climate goals endorsed by scientists and governments around the world.
Chevron funds the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—an industry group responsible for spreading climate disinformation. While other oil and gas companies have left ALEC, citing its position as climate change as the reason, Chevron continues to fund and take on leadership positions within ALEC.

As a major oil company that recognizes the climate risks of burning fossil fuels and remains a member of the US Chamber of Commerce’s board of directors, ConocoPhillips has a particular responsibility to speak out against the US Chamber’s harmful opposition to climate science.
Shell has recently taken positive steps in standing up for climate science. But it’s not enough. They still support groups that spread climate disinformation and block action like the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil industry association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.


BP has taken some positive steps recently, such as ending their funding of a leading group spreading climate disinformation, and supporting a shareholder resolution to be more transparent about climate risks. But, it’s not enough. It’s also time to publicly distance itself from the deceptive behaviour of the American Petroleum Institute and the Western States Petroleum Association.
The pattern of international collusion to control the energy industry.
A collusion to effect World Government subsidies of $5.6 Trillions per annum (according to the IMF calculations), to create the illusion of low unit costs, and to manage, resist and delay the growing threat, of investment in renewable energy competition, to the dominance of what was known as the ‘Seven Sisters’. A term coined in the 1950s by businessman Enrico Mattei, then-head of the Italian state oil company Eni, to describe the seven oil companies which comprised Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP); Gulf OilStandard Oil of California (now Chevron)Texaco (later merged with Chevron); Royal Dutch ShellStandard Oil of New Jersey (Esso/Exxon)and Standard Oil Company of New York (Socony) (trading as Mobil now part of ExxonMobil).
API
The American Petroleum Institute’s (API)1998 Memo, defined a road map for “Decades of Climate Deception.”
A strategy to confuse and bewilder the general public and proponents of alternative energies.

The Industry Chose a Course of Denial and Deception[1]

EXTRACT
U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, now chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has famously and repeatedly called climate change “a hoax.”
[ The Real Climate Hoax] In addition to his frequent claims, Inhofe went so far as to bring a snowball onto the Senate floor to somehow illustrate his point (Inhofe 2015a; Inhofe 2012; Inhofe 2005; Inhofe 2003; Inhofe 1991a; Inhofe 1991b; Inhofe 1991c).
Of course, Senator Inhofe fails to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of global warming. The science has been clear for decades that the planet is rapidly warming and that emissions of heat-trapping gases from the burning of fossil fuels are largely to blame. But Senator Inhofe is right about one thing: there has been a climate hoax that continues today. It is the decades’ long campaign by a handful of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—such as Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Peabody Energy—to deceive the American public by distorting the realities and risks of climate change, sometimes acting directly and sometimes acting indirectly through trade associations and front groups.

The internal documents collected and excerpted in this report tell the story of this deception. Disclosed to the public as recently as this year, the seven “deception dossiers” presented here tell an undeniable truth—that, for nearly three decades, major fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to distort climate science findings, deceive the public, and block policies designed to hasten our needed transition to a clean energy economy.
Their tactics have included collusion, the use of front groups to hide companies’ influence and avoid accountability, and the secret funding of purportedly independent scientists. Companies’ front groups have even used forged letters, claiming to be from non-profits that advocate for the wellbeing of women, minorities, children, seniors, and veterans, to dissuade members of Congress from supporting much-needed climate legislation (see, for example, Miller 2009). Deception Dossiers This report presents seven “deception dossiers”—collections containing some 85 internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. While many of these documents have been analysed by others (Oreskes 2011; Oreskes and Conway 2010; Gelbspan 1998), these dossiers offer the most complete and up-to-date collection yet available.

Excerpts of the documents are provided in the report’s appendices; the complete dossiers—totalling some 336 pages— are available online. Each collection of internal documents reviewed here reveals a separate glimpse of a coordinated campaign underwritten by the world’s major fossil fuel companies and their allies to spread climate misinformation and block climate action. The campaign began decades ago and continues today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Industry Misinformation and Deception Strategy: The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active disinformation and deception to maintain its lucrative profits. Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades. Internal documents dating back to the early 1990s show a series of carefully planned campaigns of deception organized by companies and by trade groups representing the industry.


Rex Tillerson (Now The USA Secretary of State appointed by President Elect, Donald Trump) former Exxon CEO’s Public Statements Denying Climate Change: 
Despite the recognition by scientists—including Exxon’s own—of the contribution of fossil fuels to climate change, CEO Lee Raymond stated publicly in 1996, “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate” (Inside Climate News B).
In 1997, he told the World Petroleum Congress that global warming was not occurring, and that even if it were, oil and gas would have nothing to do with it (Heartland)[2].

Fossil Fuel Propaganda (below) Designed to confuse. Paid for by the API in the war against renewable energy and your children’s unborn chance at life.

A new book from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), titled Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming, was released on November 30, 2015, the first day of the United Nations’ twenty-first conference of the parties (COP-21) taking place in Paris.
Why Scientists Disagree, by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, explains why the claim of “scientific consensus” on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. The authors comprehensively and specifically rebut the surveys and studies used to support claims of a consensus. They then summarize evidence showing disagreement, identify four reasons why scientists disagree about global warming, and then provide a detailed survey of the physical science of global warming based on the authors’ previous work.

Why Scientists Disagree is the eighth publication produced by NIPCC, an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.

Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs. NIPCC is sponsored by three non-profit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute.

This volume, like past NIPCC reports, is edited and published by the staff of The Heartland Institute, a national non-profit research and educational organization newly relocated from Chicago to suburban Arlington Heights, Illinois. It is based on a chapter in a forthcoming much larger examination of the climate change debate to be titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Benefits and Costs of Fossil Fuels. That volume will finish the three-volume Climate Change Reconsidered II series, totalling some 3,000 pages and reporting the findings of more than 4,000 peer-reviewed articles on climate change.
American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo to Fuel Uncertainty: A 1998 internal strategy memo from the American Petroleum Institute outlined the fossil fuel industry’s plan to use scientists as spokespeople for the industry’s view. The innocuously titled “Global Climate Science Communications Plan,” written with the direct involvement of fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil (then Exxon) and Chevron, details a plan for dealing with climate change that explicitly aimed to confuse and misinform the public.

According to the memo, “victory” would be achieved for the campaign when “average citizens” and the media were convinced of “uncertainties” in climate science despite overwhelming evidence of the impact of human-caused global warming and nearly unanimous agreement about it in the scientific community.

As fossil fuel companies’ efforts to deceive the public become known, the time is now ripe to hold these companies accountable for their actions and the harm they have caused.
A fraud on an international scale, a generational civil and criminal wrong.

Over the past several decades, the public has made it clear on issues such as tobacco, asbestos and lead that companies can be held liable when they fail to acknowledge and address the known negative impacts of their products on human health and well-being. Climate change is no different. Fossil fuel companies must accept responsibility for their heat-trapping emissions, halt their use of deceptive tactics, and pay their fair share of costs of harm caused by their products.

The number of the key players who had contributed to the tobacco industry’s deception campaign and a remarkably similar network of public relations firms and non-profit “front groups,” some of whom continue to actively sow disinformation about global warming today (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Hoggan and Littlemore 2009).

Exxon knew about climate change almost four decades ago and chose to spread climate denial, over taking action.[3]

Last November, New York’s Attorney General launched an investigation to determine whether Exxon misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change. The Attorney General of Massachusetts joined him. Now in 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also investigating Exxon for potential securities fraud. These investigations have one message:
Exxon must answer to the citizens of the world.

Exxon called the New York investigation a “distraction,” and continues to fund climate denial and reap profits, while the planet continues to warm.

$1bn fund for cutting the climate change impact of oil and gas has recently been announced by 10 of the world’s biggest oil companies, Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) aimed at keeping the firms in business, but cutting the burning of coal.
Global action to cut carbon emissions threaten the future of the oil industry and the fund was revealed on the day the global Paris climate change agreement came into force.

Bob Dudley, chief executive of BP and OGCI chairman, said: “We all absolutely realise the world will move to a low-carbon world. Don’t worry, we got it. The technology to monitor and reduce fugitive methane [gas] emissions, that is an essential licence for us to advocate for natural gas.” [ix]
Dudley, whose own pay is higher than BP’s contributions to the fund, said gas produced half the emissions of coal, the use of which is increasing in Asia.

“The price of coal is low and people are choosing affordable energy not clean energy. It’s going to make gas miss the opportunity.”

The quantifiable price of coal is multi-factored, the Minister for Energy & the Environment Josh Frydenberg and his Institute of Public Affairs chums, claim ‘Latrobe Valley Brown Coal, like gravity, it’s cheap and reliable.’

Coal and Oil of course, are not low-cost, when you reflect the dollar cost of the rapid rise of temperature and ppm of climate change gasses (Methane, Water-vapour, Carbon di-Oxide and air-borne particular matter).

The price of pollution, causing lung health problems, in the UK alone is $50 billions a year. The “killer fog” that hit London for several days in 1952. First appearing on 5 December, it lifted four days later with an estimated death toll of at least 12,000 people, with around 150,000 hospitalisations and thousands of undocumented animal deaths.

Although the Clean Air Act was passed partly in response four years later, the actual causes of the incident have gone unknown until now. Through atmospheric measurements of fog in China, and laboratory experiments, Texas A&M researcher Dr Renyi Zhang and his team came up with their answer: nitrogen dioxide converting comparatively benign sulfur dioxide into lethal sulfuric acid.

“People have known that sulfate was a big contributor to the London fog, and sulfuric acid particles were formed from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for residential use and power plants, and other means,” explained Zhang . “But how sulfur dioxide was turned into sulfuric acid was unclear.”

“Our results showed that this process was facilitated by nitrogen dioxide, another co-product of coal burning, and occurred initially on natural fog. Another key aspect in the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate is that it produces acidic particles, which subsequently inhibits this process. Natural fog contained larger particles of several tens of micrometres in size, and the acid formed was sufficiently diluted. Evaporation of those fog particles then left smaller acidic haze particles that covered the city.”

Similar things are happening in China’s most polluted cities right now. The reason there hasn’t been an incident like London’s “killer fog” is down to chemical happenstance: China uses a lot of fertiliser and that, combined with the heavy road traffic, results in high levels of ammonia, which neutralises the particles. “While the London fog was highly acidic, contemporary Chinese haze is basically neutral.”

Finally, the cost of intensifying almost uninsurable weather disasters across the globe.
At the same time Malcolm Turnbull is subsidising the fossil fuel industry (Oil, Coal and Gas) with (IMF calculation for Australia) $1,712 for every man, woman and child, each year, or $41 billions of taxpayer funds.
The taxpayer, in point of fact, pays three or four times for fossil fuel energy.

Cheap? I don’t think Australians will think so.
The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim MDPhD recently stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said.
In July 2016, Nicholas Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of world GDP each year.
The IMF indicates, that if governments stopped world fossil subsidies $5.6 Trillions per year, it would benefit government 3.8% world GDP a year.
A great investment in any bodies money [4]
The American Petroleum Institute’s campaign objectives have played out through right-wing think tanks like the IPA, the Lowy institute, etc. Australians have been subject to lies and half-truths, deceitful, fraudulent and misleading representations, the secrecy and confusion over the past decades.

The truth is we don’t have another forty years to waste.
Over Reach.
This exercise of power is designed to deliver outcomes, as defined by the American Petroleum Institute’s 1998 Memo, to benefit the political donor corporations, and individuals who paid for access to and the ability of those industries to influence ministers; that is, to remove carbon taxes and reduce carbon emission targets.

The Policy Agenda of the Institute of Public Affairs and its link to the recent LNP policy outcomes, demonstrates clearly fraternal relationships.[5] 

Australia’s executive Government is exposed exercising power beyond their authority, unreasonably, and/or in bad faith.
The High Court must be asked to test the last three CEFC Investment Mandates Presented by the Responsible Ministers in the context of Ministerial improper exercise of power.


IPA

The IPA was founded in 1943 United Australia Party. The IPA was one of a number of groups who combined to form the Liberal Party of Australia.

In 2013 before he won the prime ministership, at the dinner celebrating the Institute of Public Affair’s 70th anniversary, former Prime Minister Abbott took the opportunity to commit to a raft of big promises, with Mrs. Rinehart, Mr. Rupert Murdoch, and Cardinal George Pell as his witnesses.

“I want to assure you,” he said, “that the Coalition will indeed repeal the carbon tax, abolish the Department of Climate Change, abolish the Clean Energy Fund. We will privatise Medibank Private.”

This promise to the Institute of Public Affairs was significant because of its link to the Fossil Fuel Industry, which is clearly made evident from a memo from the American Petroleum Institute’s 1998 roadmap to victory.
The IPA is funded by both private individuals and businesses. Among these businesses ExxonMobil, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris, Caltex, Shell, and Esso. Electricity and mining companies, as well as British American Tobacco.
The following are Policies encompassed in Mr. Abbott’s promise:

Limiting the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Abolish the Department of Climate Change.
Abolish the Clean Energy Fund.
Repeal the renewable energy target.
Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states.
Privatise the CSIRO.
The Former Prime Minister, Anthony Abbott, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Minister Pyne, Former Treasurer Hockey, Finance Minister Cormann, Senator George Brandis, Senator Eric Abetz, Treasurer Morrison, Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for energy and Environment Josh Frydenberg  and Minister for Northern Australia Matt Canavan have connived to forward the interest of the Institute of Public Affairs and Directors of Rio Tito, BHP Billiton, Shell et al, in the Fossil Fuel Industry, to the detriment of the clean energy industry, the population in general, by attempting to defeat the purpose, objects and intent of the CEFC Act 2012.

The recent 44th Parliament had twice declined to allow the Executive to ‘abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.’ The cabinet have tried three times over the last two years to change the CEFC investment mandate and ‘in their minds,’ the CEFC Act 2012, now are attempting to create a final mandate, where the ‘Responsible Ministers’ can make as many investment directions as they please, thus according to their game theory; turning an ‘at arm’s length Corporation created by the 43rd parliament, into a financial institution at the whim and direction of the executive branch, without the required parliamentary authority.

This Contrary to the statute, the CEFC Act (2012) which expressly and by mandatory limitations, prohibits the executive of moving away from the objects and purpose of the CEFC Act. Further, contrary to the statute which should be read as containing a condition that payments by the Commonwealth would only be made out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purposes and in the spirit of the Act.

In Research Paper 28 1995-96
Dr. Max Spry wrote
:
As Hanks notes in Australian Constitutional Law, the Court’s attitude to the ability of the Executive to enter contracts is inconsistent with New South Wales v Bardolph, decided in 1934.
In Bardolph, the High Court held that the Executive could validly enter into a binding contract without legislative approval. The contract, however, would be read as containing an implied condition that payments by the Commonwealth should only be made out of moneys appropriated by Parliament. Justice Dixon (as he then was) said:

“It is a function of the Executive, not of Parliament, to make contracts on behalf of the Crown. The Crown’s advisers are answerable politically to Parliament for their acts in making contracts. Parliament is considered to retain the power of enforcing the responsibility of the Administration by means of its control over the expenditure of public moneys.”

Further, his Honour said:

“The principles of responsible government do not disable the Executive from acting without prior approval of Parliament, nor from contracting for the expenditure of moneys conditionally upon appropriation by parliament and doing so before funds to answer the expenditure have actually been made legally available.”

The scope of the executive power – a summary

Drawing on the cases discussed above, the following observations may be made on the scope of the executive power:

  • the words, ‘execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth’ in section 61 are no longer words of limitation;
  • it contains those common law Crown prerogatives (e.g., treaty-making; declaring war) that vest in the right of the Commonwealth rather than in the States;
  • it allows the Commonwealth to engage in activities peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation which cannot otherwise be carried out (including, for example, celebrations of the bicentenary, establishing the CSIRO and promulgating flags and other national symbols); and
  • it includes the power to enter into contracts and commercial arrangements without the sanction of the Parliament.

However, section 61:

  • does not extend beyond those responsibilities allocated to the Executive of the Commonwealth by the Constitution;
  • is subject to express constitutional limitations; and
  • it may be limited by laws enacted by the Commonwealth.

{ In the explanatory note attached to the third and final investment mandate. The Government has prescribed the following additional focus area for the Corporation’s activities:
(1) A Clean Energy Innovation Fund: To make available up to $100 million per year for ten years (starting in 2016-17) for investments in projects and business that have technologies that have passed beyond the research and development stages but are not yet established or of sufficient maturity, size or otherwise commercially ready to attract CEFC support under existing arrangements, and are unable to secure enough private sector capital. Investments will have the primary purpose of earning income or a profitable return and may be in the form of debt products or equity investments or a combination of both. The Corporation will work with ARENA in delivering the CEIF; in particular, ARENA will provide advice on the technical and commercial feasibility of prospective projects and technologies and the competitive environment of businesses seeking to deploy the relevant technology.

Authorised Version Explanatory Statement registered 09/05/2016 to F2016L00714 investment decisions under the CEIF. Examples may include technologies that support large-scale solar with storage, offshore energy, biofuels and smart grids.

Together with the focus areas outlined in section 13, this additional focus area will support the Government’s jobs and innovation agenda. It does not mean the Corporation must divest from any of its current investments. The Corporation will consider this direction in relation to new investments only.

Authorised Version Explanatory Statement registered 09/05/2016 to F2016L00714 the level of risk in the CEIF portfolio, and provide the agreed evaluation process to the responsible Ministers. In addition, the Board, in consultation with ARENA, must periodically review its CEIF investment risk management practices and must advise the responsible Ministers of specific measures taken in this regard. Section 16 provides that the 2016 Mandate replaces the Corporation’s previous Investment Mandate. The power to repeal a previous Investment Mandate is implied in the power of the responsible Ministers under sub-section 64(1) of the CEFC Act to issue new Investment Mandates to the Corporation.}

By the way it is worth noting here, that since the government had outlined new tasks for the CEFC outside its original purpose i.e., managing the CEIF. A pattern of behaviour emerged along with true intent of the Cabinet.

Once the election was finally over, PM Turnbull broke his election commitment and attempted to shut ARENA down and take its total $1.3 billion back to ‘fix’ the budget, but ran into a storm of Get Up political aware cohorts, and the renewable energy supporters at large.
Finance minister Cormann and Energy and Environment Minister Frydenberg horse traded $500 million to treasury which left $800 million to keep ARENA alive for the time being. However, being sore losers the government immediately lifted $800 million out of the yet to be legislated CEIF and sent it to the treasury, now it, the government, is $1.3 (in its thinking) billion better off and the CEIF is down to $200 million to start up novel renewable energy operations.[6]

They had failed to Abolish the CEFC Act twice and tried three times to dictate how or what it would finance and now it seems they are simply raiding the funds by sending the catalytic financier for the renewable energy sector stony broke.[7]
Our Government is not arranged like the Macquarie Bank.

When the founding fathers were preparing our Constitution relating to the scope and limits to the powers of the executive, the delegates to the Constitution Convention favoured responsible government over the separation of legislative and executive powers. Sir Samuel Griffith (QLD), for example, suggested that the US system has shown the ‘unwisdom … of having ministers dissociated, and the executive government entirely dissociated, from the legislature’) Mr. Barton (NSW) agreed. In his view, the dissociation of the executive from the representative body means that ministers ‘being individually amenable to a president, they are only in the slightest degree animated by a common policy so far as regards their common action’)

More recently, in the context of purporting to explain why the Australian Constitution does not (and need not) contain a Bill of Rights, Sir Robert Menzies observed that although in both the Australian and American Constitutions, the legislative, executive and judicial powers are separately stated, in Australia ‘the Executive is not only responsible to the Legislature but, in its political embodiment is part of and directly responsible to the Legislature’.(21) Similarly, Sir Owen Dixon, then a Justice of the High Court, noted that while the frame of Australia’s Constitution followed American notions of the separation of powers, that notion was quite alien to British practice, and hence it has never been fully applied in Australia. However, his Honour continued, the ‘judicial power is exercised by the Courts alone and … Parliament cannot empower any other tribunal to perform judicial functions.’

However right now. The Coal Barons should be pleased with their IPA lobbyists and their parliamentary wing, under the leadership of  Tony Abbott.

It is the Parliament which authorises the Executive Government to spend public money, (not the other way around), by agreeing to government proposals for expenditure and taxation, scrutinises the administrative actions of the Government and serve as a forum for the debate of public policy.

The executive cannot change an Act of Parliament simply because it believes it has the right to require such change.

Decision will scare away international investors: Bloomberg analyst
Investors said the Government’s decision to stop putting taxpayer money into wind and household solar was making a difficult investment environment even worse.


What is the CEFC?
The CEFC was set up by the Gillard government in 2012.

  • It mobilises capital investment in renewable energy, low-emission technology and energy efficiency in Australia.
  • The corporation operates like a traditional financer, working with co-financers and project proponents to seek ways to secure financing solutions for the clean energy sector.
  • It focuses on projects and technologies at the later stages of development which have a positive expected rate of return.
  • As at June 30 last year, the CEFC had contracted investments of over $900 million in projects with a total value of over $3 billion.

The head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Australia, Kobad Bhavnagri, said the new directives would make a difficult investment environment even harder.

“I certainly think it makes Australia very unattractive,” he said.

“One has to remember that we are really in a global marketplace for capital, for investment, for employment of companies to come and bring their expertise here and invest their dollars in Australia.

“And likewise we’re in a global marketplace where Australian companies, Australian investors, Australian banks can look to pursue opportunities overseas if the environment in Australia is unfavourable.

“And sadly, the conditions created over the last few years, first through the review of the RET … and now this latest move is just an accumulation of factors and evidence that really say and paint a picture that Australia is not really open for business if you’re in the business of wind energy.”

The wind energy sector had been buoyed by the recent bipartisan support for the RET, but Mr Bhavnagri said the directive from the Government to the CEFC had changed the mood of investors.

“When the deal was done on the RET, I think the wind industry as a whole breathed something of a sigh of relief,” he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Responsible Ministers for the CEFC, contend they can change the purpose and the intent of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation ACT 2012 by using a 1901 provision to revoke a section of the CEFC Act 2012, the investment Mandate, providing the executive authority to change the intent of the CEFC Act without returning to the parliament to seek such a change.

The government’s position is that it is legally able to change the CEFC Act 2012, using the royal prerogative; just as they do when sending us to their wars or when they sign treaties they may or may not honour..

It has long been an established that the royal prerogative cannot be used to make or alter the law made by parliament. The most fundamental rule of the constitution is that parliament is the supreme law-making entity. It can make or undo any law.

The power of parliament as the maker of our laws, is the established principle of parliamentary sovereignty, so it would have been completely inconceivable for the executive to overreach its prerogative powers without any form of parliamentary scrutiny or approval.
Those are questions that can be decided only by our sovereign parliament.
The essential rule of constitutional law is that parliament is sovereign, and that legislation enacted by both Houses of Parliament is supreme.

Neither the courts, nor the executive government acting alone, can overrule the legislation of parliament. That is what the government was seeking to do – and why this ruling is so important. The court has upheld the fundamental principle that laws parliament has enacted cannot be swept away by the government.
The high court’s key reasoning is that the government “cannot without the intervention of parliament confer rights on individuals or deprive individuals of rights”.

 
Both Houses of Parliament now need to stand up for the national interest and demand accountability from the executive, and for their constituents. The courts have done their bit for the rule of law. Parliament, on behalf of all of us, now needs to do the same.
To act in abuse of Authority of office, with the intention to dishonestly gain a benefit for another person or cause a detriment to another, is in fact a crime. The tactical effect of the responsible ministers (February 17th 2015 directive), acting as de facto or shadow directors has caused the required confusion, flux, hesitancy and uncertainties envisaged by the American Petroleum Institute in 1998.  Investment in the clean energy industry deteriorated by 88% since 2014.
[8]

The written and verbal instructions, of former Treasurer Hockey and Finance Minister Cormann to the CEFC Board to move away from wind generation and roof-top solar, towards emerging technologies, whatever that means, were not only against the object of the CEFC Act, they signalled a change in tactics and was an attempt to alter and/or marginalise the operation of the CEFC Act 2012, by using the Acts Interpretation act 1901.

The origin of this saga is Hockey and Cormann Attempting to change the Investment Mandate of the CEFC to ‘repurpose’ the corporation avoiding the need obtain amendments which have been made, suggested and passed by the Senate, and to which the House of Representatives agrees.

The fundamental rule of interpretation is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it, and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole.

It is abundantly clear, the Parliament that produced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, intended the Act not be easily diverted or altered by new directives inimical to its purposes.
The May 2016 budget, grants more than $40 bn in subsidies to fossil fuels industries and gives $100 mil ‘in new money’ to mining exploration, ‘the money’ Minister Hunt told the UN in Paris when he pledged to create the Clean Energy Innovation Fund with ‘new money’; (now reduced to $200 million)
the money was $1 bn to be taken out of the CEFC fund on July 1 2016, the day the CEFC receives the fourth annual instalment of $2 billion, a day before the Double Dissolution election.

Evidence of the misleading and deceptive behaviour of ministers of the crown including the Prime Minister, even on the International Stage.
Prime Minister Turnbull claims he has taken $1billion from the CEFC, $10 bn funds that the previous parliament created, to fund his new Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF), intending to have the ARENA and the CEFC act jointly as administrators of the CEIF.  A further $ 1 bn will be ‘drawn ‘ from the “Green Bank ” to Clean up the Barrier Reef, a $100 mill set aside to prevent the closure of the Steel works in Whyalla SA.

At the same time, Minister Hunt joined 175 Nations in New York and was reported making a commitment, to use “New Money from Treasury of $1bn over ten years,” to pay for the innovation fund. Thereby demonstrating his ‘Bona Fides.’
His pledge described in the mainstream media as‚ a Pea and Thimble trick‚ the shifting of committed money from funds; out of the so-called Green Bank, (the CEFC) into the CEIF.

Because those cuts are still not legislated, despite being accounted for in the budget bottom line, ARENA still has a legislated spending program with $1.3bn in uncommitted funding over the next six years.

Presumably, the Turnbull government believes it can legislate to change that after the federal election. By retaining it‚ (the $1.3bn in uncommitted funding over the next six years), as government policy, it can continue to book the saving.
Deceptive and misleading conduct by Members of Parliament:

Prime Minister Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Former Prime Minister Abbott, Ministers Pyne, Hockey, Cormann, and Hunt are attempting to convince the public to “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science, recognition of uncertainties becomes part of “conventional wisdom” and the Industry, that they and cabinet can ‘re-purpose and re-direct’ the corporation without going back through parliament; limiting changes can be made by the responsible ministers in the terms of the ‘Limits on Investment Mandate’.

 

Let’s consider those limits; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, imposes on the responsible Minister’s mandate.

Section 65: The responsible Ministers must not give a direction under subsection 64(1):

(a)  that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment; or

(b) that is inconsistent with this Act (including the object of this Act).
PM Turnbull claims he is retaining something he was not able to abolish in the first place, and he still pretends his ministers were able to change an Act of the Parliament by making a change to the investment mandate that was beyond their authority. Uncertainty leads firms to take a wait and see approach and delay any long-term investments in low-carbon technology.
Those who have suffered detriment.

The following organisations have expressed concern and loss to their memberships and the health of families in future years. Many are prepared to testify, bring evidence of the effect of false representations, made by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth of Australia spreading decades of Fossil Fuel Industry Corporate Disinformation.

Citizens’ Climate Lobby: citzensclimatelobby.org,

ClimateWorks: climateworks.org,

Doctors for the Environment Australia: dea.org.au,

Global Call for Climate Action: tcktcktck.org,

Clean Energy Council: cleanenergycouncil.org.au,

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): irena.org,

Australian Conservation Foundation: acfonline.org.au,

Solar Citizens: solarcitizens.org.au.

 

The people who have Solar and Wind generating facilities are voting with their feet on this issue and have made a significant and proportional investment in the future for their families.

Minister Greg Hunt had ruled that the greenhouse gas that would be created by when the coal from the Galilee Basin was burned were not relevant to his assessment. The Federal Court examines the role of the national environment legislation regarding Global Warming.
A potentially far-reaching legal case was recently instigated in the USA by the Atmospheric Trust Legal (ATL) Actions.

The Trust demands that the Oregon state government protect the climate. Their argument springs from Professor Mary Christina Wood’s book ‘Natures Trust.’ Her book argues that citizens have a right to live and flourish. Therefore, a government elected by the people has the duty to protect the natural systems required for their survival: forests, wildlife, soil, water and air.

Public trust doctrine holds that certain resources are available to All citizens equally— to enforce the constitutional right to a livable environment it Includes the atmosphere as an asset in that trust, and calls government to ‘restorative duty’, which means preventing future damage, but also repairing past harms that scientists identify as threatening to current and future generations.
Citizens have a right to live and flourish. Therefore, a government elected by the people has a duty to protect the natural systems required for their survival; namely forests, wildlife, soil, water, and air (or atmosphere). If the executive and legislative branches both fail in that duty of protection, the resulting violation of citizens’ constitutional rights requires the third branch, the judicial, to intervene.

In nine lawsuits or petitions currently making their way through state and federal courts as well as courts overseas, Wood’s innovative legal theory is shaping new precedent in environmental law. What’s ground breaking in her framework is threefold: It calls upon the public trust doctrine—which holds that certain resources are owned by and available to all citizens equally—to enforce our constitutional right to a livable environment. It also adds atmosphere as an asset in that trust, citing its importance in the stability of every natural system.
It calls government, as trustee, to restorative duty, which means not just preventing future damage, but repairing past harms scientists now identify as threatening to current and future generations. Hence the relief demanded by the children: an order requiring the governor and the legislature to use the best available scientific methods to create and implement a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 6 percent per year until at least 2050. The goal of the remedy? A stable, sustainable climate, both for the teenagers and their descendants, which top climate scientists say they only have a shot at if carbon in the atmosphere is lowered immediately from its current 398 parts per million (ppm) to 350 ppm.
Though Wood’s litigation framework is new, the public trust concept is not. The idea that nature as a whole belongs to everyone and can’t be bought or destroyed was committed to paper, or probably parchment, by the Roman emperor in 535 CE in the Institutes of Justinian. Once it hit US shores centuries later, the trust concept developed more formally.

“Since the beginning of this nation,” Wood explains, “courts have declared that government

is a trustee of the natural resources we all depend on. In a trust, certain assets are managed by one party for the benefit of another. The beneficiaries of this public trust are the present and future generations of citizens. No politician stands above the public trust. As a constitutional premise embodying the inalienable rights of the people, government quite literally cannot rid itself of the trust obligation.”

In other words, in applying the public trust concept to the climate crisis, Wood has devised nothing less than a brilliant end run around any US president, governor, senator, agency, committee, or politically deadlocked Congress.

Professor Wood argues that legal action is not going away for two reasons.

First, the climate crisis is intensifying, and courts are going to change their view of their role as more heat waves strike, and the legislature sits idle.

Second, the public trust doctrine is not going away. It’s been around since Roman times. Moreover, it is too deep for any one opinion—even a Supreme Court opinion—to wipe out.

Laws that speak of citizen rights to clean air, water and air will pose a conundrum for ‘Corporate Personhood’ and the fourteenth amendment. Wood, M. C., Nature’s Trust: Environmental law for a New Ecological Age,

Cambridge University Press, New York,2013

Atmosphere of Hope Tim Flannery / Text Publishing/21 / 210: textpublishing.com.au

gain a benefit.     Petroleum Institute http://www.api.org/

Moreover, every member of the Fossil Fuel Industry worldwide who fight to resist the renewables industry.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, 27 October 2015 said:

“The Australian Government recognises the critical role that clean energies play in global efforts to reduce emissions, grow national economies and create the jobs of the future. Australia has a lot to contribute, given our strong history in clean energy innovation, research prowess, and because we are one of the largest energy exporters to the world. Australia is pleased to join the Mission Innovation initiative and pledges to double government clean energy research and development investment by 2020. This commitment is based on the 2015 figure to be reported to the International Energy Agency for combined research and development into renewable energy, energy storage, fuel cells, smart grids, energy efficiency, nuclear and carbon capture and storage.
Australia‚ governmental expenditure in 2015” (yet to be finalised) is estimated to be around $AUD 100 million per year. (out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Allocation for ten years).

The Government‚ Innovation and Science Agenda outlines how we transform our approach to innovation and science right across the economy with major new initiatives.

The Australian Government recognises the importance of science, innovation, and technology to our future prosperity and economic security as a nation in a rapidly expanding and diversifying global economy science right across the economy with major new initiatives.”
The executive has to go back to parliament and win a vote on the floor of the Parliament.
Many firms and individual investors have lost badly in the solar and wind industry, and many are in Tasmania. There soon will be, a class action that further delays the industry and the public just getting on with moving away from the Paradigm Paralysis and the hugely subsidised coal, gas and oil industries.
There are obligations in the law, for the public service and ministerial advisors to provide apolitical and impartial advice, and to maintain the freedom to do so.
Reading through the citation above Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, it is clear, the principles coming through are, that any change such as the revocation, of a part and or a new investment mandate, to the CEFC Act 2012. Must be to the original Act, except that it may only be modified by amendments made, requested or agreed to by the Senate.
Attempting to change the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 to something that suits the executive, and its’ Political donors or benefactors can only be done by going back to the Senate.
Unfortunately, for the Abbott Government, the previous parliament had foreseen the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose inimical to the purpose and objects of the Act was more than likely. The Government that created the CEFC wrote a clear investment mandate to set a certain direction for the CEFC Board, wisely also in mandatory language wrote a clause which, in confining terms strictly forbids changes which can be made by the responsible ministers in the terms of the ‘Limits on Investment Mandate’.
The CEFC is an incorporated body at arm’s length from the Government, it is not a bucket full of money for a treasurer to dip into every time he needs to spend money she or he does not have. A responsible Minister must take care not to act as a Defacto or a Shadow Director of the board, lest she or he transgresses the provisions of the Corporations Act.

Before a treasurer decides she or he may be inconsistent with the Act or the object of the act, she or he must read the act in the context of the whole of the Act. In this Case there has been an error in the reading of the law or a deliberate disregard of the limitation imposed on the Minister’s authority to act. The Treasurer and the finance minister have broken the law.
The Government has been looking for a loop hole to go around the parliament by chicanery, so far they have produced confusion in the market place, and brought the clean energy industry growth to a crawl. If this ideological interference had not happened, the growth and jobs in this industry may have delivered some balance to the down turns in other parts of the economy.

The key, is they have deliberately ignored the Law (CEFC Act 2012) Section 65 of the Act, does clearly, and in both expressed and mandatory Language forbid that any direction or mandate which has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment.

It is not within the power and authority of a responsible Minister. He/she most certainly cannot act as a Shadow Director committing to shut the enterprise down because the IPA has given him a list of targets:

As a Director with some authority he owes a duty of care for the person he is responsible for (the CEFC) and to undermine the corporation because his parliament won’t allow him to abolish it Is repudiating his duty as a leader and director of a legal entity under his care.

Implied

Treasurer Morrison continues to tell us we can’t spend money we don’t have. While he and his colleagues are robbing the Green bank that is still under protection of the law of the land.

This communication is not just about links to the IPA, The Dossier of Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos of Corporate Disinformation.

This is an outline of the evidence so far gathered to link the Oil and Coal Giants from the seventies, The IPA since before Abbott was the LNP leader.  Mr. Abbot’s actions show how strong the links to the IPA wish list; and to Abbot’s pledge before Murdoch, George Pell and Mrs Rhinehardt on the seventieth Birthday of the IPA.

The Links are there; the Crimes have been Committed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/oil-firms-announce-1bn-green-fund-as-paris-climate-deal-comes-into-force?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Green+Light+2016&utm_term=198189&subid=12097803&CMP=EMCENVEML1631
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/hockey-sets-impossible-targets-for-cefc-in-green-investments-62743
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/verrender-why-stop-at-the-mining-tax/5726276

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-investment-grinds-to-a-halt-20150414-1mkn70.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-pulls-the-plug-on-household-solar-20150712-gian0u.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596
AUDIO: CEFC seeks legal advice over Government mandates on wind and solar (Breakfast)

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/verrender-why-stop-at-the-mining-tax/5726276
https://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1345447840_document_be_like_gough.pdf
http://www.austill.edu.au/journals/2011/i.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-12/government-lobbies-for-cefc-to-stop-wind-farm-funding/6613590
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s706/nl/2147483647/b1f0c299-c76c-4e8e-9121-fc2054bbc328/
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/turnbulls-sleight-of-hand-on-clean-energy-investment-202

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/chicken-little-abbott-and-brandis-wrong-on-lawfare-20150821-gj4htj.html
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/libs-match-utas-funding-pledge/news-story/e4b625ce3aaf58402ede3543b703452e
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/second-tasmania-basslink-will-need-at-least-1000mw-of-new-renewables-89558
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/08/abbott-says-lobbyists-as-liberal-party-power-brokers-could-lead-to-corruption
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/clean-energy-finance-corp-could-sue
http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/the-public-interest-disclosure-(pid)-scheme.aspx
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00104
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/12/coalition-bans-clean-energy-finance-corporation-wind-power-investment
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/13/when-you-poke-the-coalitions-great-barrier-reef-rescue-mission-it-crumbles
https://www.The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/worst-kind-of-company-alarm-in-britain-over-macquarie-banks-proposed-takeover-of-britains-green-investment-bank-20161221-gtg55k.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htm
http://www.theenergycollective.com/gcooperrfa/227356/busting-big-oil-myths-renewable-fuel-standard-part-i
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091206-kdmb.html
https://www.evernote.com/Home.action#n=fd46a9c5-c217-4558-978a-d4cb6c53ef3a&ses=4&sh=2&sds=2&

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/08/finkel-review-criticises-climate-policy-chaos-and-points-to-need-for-emissions-trading

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/07/what-an-extraordinary-gutless-capitulation-by-josh-frydenberg

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/06/australias-energy-transmission-industry-calls-for-carbon-trading

http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/worst-kind-of-company-alarm-in-britain-over-macquarie-banks-proposed-takeover-of-britains-green-investment-bank-20161221-gtg55k.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20100127022854/http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article272352.ece
Mann, Ian (24 January 2010). “Shaky industry that runs the world”. The Times (South Africa). Archived from the original on January 27, 2010
Henderson, Dean. The Four Horsemen Behind America’s Oil Wars, Global Research, 26 April 2011
Vardi, Nicholas (28 March 2007). “The New Seven Sisters: Today’s Most Powerful Energy Companies”. Seeking Alpha.
Italy: Two-Timing the Seven SistersTime, 14 June 1963.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/oil-firms-announce-1bn-green-fund-as-paris-climate-deal-comes-into-force?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Green+Light+2016&utm_term=198189&subid=12097803&CMP=EMCENVEML1631

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/hockey-sets-impossible-targets-for-cefc-in-green-investments-62743
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/verrender-why-stop-at-the-mining-tax/5726276

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-investment-grinds-to-a-halt-20150414-1mkn70.html
 

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596
AUDIO: CEFC seeks legal advice over Government mandates on wind and solar (Breakfast)

 

 

https://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1345447840_document_be_like_gough.pdf
http://www.austill.edu.au/journals/2011/i.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-12/government-lobbies-for-cefc-to-stop-wind-farm-funding/6613590
 

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/turnbulls-sleight-of-hand-on-clean-energy-investment-202

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/clean-energy-finance-corp-could-sue
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/12/coalition-bans-clean-energy-finance-corporation-wind-power-investment
 

https://www.The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htm
http://www.theenergycollective.com/gcooperrfa/227356/busting-big-oil-myths-renewable-fuel-standard-part-i
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091206-kdmb.html
https://www.evernote.com/Home.action#n=fd46a9c5-c217-4558-978a-d4cb6c53ef3a&ses=4&sh=2&sds=2&

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/08/finkel-review-criticises-climate-policy-chaos-and-points-to-need-for-emissions-trading

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/07/what-an-extraordinary-gutless-capitulation-by-josh-frydenberg

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/06/australias-energy-transmission-industry-calls-for-carbon-trading

http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/worst-kind-of-company-alarm-in-britain-over-macquarie-banks-proposed-takeover-of-britains-green-investment-bank-20161221-gtg55k.html

The High Court’s first discussion of section 61 was in 1922 in Commonwealth v Colonial Combing, Spinning & Weaving Co (the Wooltops case). Wooltops considered the capacity of the Executive to enter into contracts without the approval of Parliament. The Court took a narrow view of section 61 (since overruled) deciding that the Executive could not enter contracts without Parliament’s prior approval:

Apart from any authority conferred by an Act of Parliament of the Commonwealth or by regulations thereunder, the Executive Government of the Commonwealth had no power to make or ratify any of the agreements.

Justice Isaacs stated succinctly:

In my opinion, unless authorised by some Commonwealth legislation the Executive Government would have no power to make any of the agreements.

As Hanks notes in Australian Constitutional Law, the Court’s attitude to the ability of the Executive to enter contracts is inconsistent with New South Wales v Bardolph, decided in 1934. In Bardolph, the High Court held that the Executive could validly enter into a binding contract without legislative approval. The contract, however, would be read as containing an implied condition that payments by the Commonwealth should only be made out of moneys appropriated by Parliament. Justice Dixon (as he then was) said:

It is a function of the Executive, not of Parliament, to make contracts on behalf of the Crown. The Crown’s advisers are answerable politically to Parliament for their acts in making contracts. Parliament is considered to retain the power of enforcing the responsibility of the Administration by means of its control over the expenditure of public moneys.

Further, his Honour said:

The principles of responsible government do not disable the Executive from acting without prior approval of Parliament, nor from contracting for the expenditure of moneys conditionally upon appropriation by parliament and doing so before funds to answer the expenditure have actually been made legally available.

In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, decided in 1982, Justice Murphy discussed the nature of the Commonwealth executive power with respect to external affairs. After noting that the executive power over foreign affairs may be found in section 61 of the Constitution, his Honour said that it is not unlimited, that it is subject to both express and implied constitutional limitations. His Honour continued:
It gradually became accepted that the prerogative powers of the Crown were incorporated in section 61 – or at least those vesting in the right of the Commonwealth. This view was finally settled in 1974 in Barton v The Commonwealth.

Barton involved the attempted extradition from Brazil of Alexander and Thomas Barton, Australian citizens living in that country. There was no extradition treaty between Australia and Brazil. The issue before the High Court was, whether in such circumstances, the Commonwealth’s executive power permitted the Government to request Brazil to detain and extradite the Bartons to Australia. The Court held that the executive power did authorise the Government to so act.

Mason J stated that the executive power includes the ‘prerogative powers of the Crown’and hence, subject to statute, it is within the executive power to request another state to detain and extradite a person alleged to have committed a crime against Australian law. McTiernan and Menzies JJ, in a joint judgment, endorsed Mason J’s views:
We are satisfied that unless statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, has deprived the executive of part of its inherent power, it may make such requests as it considers proper for the assistance of other states in bringing fugitive offenders to justice.

 

  • the words, ‘execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth’ in section 61 are no longer words of limitation;
  • *It contains those common law Crown prerogatives (e.g., treaty-making; declaring war) that vest in the right of the Commonwealth rather than in the States;
  • *It allows the Commonwealth to engage in activities peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation which cannot otherwise be carried out (including, for example, celebrations of the bicentenary, establishing the CSIRO and promulgating flags and other national symbols); and
  • *It includes the power to enter into contracts and commercial arrangements without the sanction of the Parliament.

However, section 61:
does not extend beyond those responsibilities allocated to the Executive of the Commonwealth by the Constitution;
is subject to express constitutional limitations; and it may be limited by laws enacted by the Commonwealth.

 

,

Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General, Melbourne, 1983, pp 44-47; J.E. Richardson, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ in L. Zines (ed) Commentaries on the Australian Constitution, Sydney, 1977, pp 72-76.

  • Henry Burmester, ‘The power of Parliament to enact legislation regulating the treaty process’ Opinion, 13 June 1995, p 3.
  • Victoria v The Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 338 at p 406.
  • Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 at pp 237-238.
  • ibid, p 238.
  • Barton v The Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477 at p 491,
  • ibid, p 501.
  • Burmester, op cit, p 3.
  • E. Richardson, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ in L. Zines (ed) Commentaries on the Australian Constitution, 1977, p 64. See also: L. Zines, ‘Commentary’ in H.V. Evatt, The Royal Prerogative, 1987, p C17.

 

[1] http://www.ucsusa.org/press/2016/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-science-deception – .WDrZqqJ97fA

[2] http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

[3] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty

 

[4] http://live.worldbank.org/turning-the-paris-climate-agreement-into-action

[5] https://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1345447840_document_be_like_gough.pdf

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/27/solar-energy-and-rethinking-geothermal-arenas-hits-and-misses?CMP=share_btn_tw
[7] http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/worst-kind-of-company-alarm-in-britain-over-macquarie-banks-proposed-takeover-of-britains-green-investment-bank-20161221-gtg55k.html

[8] http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/worst-kind-of-company-alarm-in-britain-over-macquarie-banks-proposed-takeover-of-britains-green-investment-bank-20161221-gtg55k.html
[i] http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-directive-against-wind-farm-investments-surprises-cefc-crossbenchers-20150712-giagiy

[ii] http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-investment-grinds-to-a-halt-20150414-1mkn70.html


[iii] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/chicken-little-abbott-and-brandis-wrong-on-lawfare-20150821-gj4htj.html


[v] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/second-tasmania-basslink-will-need-at-least-1000mw-of-new-renewables-89558
[vi] http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/libs-match-utas-funding-pledge/news story/e4b625ce3aaf58402ede3543b703452e

[vii] New South Wales v Bardolph (1933-1934) 52 CLR 455. For a discussion of the Executive’s power to enter contracts see: H.E. Renfree, The Executive Power of the Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney, 1984, pp 469-484; E Campbell, ‘Commonwealth Contracts’ (1970) 44 ALJ; G. Winterton

[viii] http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4433/deceptive-and-misleading-conduct-by-corporations-t.aspx
[ix] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/oil-firms-announce-1bn-green-fund-as-paris-climate-deal-comes-into-force?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Green+Light+2016&utm_term=198189&subid=12097803&CMP=EMCENVEML1631

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WJlNSLZ96EI

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty

http://faculty.etsu.edu/odonnell/2016fall/engl1028/student_essays/climate_change_denial.pdf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/peabody-energy-files-for-chapter-11-protection-from-creditors-1460533760?mod=Evernote_wsj

During June 1918 in France ten companies of the 33rd American National Guard Division had been training with the Australian Corps for several weeks and four American companies went into the battle Le Hamel on the morning of 4 July. It was the first time that Australians and Americans were to fight together in the First World War.

Two Australians,Thomas Axford and Henry Dalziel, (The one thousandth VC awarded), won Victoria Crosses for their conduct during the battle.

American Corporal Thomas A. Pope received the British Distinguished Conduct Medal from King George V on August 12, 1918. General Pershing presented Cpl. Pope with his Medal of Honor on April 22, 1919. Cpl Pope was the first recipient of the Medal of Honor during the first world war. Pope and seven other doughboys were awarded the US Army’s Distinguished Service Cross for actions during the battle of Le Hamel.

We have never fought as one fighting force quite so integrated as on this occasion and both sides saw each other as ‘brothers in arms’. That was 93 years ago, in just 93 minutes there were 1,062 Australian casualties (including 800 dead), as well as 176 American casualties (100 dead) there were probably 2000 Germans killed and 1,600 captured.
Yet Julia Gillard’s speech writer overlooked this history when they had her tell the US congress that we had fought alongside the USA for the last sixty years.
You could understand it if this battle was a minor skirmish. But This was a major turning point in the war.
It is disgraceful that two Victorian Crosses and the first Congressional Medal of Honor in WWI were ignored in this joint sitting of both US houses, where many on both sides of the aisle and the Defence force representatives from Australia and The USA would have known of this history.

The Liberal lie continues — The AIM Network

By Ken Wolff In his speech on election night, as reported by The Guardian, Malcolm Turnbull: … accused the Labor party of running “some of the most systematic, well-funded lies ever peddled in Australia” in a campaign in which Labor claimed the Coalition was planning to privatise the government funded health insurance system, Medicare. Turnbull……

via The Liberal lie continues — The AIM Network