Chain Reaction #143

Edition #143 − August 2022

Publisher - Friends of the Earth, Australia

Chain Reaction ABN 81600610421 FoE Australia ABN 18110769501

www.foe.org.au

youtube.com/user/FriendsOfTheEarthAUS twitter.com/FoEAustralia

www.facebook.com/FoEAustralia flickr.com/photos/foeaustralia

Chain Reaction website www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Chain Reaction contact details

PO Box 222,Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065. email: chainreaction@foe.org.au

phone: (03) 9419 8700

Chain Reaction Collective

Moran Wiesel, Zianna Faud, Sanja Van Huet, Natalie Lowrey, Anisa Rogers, Tess Sellar

Layout & Design

Tessa Sellar

Printing

Sustainable Printing Company

Printed on recycled paper

Subscriptions

Three issues (One year) A$33, saving you $12 ($15/issue)

See subscription ad in this issue of Chain Reaction (or see website and contact details above).

Chain Reaction is published three times a year

ISSN (Print): 0312-1372

ISSN (Digital): 2208-584X

Copyright:

Written material in Chain Reaction is free of copyright unless otherwise indicated or where material has been reprinted from another source. Please acknowledge Chain Reaction when reprinting.

The opinions expressed in Chain Reaction are not necessarily those of the publishers or any Friends of the Earth group.

Front cover

Aviva Reed, 2022; Carboniferous anthrops. Watercolour on paper. avivareed.com

'Who’s Reading Chain Reaction?’

Let’s learn more about the Chain Reaction community! Submit a photo with a sentence about you, and response to the questions: 'when /where did you first read Chain Reaction?’, 'what does FoE / Chain Reaction mean to you?’ 'what environmental /social justice/alternative world building projects are you working on at the moment?’. Send to chainreaction@foe.org.au. Include your name and location

Friends of the Earth Online

www.foe.org.au

youtube.com/user/FriendsOfTheEarthAUS twitter.com/FoEAustralia

facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Earth-Australia/ flickr.com/photos/foeaustralia

Editor’s Note:

Imagine your great-grandchildren live in your hoped-for utopia. What do their communities look like? What resources do they need and use to eat/live/play? This edition invites you to dream the world your heart longs for; and bring that dream into this moment, and our campaigns now. We start by taking a hard-hitting look at our culture’s extractivist mindset, and the ways this pervades corporations’ “greenwashing” and perhaps even our activist goals. As always, get in touch to join the Chain Reaction Collective, submit an article, or write a letter to the editor. email: chainreaction@foe.org.au

Friends of the Earth (FoE) Australia is a federation of independent local groups. Join FoEA today, sign up to our monthly newsletters, or donate!

We Need Renewables in the Right Place

“Can you imagine 239 turbines abutting the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, or Kakadu World Heritage Area, or the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area? The Wet Tropics deserves better!”

The transition to zero emissions renewable energy is now finally occurring. However, this comes with its own challenges. Industrial scale renewable projects are sometimes in the wrong locations.

Two projects proposed, Chalumbin and Upper Burdekin, would clear almost 3,000 hectares of remnant vegetation and vital habitat for many endangered species. At state level, there is a planning guideline called “State Code 23 for wind farms” which is a deficient, outdated and flawed instrument. It is at federal level that these projects usually become

known to the wider public. However, by this stage it is often too late. The solution to this madness is an overarching planning policy for the roll out of renewables.

A moratorium is needed on any industrial scale projects adjacent to the Wet Tropics World

A master plan for Queensland can be developed that highlights high bio-diverse areas, state-wide wildlife corridors and places of high cultural significance, overlaid with high wind resource and solar opportunities. The land outside of these areas could be open/suitable for the roll out of renewables. If such plan is not created, conflict between land use and the protection of nature will persist and only intensify in the coming years. Read more:

foe.org.au/renewables_in_the_right_place

Photo: Kaban Wind Farm, 15/2/22. Top of ridge line that used to be in pristine condition now smashed. Chalumbin will have 146km of new roads like this and Upper Burdekin another 150km of new roads.

Barngarla Traditional Owners call upon Labor government to scrap nuclear waste dump

The Traditional Custodians of land near Whyalla in South Australia announced to house a nuclear waste dump the Barngarla People call on the new Labor Government to revoke the radioactive waste declaration.

In a published statement they present the letter written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the new Resources Minister Madeleine King, urging them to revoke the declaration of the nominated site.

Barngarla spokesperson quote:

“There (have been) serious failings (including) denying the First Peoples the right to vote, not conducting a proper heritage survey of the area, trying to legislate away judicial review, breaching UNDRIP and abandoning the test of broad community support at the last minute without any warning to anyone. ….Because of … terrible mishandling by the National Party, we again call upon the new Labor Minister to quash the declaration.”

Support Barngarla’s legal challenge: foe.org.au/cr143_a

Read/watch for more info: foe.org.au/cr143_b

Federal Climate & Environment Policy Platform 2022

Friends of the Earth Australia welcomes the rapid movement of the new federal government on key election commitments, including those covering environment, climate and energy.

FoE has compiled a Policy Platform, encouraging the new government to take long-term, whole picture, intersectional approach; not a short term approach with limited focus.

Our top 5 priorities are:

1. Rebuild our climate knowledge,

2. Meet and exceed climate commitments,

3. Establish a national Just Transition Authority,

4. Get renewables right,

5. Rule out further fossil fuel development.

Read the full FoE policy document: foe.org.au/federal_climate_ environment_policy_platform_2022

Fighting the fires of the future

2019/20 showed that Australia just doesn’t have enough capacity to fight wildfire. Thankfully the summer of 2020/21 was mild. Before the 2022/23 summer starts, we need a deeper commitment from the federal government for fire fighting.

In June and July 2020, Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA) hosted a virtual bushfire and climate change summit to coordinate a national response. The Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan is the culmination of that effort.

A key recommendation is the suggestion that we build our air capacity to the point where authorities are able to deploy planes or helicopters to attack fires immediately, rather than waiting until ground crews are not able to contain the blaze.

The Climate Plan recommends that the Federal Government should:

• Increase the funding available for more aircraft.

• Develop a self-sufficient aerial firefighting capability in Australia.

• Increase funding for the training of local pilots to fly firefighting aircraft

•Undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing aerial firefighting strategies and assets used in Australia, compared to approaches used in Europe, the USA and Canada.

Read more: foe.org.au/fires_and_air_support

Has Lockton put ethics aside to back Adani’s disastrous coal mine?

On 29 May 2022, Lockton, a US-based insurance broker, was appointed to arrange insurance coverage for Adani’s climate-wrecking Carmichael coal mine and rail line. Market Forces followed up with a letter to Lockton putting this information to the head of its Australian operations and it has not been denied.

112 major companies have ruled out providing services to the Carmichael coal mine, due to the reputational risks of being involved with such a destructive

project. Forty-four of the world’s biggest insurance companies are refusing to provide coverage for Carmichael, including Lloyds of London. Any work Lockton does for Adani could prove decisive in enabling the mine to continue to operate and boost production.

Email Lockton, asking them to commit to not working for Adani’s disastrous coal project: marketforces.org.au/lockton-adani

www.foei.org

www.facebook.com/foeint

www.twitter.com/FoEint

www.youtube.com/user/friendsoftheearthint

www.flickr.com/photos/foei

Action alerts: www.foei.org/take-action

FoE International’s web radio station (in five languages): https://rmr.fm/

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is a federation of autonomous organisations from all over the world. Our members, in over 70 countries, campaign on the most urgent environmental and social issues, while working towards sustainable societies. FoEI currently has five international programs: Climate Justice and Energy; Economic Justice, Resisting Neoliberalism; Food Sovereignty; Forests and Biodiversity; and Resisting Mining, Oil and Gas.

Climate Crisis is the Symptom, Overconsumption is the Disease

FoE Europe

With the European Environmental Bureau and the European Youth Foundation, we have launched a new animated scrolling webpage to raise awareness of, and pose concrete solutions to, systemic EU overconsumption. overconsumption.friendsoftheearth.eu Overconsumption is a giant hole in the European Green Deal and the interrelated EU environmental and climate policies. EU continues to ignore the urgent need to reduce resource overconsumption.

The EU is not addressing systemic overconsumption and the obsession with economic growth.

The main ask is for the European Commission to include in its 2023 Work Programme commitments to

assess the amount of resources the EU can sustainably and fairly consume within planetary boundaries, and to establish a binding reduction target for the EU’s material footprint and detailed plans to reach it.

Recently, we published two pieces related to this – our report in October 2021 “Green Mining is a Myth: The case for cutting EU resource consumption”, which outlines the extent and impacts of EU overconsumption, how decision makers are turning a blind eye to overconsumption, the ‘green-transitionwashing’ by metal and mineral mining companies and governments, and what politicians need to do to tackle all of this.

The second is a paper in January of this year “7 Sparks to Light a New Economy”. The economy is designed, and we can redesign it! We lay out 7 transformational ideas for a life-sustaining economy within Earth’s limits. We want an economy that’s truly democratic, participative and public, where work and business are transformed, that embodies the core values of sufficiency, care and empathy, equality and inclusiveness, and autonomy.

Read “Green Mining is a Myth”: foe.org.au/cr143_c

Read 7 Sparks to Light a New Economy”: foe.org.au/cr143_d

What is Extractivism?

Natalie Lowrey and Anisa Rogers

Extractivism is a large concept. Its origins stem from extractivismo discourse which is intertwined thinking from academics and grassroots activists including Indigenous communities in Latin America. Extractivismo centres the lands and communities directly affected by extractive projects.

The concept of extractivism has travelled far and wide, it has taken on new meanings, and opened new vistas of critique as well as resistance. Broadly speaking the concept of extractivism has two elements.

The first element is the process of extraction of raw materials such as metals, minerals, oil and gas, as well as water, fish and forest products, new forms of energy such as hydroelectricity, and industrial forms of agriculture, which often involve land and water grabbing by the extractive industries.

The second element has migrated and expanded from extractivism origins to also include other extractive logics. These include:

• Transnational commodity flows known as ‘urban extractivism’, for example the fashion industry with its extracted labour and human rights issues that are erased by a marketing machine to ‘just do it’ and consume;

• Operations of digital platforms known as ‘data extractivism’, for example the development of information technologies where data effectively becomes a raw material that can be extracted, commercialised, refined, processed, and transformed into other commodities with added value, like the billion-dollar profits of Amazon, Google and Facebook;

• Stock markets known as ‘financial extractivism’, for example gentrification of our cities where rich investors buy social housing without a care for the building or the community it may serve. The building is no longer seen as a building it becomes a game of buy and sell at the expense of low-income people and their community; and

• Global transition to renewable energy ‘green extractivism’, in which we are witnessing corporate and private interests putting pressure on countries in both the Global South and Global North to satisfy the global economy’s demand for minerals and raw materials for ‘green’ growth and the ‘green’ transition.

Understanding extractivism means understanding that nearly anything can be extracted: mineral resources, labour, data, and cultures. It is a take, take, take logic, not one of giving.

It is a logic of violence that includes abuses to life, health, land, food, and water; displacement of people; violations of Indigenous Peoples

rights; gender-based violence and discrimination against women; criminalisation of workers and human rights and environmental defenders; and the use of military and security forces to protect natural resources and corporate interests.

Extractivism and the growth economy

To put this violence and damage in context, we must look at the underlying mentality of extractivism. Under capitalism, extraction operates for profit above all else, and competition for profit spurs economic growth. Without this continuous growth, economies go into crisis. However, this economic growth very clearly correlates with ecological consumption and, on a finite planet, destruction. Therefore, critiquing extractivism also means critiquing economic growth.

It is often argued that these problems can be solved through more efficient technology, rather than a decrease in overall consumption. However, continually developing more efficient technology is often subsumed by what is called the ‘Jevons Paradox’, in which an increase in efficiency in resource use generates an increase in resource consumption, rather than a decrease.

Continuing to grow our economy therefore means our ecological impact will also continue to grow. Those who argue we can ‘decouple’, or separate, our economic growth from environmental destruction, have been proven wrong time and time again. To have a chance at mitigating the climate and ecological crises we face we require a decrease in overall energy use and a degrowth strategy and transition from a consumer society to a simpler, more cooperative, just, and ecologically sustainable society.

Extractivism and the Australian context

The extractivist development model has been in place and perpetuated since colonial times. This is most often thought of in the framework of a dominant and highly unequal model of development which is geared for the exploitation and marketing of natural resources in the Global South for export to the rich economies of the Global North. Most of the time, extractivism has created relations of dependency and domination between the providers and consumers of raw materials. However, in the context of Australia, we need to unpack settler colonialism and extractive settlercapitalist economies.

Settler colonialism is primarily about land. The clue is in the name: the settler stays and establishes exclusive territorial sovereignty over expropriated or ‘stolen’ First Nations lands. This ‘logic of elimination’ centres access to land as the primary motivation for elimination.

Settlers—and the settler state—aims to displace the First Nations presence through land theft and genocide so they can establish their own direct connection with the land. This soughtafter connection, which has both economic and cultural dimensions, continues to have farreaching consequences on First Nations peoples in the land they now call Australia.

To broaden this further extractive settlercapitalist economies have been founded in the ongoing processes of Indigenous displacement, dispossession, and erasure – this still stands as one of Australia’s most enduring national features. Australia is a mining state. Australia also exports this extractvist model and the abuses that go with it to other Indigenous lands and local communities overseas through our corporations, investments, aid and trade deals.

Beyond Extractivism to Post-Extractivism

What we need is a new logic, one that overturns the prioritisation of rampant mineral extraction -

References

be it iron ore, coal, gas, copper, nickel or lithium, logging our forests, extracting our waters - this has to be irrespective of any capitalist economic gain. There needs to be a recalibration of the Australian settler state that properly prioritises First Nations interests over the so-called ‘national interest’. Sadly, nothing in living memory suggests that any government is up to embracing such a challenge. So, it is up to us, the people. We need to stand with First Nations people who have fought against extractivism since colonialism came to this country. Extractivism is large and to many of us we cannot see a way out of this extractivist mindset and logic. However, there is an expansive visionary world beyond extractivism, a world of post extractivist circular economies and circular societies that protect cultural and biological diversity. Where there are national and local systems of care, access to universal basic income, food sovereignty is prioritised, information and communication modes are restored and rooted in society, and there is less production and consumption towards degrowth.

Alexander, S. A critique of techno-optimism, Samuel Alexander, 2017 Black, D. “Settler-Colonial Continuity and the Ongoing Suffering of Indigenous Australians”, Published April 25, 2021, https://www.e-ir.info/2021/04/25/settler-colonial-continuity-and-the-ongoing-suffering-of-indigenous-australians/ Hickel, J. “Why growth can’t be green”, Published September 14, 2018, https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/9/14/why-growth-cant-be-green Gaia Foundation. “Beyond Extractivism”, https://www.gaiafoundation.org/areas-of-work/beyond-extractivism

Riofrancos, T. Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador, Duke University Press, 2020 Serpe, N. “The Origins of Anti-Extractivism”, interview with Thea Riofrancos, Dissent Magazine, Published December 9, 2020, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/anti-extractive-politics

Tout, D. “Juukan Gorge destruction: extractivism and the Australian settler-colonial imagination”, Arena Quartely, No.4, Published December 2020, https://arena.org.au/juukan-gorge-destruction-extractivism-and-the-australian-settler-colonial-imagination/ Trainer, T. Degrowth – How Much is Needed?, Biophysical Economics and Sustainability, 2021 Whitmore, A. A Material Transition, War on Want, March 2021, https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/A%20Material%20Transition_report_War%20on%20Want.pdf

Infographic: Natalie Lowrey for War on Want: A Material Transition report

Australia’s Mining Rush for Green Energy

Liz Downes and Natalie Lowrey

Australia is leading a mining boom to provide resources for the ‘green energy transition’ - a transformation in energy and infrastructure which the Paris Agreement (2015) stipulates must occur to avoid perilous levels of global heating.1 Within Australia and globally, this mining expansion is affecting already stressed environments and communities, with impacts likely to dramatically increase as mining projects are pushed through to meet industry demands. Australia is looking towards being a key future provider of certain minerals regarded as essential for green energy. These include lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements. In this piece we present a brief overview of the emerging footprint and impacts of Australian companies who are extracting these minerals, domestically and globally.

Lithium

Australia extracts about 50% of the world’s lithium.2 Government policy is pushing expansion for green energy production, supporting new lithium projects, particularly in the Pilbara, Goldfields and Perth regions of Western Australia. A mine being built in Larrakia land, Northern Territory, is associated with groundwater impacts and Native Title issues.3 Overseas, Australian companies are exploiting salt lakes in northern Argentina, where for decades Indigenous people have resisted

the impacts of brine mining on vulnerable ecosystems and water.4 The lithium rush is accelerating in Portugal, Serbia, USA, and Canada, placing communities, endangered species and First Nations lands at risk.5,6

Copper

Copper is in demand for green energy technologies and transport electrification.7

Australia’s largest copper mine is BHP’s Olympic Dam in South Australia – a site known to activists supporting the struggles of Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott to protect cultural sites. 8 There is currently a great increase in new copper projects across the continent.

Overseas, Australian companies are expanding in Chile, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, USA, Canada, Mongolia, Spain, Zambia and Namibia. Socio-environmental problems and resistance are associated with several projects, including Rio Tinto in Arizona and OceanaGold in the Philippines.9,10

In South America, the copper rush is focused on Ecuador, where Australian mining concessions cover 700,000 hectares including protected areas and Indigenous lands.11 Ecuador has a strong grassroots anti-mining movement. In the northwest, communities are fighting Hanrine (owned by Gina Rinehart), which has committed human rights abuses,12 and have stopped BHP from starting explorations.13

Regional assembly against mining, northwest Ecuador.

Credit: Carlos Zorilla

Nickel

Nickel is required in large quantities for lithium-ion batteries. Australia is the world’s fifth biggest extractor,14 with several grandscale operations in Western Australia. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced a crisis in the nickel market, which has pushed battery manufacturers to look towards Australia as a supplier of ore for EU and Asian electric vehicle markets. As of 2022, companies are exploring or developing new mines across ‘nickel hubs’ in Western Australia, NSW and Queensland. Overseas, problematic Australian nickel projects include South32’s Cerro Matoso mine in Colombia,15 notorious for air and water contamination which has caused serious health impacts in Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities.16 Twiggy Forrest’s planned ‘battery metals hub’ in Ontario, Canada impacts on First Nations Peoples who have declared a moratorium on development until they are properly consulted.17

Cobalt

Cobalt has bad press due to the human rights issues associated with its mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces 70% of the world’s supply. With the boom in demand for batteries, Australia has come into vogue with investors as a ‘socially responsible’ site for future cobalt production.18 The Federal Government has designated cobalt, like lithium, a ‘Critical Mineral’.

There has emerged a plethora of companies wanting to take advantage of fast-tracking strategies and grants. Most new cobalt projects are in (surprise) Western Australia; with clusters in central NSW and northern QLD. Overseas, ASX-listed Jervois Global is building a cobalt mine in Idaho, USA. Not only is the project located near a defunct mine which caused one of the USA’s worst environmental disasters;19 it sits in wildlife-rich National Forest and the lands of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. What could possibly go wrong?

Rare Earth Metals

Rare earth elements (REEs) are a specific group of 17 metals with a variety of industrial applications. The Federal Government has listed four particular REEs as critical because they are essential for permanent magnets in green energy technologies, including wind turbines and electric vehicles. These are neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium. In 2022, the US Department of Defense gave $US360m in project development grants to three Australian REE companies: 20 Lynas Rare Earths, Iluka Resources and Australian Strategic Minerals. Since 2011 Lynas has been dumping radioactive waste from its Malaysian REE refinery into an unsafe holding facility,21 while Iluka has a reputation for impacting important cultural heritage sites.22

Goldfields: A Battery Metals Hub

In Australia, the expansion of mining for green energy is concentrated in Western Australia’s Kalgoorlie-Goldfields region. Copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and REEs are all already mined here, and many new projects are being fasttracked. The main issue here is the amount of water required for mining and infrastructure, and the lack of an overarching water use plan.23 The Goldfields covers several Native Title claims and has a proud history of companies disrespecting Traditional Owners in order to force through expansions.24

Shifting the Narrative Beyond Extractivism

It is critical we expose extractive industries of green washing their crimes and stop them from capturing the energy and digital transition narrative. We cannot and should not base our development pathways and just(ice) transitions on the expansion of mining and extractive industries.

To do this we need to shift the narrative beyond mining and extractivism, in the following ways: Reimagine and redefine development. There are already flourishing models of traditional and alternatives to the current development model, they are rooted in justice and serve the well-being of people and the planet. This includes degrowth to help redistribute global demand for energy and resources, and a reduction of our energy and material consumption in the Global North. Australian companies must be held responsible for their domestic and overseas impacts on people and the environment. This requires the Australian government to improve oversight and independent monitoring of company activities to ensure diligence with regard to legal obligations in host countries and internationally.25

Communities harmed by overseas Australian investments, operations or activities must have access to justice within Australian legal systems and policy frameworks. This should include the introduction of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence obligations for large Australian companies, especially those who are operating in locations and sectors with high risk of negative impacts.26

BHP’s Mt Keith nickel operation in the Goldfields: open pit mine and 5-km tailings lake. Credit: Conservation Council of Western Australia

Australian climate policies must be centred on justice and equity and that all supply chains of metals and critical minerals are clean, just, and fair. This should include exposing and holding to account all misleading branding of “clean” energy and “renewable” technologies. Justice and equity must be centred across all value and supply chains of the transition to prevent further global intensification of destructive extractivist practices, particularly in vulnerable ecological and cultural regions.27

In August 2022, Aid/Watch and the Rainforest Information Centre will be launching a major report mapping the domestic and global extractive footprint of Australian companies who are invested in minerals for the green energy transition.28, 29 The research highlights how Australian corporations and investors are

expanding into new territories for new sources of “critical and strategic” metals and minerals for low-carbon technologies, renewables, and green tech that will be as equally problematic as fossil fuels resulting in threats to biodiversity, livelihoods, and life itself. It calls for the urgent need for alternative pathways and development models for the transformational shift we must collectively make towards justice if we truly are to address the climate and ecological crises we face.

Liz Downes is a campaigner, writer and researcher who has spent five years working with grassroots collective Melbourne Rainforest Action Group and the Rainforest Information Centre, supporting frontline communities in Ecuador to defend their lands and forests from mining.

Natalie Lowrey is Coordinator of Aid/Watch & the Yes to Life No to Mining global network.

1. The Paris Agreement, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement

2. Burgess, C & Downes, L. “Lithium Communiqué: Is Australian Lithium the Answer to Zero Emission”. Aid/Watch & Rainforest Information Centre. Published September 22, 2021. https://aidwatch.org.au/campaigns/lithium-communique-is-australian-lithium-the-answer-to-zero-emissions/

3. Bardon, J. “NT farmers worried about the race to renewables and lithium exploration in the Top End”, ABC News. Published May 24, 2022. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-24/nt-farmers-pastoralists-fear-exploration-for-lithium-renewables/101090970

4. Frankel, T, & Whoriskey, P. “Tossed aside in the lithium rush”, Washington Post. Published December 19, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/tossed-aside-in-the-lithium-rush/

5. “This Is the Wild West Out Here”, Politico Magazine. Published September 2, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/09/nevada-lithium-mine-environmental-investigation-bureau-land-management-100595

6. Yes to Life No to Mining. “Lithium Communiqué: On the frontlines of lithium mining”. Published 21st September 2021 www.yestolifenotomining.org/latest-news/ylnm-lithium-communique

7. Burgess, C & Downes, L. “Copper Communiqué: In the race to net zero, ‘Copper is the new oil’ – but at what cost?”. Aid/Watch & Rainforest Information Centre. Published December 14, 2021. https://aidwatch.org.au/in-the-news/communique-on-copper/

8. McIntyre I. “An interview with Kevin Buzzacott”. The Commons Social Change LIbrary. https://commonslibrary.org/kevin-buzzacott/

9. Milne, P. “Rio Tinto’s big energy transition runs into local issues”, The Age. Published April 10, 2022. https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/rio-tinto-s-big-energy-transition-runs-into-local-issues-20220409-p5acaa.html

10. Chavez, L. “A Philippine community fights a lonely battle against the mine in its midst”, Mongobay. Published October 15, 2019. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/10/a-philippine-community-fights-a-lonely-battle-against-the-mine-in-its-midst/

11. Melbourne Rainforest Action Group. https://rainforestactiongroup.org

12. Burgess, C & Downes, L. “Can ‘green mining’ boom save our planet?”, Ecologist. Published September 9, 2021. https://theecologist.org/2021/sep/09/can-green-mining-boom-save-our-planet

13. Downes, L. “BHPs divide and conquer”, Ecologist. Published February 21, 2020. https://theecologist.org/2020/feb/21/bhps-divide-and-conquer

14. Minerals Council of Australia. “Commodity Outlook 2030”. Published June 2, 2021, https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/Commodity%20Outlook%202030.pdf

15. Burgess, C & Downes, L. “Nickel Communiqué: From the ‘Devil’s Metal’ to the ‘Holy Grail’ of Clean Transport”. Aid/Watch & Rainforest Information Centre. Published March 30, 2022. https://aidwatch.org.au/in-the-news/nickel-from-the-devils-metal-to-the-holy-grail-of-clean-transport/

16. Alvaro, I. “Cerro Matoso mine, chemical mixtures, and environmental justice in Colombia”, Correspondence, Vol 391, Issue 10137. Published June 9, 2018. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30855-9/fulltext

17. Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, and Neskantaga First Nations. “First Nations Declaration: Moratorium on Ring of Fire Development”. Published April 5, 2021. newswire.ca/news-releases/first-nations-declare-moratorium-on-ring-of-fire-development-854352559.html

18. Burton, M. “Australia cobalt rush accelerates on electric vehicle demand, DRC troubles”, Reuters. Published December 15, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-cobalt-batteries-idUSKBN1E90R4

19. Holtz, M. “Idaho is sitting on one of the most important elements on earth”. The Atlantic, Published January 25, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/01/cobalt-clean-energy-climate-change-idaho/621321/

20. “Australia’s rare earths projects get US$360 million funding boost to counter China dominance”, Reuters. Published March 16, 2022. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3170630/australias-rare-earths-projects-get-us360-million-funding

21. Aid/Watch. “Stop Lynas campaign”. https://aidwatch.org.au/stop-lynas/

22. King, C. “Still simmering: the cultural heritage conflict at the Iluka mine site in Kulwin”, ABC Local. Published April 5, 2011. https://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/04/05/3182449.htm

23. Government of Western Australia. “Water Allocation Plans”. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. https://www.water.wa.gov.au/planning-for-the-future/allocation-plans

24. Stevens, R & Moussalli, I. “Tjiwarl Native Title holders file compensation case against WA Government”, ABC Goldfields. Published June 18, 2020. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-18/tjiwarl-native-title-holders-seek-damages-for-cultural-loss/12367796

25. ‘A Way Forward: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia’, Parliament of Australia, October 2021, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Northern_Australia/CavesatJuukanGorge/Report

26. ‘Red Lines for Extractivism’, Yes to Life No to Mining global network, November 2021 https://yestolifenotomining.org/latest-news/red-lines-statement-on-extractivism/

27. ‘A Material Transition’, Andrew Whitmore for War on Want, March 2021 https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/A%20Material%20Transition_report_War%20on%20Want.pdf

28 Aid/Watch. “Alternatives to Green Extractivism”.

29. Aid/Watch. “Alternatives to Green Extractivism”.

https://aidwatch.org.au/alternatives-to-green-extractivism/

https://aidwatch.org.au/alternatives-to-green-extractivism/

Green Extractivism and Renewable Ecocide in Australia

Morgan Heenan

We are led to believe that the cause of ecological destruction is technological, and therefore its solution, the same. The problem is, we’re told, one of energy – merely a matter of ending coal and petroleum consumption. This is not entirely incorrect; fossil fuels have sent us careening towards a destabilized and increasingly hostile planet. But in our jerking away from fossil fuels, we so often uncritically accept the supposed alternative: renewable energy. The shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy systems is an immense infrastructural project. If, as is generally suggested, existing levels of material and energetic consumption are to be maintained, this infrastructure will require a vast project of metallic extraction, scouring the earth for lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, and other energy transition metals. As the IEA reports, a “typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant”.1 Evidently, there’s a big market in mining these metals, with investment rapidly ramping up. It’s for this reason that Goldman Sachs described copper, so crucial for energy infrastructure, as “the new oil”.2

Australia, the old mining superpower, is key in this new energy regime, extracting vast amounts of these metals, including more than half of the world’s lithium production. And, with demand looking to skyrocket,3 things are only getting started. In the face of this new mining boom, there is little reflection on its implications and its dangers. The relative newness of the lithium industry, for instance, means that we have little in the way of an understanding of the long-term impacts of extraction. But already the cracks in the green veneer of mining are showing.

Green extraction: a contradiction in terms

Extraction of these metals on this continent has already produced profound harm. This is clearest with copper, the most established industry, where mines such as the Redbank, Rosebery, and Olympic Dam mines have had significant ecological effects, particularly on waterways. Redbank, despite closing in 1996, has continually leaked heavy metals such as copper sulphide into nearby waterways, decimating aquatic and riverside life.4 In Rosebery, waterways are likewise polluted, with claims of heavy-metal poisoning amongst some residents. The mine is also rapidly running out of storage capacity in existing

tailings dams, prompting the clearing of parts of the Tarkine’s Gondwanan temperate rainforest to construct a new dam.5

In the case of Olympic Dam, water is being lost –or rather, taken – entirely. The mine is licensed to extract up to 42 million litres of the Great Artesian Basin every day from bore fields adjacent to Lake Eyre, without charge. The Basin feeds thousands of mound springs, unique ecosystems that are the only perennial source of water across the South-Australian desert. But in recent decades, these springs, listed as Endangered Ecological Communities, have seen reduced, and in some cases completely halted, flow.6

Lithium extraction, still in its nascence, is likewise already causing problems, which can only be expected to grow as extraction does. State EPA’s have identified the possibility of surface and ground water contamination in a number of lithium projects,7 and has already been reported, such as at the Wodinga lithium project in the Pilbara. 8

This damage is enabled by a social dynamic of exclusion from governance, in which those who are affected by extraction and inhabit the sacrifice zones it produces, are dispossessed from decisions around socio-ecological governance. Even on freehold land minerals belong to the Crown. That means governments can grant permits for exploration and extraction to corporations against the will of the landholder. On the Cape Yorke Peninsula, more than 70 exploration permits have been granted, including to Lithium Australia. Most of these permits are on freehold land owned by Aboriginal groups, who have had only limited success in challenging mineral exploration.9

The prioritisation of mining over Aboriginal interests in particular is a through-line in mining on this continent. As shown in the A Way Forward report, which followed Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge rock shelters, both state and federal governments consistently fail to protect cultural heritage and Aboriginal lands, with the native title system doing little to provide groups the ability to dissent to development on their lands.10

In the case of the Olympic Dam mine, this prioritisation is legislatively enshrined. The Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 allows for the disregarding of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, as well as Freedom of Information legislation. Even without this act however, the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 allows the Minister

the ability to authorise companies to “damage, disturb or interfere” with Aboriginal sites, which is exactly what has happened at Lake Torrens, a sacred site to multiple Indigenous nations, where exploratory drilling is underway. This exclusion is in stark contradiction to Australia’s commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which mandates the consent of Indigenous groups.

Despite this, it is argued that Australia, in contrast to states such as those in the lithium triangle of South America, has the governmental and industrial capability to conduct mining in a ‘responsible’ way. But the extraction of these metals is already disastrous. And, given what we know of the mining industry as a whole –cronyism, state capture, and a complete failure of governments to hold corporations accountable for the harm they cause, or to even mitigate it –we shouldn’t bank on it getting better.

There are no technological solutions to over-extraction, nor injustice

Mining companies, as well as governments, are increasingly justifying their extraction as necessary for ‘greening’ global energy systems, positing a moral imperative to rip as much metal out of the ground as possible. In an inversion of conventional wisdom, we are told, it is the miners who are now the ecologists. Yet, the extraction of minerals on this continent is destructive, exploitative, and undemocratic, whether it is coal or lithium. ‘Renewable’ technology doesn’t appear out of thin air, and we can’t simply engineer ourselves out of ecocide. By way of example, there is predicted to be two to three billion cars on the road by the middle of the century. That’s a recipe for destruction, whether internal combustion or electric.

The argument here isn’t that renewable energy and electrification is necessarily bad; renewable energy is, of course, preferable to burning fossil fuels. But the idea that we can continue in the direction we’re headed, merely switching technologies, is an illusion. A sustainable society will include many technologies being developed to transition away from fossil fuels, and will therefore inevitably involve mining. It will also, however, involve fundamental shifts to the ways we live our lives. We cannot, for instance, have one car (or more) in every household, or have constantly-new devices packed with lithium and rare-earth minerals. And we certainly can’t have mining corporations and crony governance deciding how to pillage the earth.

To survive the 21st century, we need more than a new colour of extractivism. We need to fundamentally reassess the ways in which we produce and consume, and the economies we inhabit. And we need democratic and just discussion about how to relate to the more-than-human world, and how to do more with a whole lot less. Morgan Heenan is a writer, musician and activist. His work centres on creating socialecological wellbeing and the cultural and political change needed to get there.

1. IEA. The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions

2. Goldman Sachs. Green Metals: Copper is the new oil. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/copper-is-the-new-oil.html

3. IMF. Energy Transition Metals. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/10/12/Energy-Transition-Metals-465899

4. NT EPA. (2014). Redbank Copper Mine — Environmental Quality Report. Retrieved from https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/284743/redbank_ environmental_quality_report.pdf

5. Grigg, A., McGregor, J., & Carter, L. The rush to renewable energy means a new mining boom. But first, Australia needs to make some tough choices. ABC News. Published May, 2022. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-09/renewable-energy-may-require-australian-mining-boom/101034914

6. Mudd, G. M. Mound springs of the Great Artesian Basin in South Australia: a case study from Olympic Dam. Environmental Geology, 39(5) (2000): 463-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050452.

7. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. Decision Report: Application for works Approval: Wodinga Operations. https://www.der.wa.gov.au/ component/k2/item/14378-w6132-2018-1, EPA. Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority: Greenbushes Lithium Mine Expansion. https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/greenbushes-lithium-mine-expansion.

8. Mir, F. Regulator flags tailings seepage at Mineral Resources’ Wodgina lithium plant. Published July, 2019. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/newsinsights/trending/Kpy3R9mpYO9910-cnWuy2Q2

9. Smee, B. Mining exploration surges in Cape York as scheme to return land to traditional owners stalls. The Guardian. Published April, 2021. https://www. theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/08/mining-exploration-surges-in-cape-york-as-scheme-to-return-land-to-traditional-owners-stalls.

10. Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. A Way Forward, Juukan Gorge Final Report. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/ Northern_Australia/CavesatJuukanGorge/Report

Coal Mine, Victoria, 1935

Exploring Supply and Demand Solutions for Renewable Energy Minerals

Andy Whitmore

The following is a modified version of the executive summary of A Material Transition, published by War on Want and London Mining Network in March 2021.1 The report seeks to fully explore the issues associated with mining for energy transition minerals, and what can be done to mitigate the impacts.

There is an urgent need to deal with the potential widespread destruction and human rights abuses that could be unleashed by the extraction of transition minerals: the materials needed at high volumes for the production of renewable energy technologies. Although it is crucial to tackle the climate crisis, and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, this transition cannot be achieved by expanding our reliance on other materials. The voices arguing for ‘digging our way out of the climate crisis’, particularly those that make up the global mining industry, are powerful but self-serving and wrong – and must be rejected. We need carefully planned, low-carbon and non-resource-intensive solutions for people and planet.

Academics, communities and organisations have labelled this new mining frontier, ‘green extractivism’: the idea that human rights and ecosystems can be sacrificed to mining in the name of ‘solving’ climate change, while at the same time mining companies profit from an unjust, arbitrary and volatile transition. There are multiple environmental, social, governance and human rights concerns associated with this expansion, and threats to communities on the front-lines of conflicts arising from mining for transition minerals are set to increase in the future. However, these threats are happening now. From the deserts of Argentina to the forests of West Papua, impacted communities are resisting the rise of ‘green extractivism’ everywhere it is occurring. They embody the many ways we need to transform our energyintense societies to ones based on democratic and fair access to the essential elements for a dignified life. We must act in solidarity with impacted communities across the globe.

Supply-side and demand-side solutions are both necessary to mitigate harm caused from the

mining of transition minerals. There is hope in the form of different initiatives that aim to apply due diligence along the supply chain. However, the sheer number of these laws and schemes means that consolidation and coordination are desperately required. Suppliers and manufacturers must work with civil society, especially impacted communities, to ensure the effectiveness and legitimacy of these due diligence initiatives. Even more importantly, we need to ensure there is a level of mandatory compliance if the schemes are to have any credibility. We must address the lack of effective and binding mechanisms that ensure respect for human rights, by applying international legal norms which hold transnational corporations accountable for their abuses. A just transition must be a justice transition.

On the demand side, there are a number of practical solutions which could be initiated or accelerated to enable better-informed choices about our energy and resource consumption. These changes should lead to a circular economy, reducing the need for new resource extraction. However, it is not enough to switch to green growth (such as increasing the production of electric vehicles). A radical reduction of unsustainable consumption is the most effective solution, based on a fundamental change to Global North economies and lifestyles. Such a change could be considered the creation of a circular society.

What is needed first and foremost is a global effort to bringing together those most affected by the problems at the heart of transition minerals. Such a process should focus on those three key areas; international solidarity with those impacted by transition minerals; advancing initiatives needed to ensure fair and just global supply chains for renewable energy technologies; and pushing for the fundamental societal changes needed to reduce unsustainable material consumption. These three actions would be a key stepping stone towards the transformation needed, in the UK, Europe, and globally.

To read the full report, visit waronwant.org.

1. Whitmore, Andy 2021, “A Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy minerals”, War on Want & London Mining Network, https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/A%20Material%20Transition_report_War%20on%20Want.pdf

Victorian Gas Substitution Roadmap: Concerns and recommendations

Freja Leonard

When the Victorian Government said they were seeking public consultation on a gas substitution roadmap it was an impressive moment. As the heaviest fossil gas user, at over a third of the domestic market, the Victorian Government was finally recognising and planning to tackle our state-wide gas problem. As we plunged into an energy crisis brought on by the fossil energy retailers, drafting this document was timely.

The Victorian Gas Substitution Roadmap (VGSR) makes all the right noises. It swaps out the term “natural” gas, replacing it with the more aptly descriptive “fossil” gas. It recognises that people are struggling with gas bills that have doubled in the past year. It identifies efficiency as a critical factor, with the 7 star minimum housing standard required for all new homes including public housing.

But what about the millions of inefficient homes that lack adequate insulation? What about rental and social housing, low income homeowners struggling to maintain cost of living already? What about the health impacts of having old gas appliances in these homes? These are often the households that most need help to transition.

The VGSR frames the problems of gas in a way that no state, territory or federal government has before. And then fails to deliver a solid solution. A year after the International Energy Agency told us that in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050 we cannot afford to open up a single new gas field, this document allows exactly that. Plus it is prepared to consider the import of gas from new drill sites from the north of Australia into floating gas terminals, which could forever devastate the environments of Corio Bay and Port Phillip Bay. Months after the IPCC reported that we have until 2030 to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 75% or face catastrophe, this document tinkers with those critical years for change.

Because the truth is that it’s not a matter of if, but when the curtains fall on the gas industry, both here in Victoria and globally. Gas is in an economic death spiral. A sensible government would map out a plan for an equitable rapid retirement of gas from the energy economy. This means planning an orderly shut down of the gas pipeline system that pumps methane into our homes. It means ensuring that the lower income outer suburban areas are not left paying

for the upkeep of the network through gas bills that they can’t afford but can’t afford to move away from. This requires that the government immediately stop paying people to replace their old gas appliances with new gas appliances under the Victorian Energy Upgrades program and only offers efficient electric appliances powered by renewables. This demands that instead of simply no longer requiring new developments to be connected to gas, that any future gas connections be prohibited entirely. Most critically of all it requires the strength of political will to refuse to open a single new gas well anywhere in the state, to scrap plans for the Western Outer Ring Main, a whole new gas main to be built years after the Australian Energy Regulator signalled that gas pipelines were already on the way to becoming stranded assets. The Victorian Government is to be commended for opening up a much-needed conversation about the importance of shifting away from gas as a whole-of-state effort. Their commitment to remove gas from government buildings, including public schools and hospitals shows real leadership delivering better health and economic outcomes for Victoria. But it’s only the beginning of a decarbonisation of our energy economy that must happen fairly and rapidly with measurable targets. Freja Leonard is the No More Gas campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth, currently putting the finishing touches on the alternative to the Victorian Gas Substitution Roadmap, FOE’s own Community Gas Retirement Roadmap. Find out how you can get involved: freja.leonard@foe.org.au

The VGSR frames the problems of gas in a way that no state, territory or federal government has before. And then fails to deliver a solid solution

Extractivism Culture is Killing Our Forests

Alana Mountain

We sat down to talk with FoE Forests Coordinator, Alana, about the intersections of extractivism and the forestry industry.

What does extractivism mean to you?

So-called Australia was built on extractivism. It is the underpinning ideological crutch of the Australian economy. An economy founded on the blood of First Nations people. On the destruction and dispossession of their traditional lands. On the consistent overuse and over expectation that the Earth can be reaped for all it has and somehow cope. That it can continue to sustain and provide us with a steady flow of minerals and resources a capitalist society demands, many of which are shipped overseas with the aid of climate-crisis fuelling fossil fuels.

It’s a non-reciprocal, dominance based relationship with the Earth, one of purely taking. Mines, land clearing, fracking. This continent has been dismembered, dynamited, disrespected and exploited to no end. Colonisation and all the sickness that followed has led to the disintegration of a land that was once so rich and abundant when the First Peoples of this country lived in tandem with nature.

It really begins with colonisation, an opportunity for the capital growth of the individual in a ‘new’ and racist country, a mentality that has driven us away from the values of community, of sharing abundance with our tribe, with our family, to instead the selfish pursuit of the ‘capitalist dream’.

As a Victorian forests campaigner, how do you see the extractivist mentality play out?

For myself, my close relationship with the forests of Victoria as a forest campaigner provides me with a direct insight into the extractivist mentality surrounding the logging industry. Each year, native forests are plundered at the expense of all life; the life within the forest, the flora and fauna, the life-giving source of water as well as the humans which benefit from the ecosystem services forests provide.

This same mentality manifests in destructive policies, the development of the 10 Regional Forest Agreements signed between 1997 and 2001, which are supposed “long-term plans for the sustainable management and conservation of Australia’s native forests”.1 These agreements have locked in contracts such as those to corporate giant Nippon Paper, requiring a fulfilment of the obligation to supply 350,000

cubic metres of native forest wood pulp per year within Victoria alone. This is an obligation that is completely inconsistent with the reality of where our forests are at in terms of ecological collapse. They have been over logged and damaged severely in catastrophic bushfire events. Fulfilling this obligation has pushed logging into areas of forests with high slope gradients surrounding water catchments. This has compromised, for example, the Thomson reservoir, which makes up over 60% of Naarm/Melbourne’s fresh drinking water.2 The agreement with Nippon has pushed logging into burnt and recovering forests because there simply isn’t enough ‘timber’ to supply/fulfil the contracts.

It is a major issue when forests are viewed as timber and not as they are, a complex ecosystem that cannot simply ‘grow back’. Viewing the earth as a commodity to exploit has led to the disintegration of our collective ecological heritage across the globe.

Have recent climate disasters created any shifts in the forest landscape?

Post the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 as well as the 2019/20 fires, the contracts to supply wood-pulp could have been terminated in Victoria under Force Majeure, specifically Division D. 32 detailing “a mass damage or loss to the resource”,3 however our government pushed on with no scientific evaluation of the damage to our forests which was sustained, or the severe impact of logging already fragile forest ecosystems.

It was as if nothing happened and the science, as usual, was left to the community, especially external/independent scientists deemed by the logging industry as ‘frauds’. Despite being highly peer reviewed and leading ecologists in their respected field, their analysis of what needed to change in forest ‘management’ was ignored by the government. The greed of the extractivist mentality prevailed.

What about those who say that forests are a renewable resource, and wood is necessary?

I often see pro-logging opinionists consistently appeal to futility, suggesting that because we live in a house with a timber frame that logging must continue and because we drive cars we can’t scrutinise the industry. This is an industry that returns no profit for the community and operates at a loss to the tax-payer. When you break down what our forests are actually being turned into,

It is a major issue when you view a forest as timber and not as it is, a complex ecosystem you cannot simply ‘grow back’.

Submit to Chain Reaction!

Send us your creative content (poetry, creative writing, artwork), local campaign updates, essays, 'letters to the editor’ and 'who’s reading Chain Reaction?’ Email chainreaction@foe.org.au.

it is astounding to think that we haven’t utilised the alternatives which exist to address the absurdity that is the ecocide of forests!

Over 85% of everything that is logged is pulped and shipped overseas to create paper or cardboard, a small percentage goes into pallets and less than 2% becomes hardwood products. We certainly do not need precious native forests for paper! One less resource intensive alternative that can provide us with fibres for paper is hemp. Such a small percentage becomes hardwood, and when we are faced with the ecological collapse of our forests, preference of a resource is an indulgent excuse that doesn’t quite stand up in the court of earth justice. We urgently require a shift towards a culture where we begin ‘mining’ our landfill and ‘waste’, not consume and produce new products.

So how do you think we can create post extractivist systems?

In my mind, the opposite of extractivism is stewardship or custodianship, which means taking care of the land, ensuring that regeneration and future life continues. We need to stop and listen to First Nations people to learn about living in rhythm with the earth, seeming they achieved this for hundreds of thousands of years!

We need to return to the source, to spirit, to the land. A reprogramming, or as I like to call it, ‘rewilding’ needs to take place. Stripping back, returning to the earth, tuning into the seasons, into our human-ness. A time before we were clothed, socialised, colonised. For me, rewilding is also a form of de-colonisation. Perhaps this something a lot of us are not ready for, and our urban environments distract us from.

What do you feel has been a significant barrier in ending extractivism and what kind of work needs to be done?

Consumerism has been the ultimate disconnection tool from living eco-centrically and connecting to spirit as well as to one another. Our systems are set up for endless consumption. They do not support recycling because recycling does not support consumerism…and so the wheel goes on and on….

We need a cultural awakening where we begin to value resource recovery, reduction in the production of goods and the regeneration of land. We need to learn how to heal and look after Country.

If you think about the amount of old tech that is laying around in offices, homes and landfill, if we recovered and recycled the minerals that have become a ‘waste product’, we would be able to create all the new tech et cetera we need into the future. The same goes for all the products created from our forests.

We need to move away from decimating habitat for wildlife, as this is what capitalism has habituated us to do. The Greater Gliders, woodchips and virginal hardwood balustrades cannot compete with one another! We as a society do not need native forests for the products that come out of them.

Final words?

Finding solutions for the future requires answering the hard question of “what do we actually need?”. Technology is one part of the solution when it comes to shifting away from climate wrecking industries, but we also require a mass cultural awakening, one where people begin to view trash as treasure, resources as finite, forests as fragile and the Earth as sacred and deserving of our reverence and custodianship. Just as First peoples have for thousands of years before white man landed on the shores of so-called Australia.

Extractivism needs to die, custodianship and recovery must rise from its ashes, otherwise our Earth will continue to become an inhospitable place for most life forms.

Alana Mountain is a forest campaigner & writer within Victoria. She resides on Wurundjeri Country.

1. “Regional Forest Agreements.” Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Published 2020. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/forestry/policies/rfa

2. “Thompson Reservoir.” Melbourne Water. Published 2022. https://www.melbournewater.com.au/water-data-and-education/water-storage-levels/water-storage-reservoirs/Thomson

3. Forests (Wood Pulp Agreement) Act 1996

The Hole Truth:

Is the Environment Movement Aiming for Post-Extractivism?

Anisa Rogers and Zianna Faud

We are entrenched within a system where digging up earth, displacing human and nonhuman lives for the benefit of a few, flows in a historical arc from colonialism to neoliberalism. Like many other capitalist countries, this nation was founded on the belief that finite natural resources; fossil fuels, minerals, metals, or biomass, are valuable as long as they can be sold or exchanged for profit.

As we look out from this place, one of the biggest questions for the environment movement, and all the different groups and individuals within it is, what are we aiming for?

How we answer this question determines the bulk of our strategy, tactics, as well as who we are working with, and against. In this article we are going to take a brief look through different parts of the movement; to look at our interpretation of their visions, aims and breadth of their strategies.

The central question we ask is – are different groups in the environment movement aiming for a world beyond extractivism?

This piece is both a gentle critique and invitation, written with respect. We do this to open dialogue that can push us towards more nuanced organising that aims for the deep transformation needed in order to address current ecological and climatic collapse.

As our society has become more individualistic, we have lost a lot of the skills of talking across political differences, and therefore critique is often a closing of conversation. We understand that everyone is fighting for a ‘better’ world and doing what they think is best or achievable – just like us. We can all learn so much from different perspectives and respectful discussion, so we invite everyone reading this to join us in the discussion.

If you haven’t found an understanding of extractivism and post-extractivism through the articles in this Chain Reaction, extractivism is “an economic and developmental model fuelled by the exploitation of Nature—from metals, minerals and fossil fuels to land, water and humans. This model is enabled by the ideological assumption that the Earth, less powerful people, and other-than-human life are resources to be exploited for the benefit of more powerful humans, without limit or consequence.”1

And post-extractivism is a way of life and an economic system ‘after’ extractivism, that no longer relies on extracting resources in such a way that the living world cannot regenerate itself. In this article we are going to examine the strategies of a few of the different parts of the

movement. We will look at the mainstream renewables campaigns, to divestment and grassroots direct action groups. We include an analysis of Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) campaigns and show that FoEA has an opportunity to drive important conversations that go beyond fossil fuels and ‘renewable energy’, to a critique of extractivism in its entirety.

Mainstream renewables campaigns

The vast majority or organisations in the climate movement are campaigning for an end to fossil fuels, but without the explicit goal of decreasing overall extractivism, or challenging the profit-driven economy. Examples include WWF who are calling on governments to develop bold renewable export plans that puts us on a path of 700% renewable energy.2

Australian Conservation Foundation, is campaigning to “power [the] country with clean and renewable energy, rapidly phase out coal and help communities transition to jobs with a future”3 and Greenpeace is campaigning for big businesses to switch to 100% renewable energy, with a focus on AGL getting out of coal.4 Environment Victoria is campaigning for 100% renewables by 2030, but also focus on energy use and demand through their plans to install efficiency measures like insulation, efficient lighting and draught-sealing in one million homes.5

The Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) values include “seek[ing] solutions to the climate crisis that tackle the root causes of the problem” and “[doing] what needs to be done, not what we’ve been told is possible”, though we couldn’t find further details of what this entailed.6

Focusing solely on fossil fuels is understandable for many reasons. On reason is that fossil fuels, along with animal agriculture, are the leading cause of the climate crisis and need to be dealt with immediately. Another reason is that more concrete demands feel reasonable in the current political climate and there is a worry that a complicated systemic message will get less people on board.

However, these reasons focus on what groups think are possible within the status quo, not on what is scientifically necessary to avoid climate and ecological collapse. What is scientifically necessary to avoid this collapse includes moving away from the extractivist mindset that is driving the destruction.

As we saw in the “What is Extractivism” article earlier in this edition, without a decrease in overall material consumption the damage from the mining, processing, building, shipping and disposing of ‘renewable’ energy will continue to have devastating impacts on land, climate and communities. Mining will never be ‘green’ because it’s inherently destructive and minerals are a finite resource.

Mines come with enormous impacts including new forms of inequality, social exclusion, and impacts on complex local ecology.7 Without explicitly naming the damaging effects of the renewable transition, we give space and credence to the mining companies who are cashing in on the strategy, and allow areas around the world to be sacrificed for the transition. The corporations that have profited from the decimation of the communities, culture and country are now racing ahead to jump on the renewables boom.8 We cannot risk substituting one kind of harm for another.

Divestment

Divestment groups around the world and in Australia have had huge success in getting banks, insurance companies and many more organisations to take their money out of funding new fossil fuel projects. In many cases fossil fuel companies are offloading their fossil fuel assets in order to look green, but the offloaded projects continue to pollute under

different ownership. Also, the new projects that are being invested in are in many cases still extremely damaging, just under the false narrative of ‘green’ mining. Despite the fact that ‘renewable’ projects are often less damaging than fossil fuel projects, the same destructive extractivism is continuing.

Rio Tinto, one of the first big mining companies to divest from coal, provides an example of divestment from fossil fuels and investment into other damaging mining. In 2019 Rio Tinto started drilling for lithium and borate in Jadar River Valley, Serbia, which led to incredible community resistance. In the words of frontline defenders against the mine – “People’s lives, Rights of Nature and cultural heritage have been completely ignored and neglected for the sake of profit.”9

Currently the strategy of divestment is not aiming beyond extractivism, because the underlying profit-driven decision-making of companies is not questioned. If we understand that profit-seeking is one of the core drivers of the destruction of our planet, not just the climate, then we need to focus on changing the way our economy works. We risk giving big corporations the ability to continue to profit off the destruction of the earth under the illusion of being ‘clean and green’.

A note on Net-Zero campaigns

It is worth noting that net zero is merely one step along the marathon to achieving a stabilised and safer level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It must and should never be seen as an end goal. In practice, Net Zero helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to cut emissions now.10, 11 Many proponents of net-zero emissions advocate for the trading of carbon offsets, so industries can pay to have their emissions captured elsewhere, without reducing any on their part. Using this offset logic, renewables are presented as an alternative to fossil fuel extraction, but are used by corporations as a free pass to burn more fossil fuels. Australia’s biggest polluter AGL, is now a leader in national renewables, using its ‘clean energy’ portfolio to greenwash its activities and ensure its brand remains intact.

What about non-professionalised grassroots direct action groups doing direct action on the ground?

Direct action groups, like the Frontline Action on Coal blockade against the Adani coal mine and forest blockades, are attempting to stop extractivist destruction at its source; although they don’t have an overt critique of extractivism as a whole, they do critique the type of extractivism they are trying to stop, i.e. fossil fuels or logging of native forests. Understandably, their strategies have often been designed to serve a particular context, like building a broad alliance across political views to declare a community ‘Gasfield Free’, or focus on the immediate impacts of a local mine.

With the public understanding of climate change shifting quickly, we now believe it is essential

to grow campaign narratives into a deeper intersectional analysis that acknowledges the systemic roots of mining and forestry and moves towards post-extractivist solutions. Three groups, Extinction Rebellion, Blockade Australia and Blockade IMARC, look at the bigger picture in different ways.

Extinction Rebellion’s goals are expressed in three demands under the headings Tell the Truth, Act Now and Beyond Politics.12 As part of their second demand, they are asking for net-zero by 2025. They have targeted consumptive industries through their actions at McDonald’s and Amazon container ports, but do not openly critique extractivism, instead asking for a citizens assembly that will answer the questions about how we will live sustainably.

Blockade Australia is a relatively new network that is organising direct action mobilisations with anti-extractivist messaging and strategy.

According to their purpose statement, “Blockade Australia builds grassroots power focused on opposing the colonial and extractive systems of Australia as a whole. Blockade Australia does not believe that the Australian system is broken and can therefore be repaired. It is operating from an understanding that the Australian system was established to extract value from this continent and disregard the damage caused to people, the environment and the climate.”13

Blockade IMARC, which is made up of different groups that resist the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC), is another campaign clearly fighting against extractivism. Their website states it “fights against the mindset that IMARC represents: the mindset that disregards communities and the environment in favour of profits and growth. [It] believe[s] there are alternatives to the structural exploitation fuelled by competition and greed that exists today.”14

Where is Friends of the Earth’s place in this?

FoE Australia is well-placed to be one of the prominent voices fighting for a post-extractivist future. With our history of anti-capitalist and intersectional politics, we have an opportunity and a mandate to talk about

Artist: James Sandham; Part of PDAC’s “Imaginings” (see p. 33, this edition)

extractivism; and the production, consumption, marketing and profit-seeking that drives it. There are many climate campaigns across the FoE Australia federation, including collectives that are part of FoE Melbourne, that do important work pushing for climate action through community organising, lobbying and supporting people and places on the frontlines of climate impacts. However, as far as we can see, pretty much all of these FoE groups and projects sit in the categories of mainstream renewables campaigns and divestment above, in that they campaign for an end to fossil fuels, but without the explicit goal of decreasing overall extractivism.

Earthworker, by focusing on bringing economic life back into the control of a social and environmental justice driven community, is another part of the FoE network that can be seen to be aiming for post extractivism.

FoE Melbourne’s Sustainable Cities collective is one campaign that stands out in its work to reduce road use and increase public transport, which reduces the demand of a wide range of mining. FoE Melbourne’s Food Co-op is a good example of a stepping stone on the way towards a post-extractivist world. Providing food that is much more sustainably and ethically produced than mainstream agriculture showcases what the future could be. There is also a new food sovereignty campaign, which has the potential to fight for a post-extractivist food system. The Economic Justice campaign seems to be campaigning to hold corporations to account for their destructive practices, which if effective could stop many of them from engaging in the worst parts of extractivism. Currently what they are focusing on seems to be about stopping the worst parts of extractivism, rather than extractivism as a system.

There are also many FoE Australia groups that campaign against logging, pesticides, genetically modified foods and destructive agriculture. These are important parts of a greater whole of fighting extractivism. But alone they cannot challenge the huge greed of profit-seeking corporations that drive the destruction, and they often feel like a band-aid trying to stop a bullet wound. We could build on the important work of these groups to tell a more complete story of how to move past extractivism.

While we often fly the ‘System Change not Climate Change’ flag when engaging in solidarity work on the streets, we believe many FoE Australia groups and campaigns could build on their systemic analysis and campaign goals to push for more post-extractivist solutions. This would bring our work closer to the work of other FoE International groups who run campaigns that question material overconsumption, corporate renewables, capitalism and the myths of green mining.

The most recent federal climate and environment policy program of FoEA includes nothing about extractivism or the mining that is needed for ‘renewable’ energy, beyond ensuring free, prior and informed consent and “Creat[ing]

binding standards for renewable energy components to ensure recyclability and development of a circular economy”.15 We find this disappointing as FoEA is one of the few large groups that has the history and the (assumed) politics to be aiming for deeper system change, and more complex conversations around renewables energy and green capitalism.

We believe that Friends of the Earth campaigns and groups are important and impactful. The act of bringing people together to envision and fight for a better world is extremely valuable, and campaigning against fossil fuels and nuclear energy, as well as supporting directly-affected communities, is important work. We are arguing that most, if not all, of the current Friends of the Earth projects and campaigns, are not explicitly fighting for a postextractivist future. Our hope is that this article starts a really important conversation where FoE can show whether it has anti-extractivist principles and/or does anti-extractivist actions, or at least discuss where they are lacking.

Hopefully those of you reading this, whether part of a FoE campaign or not, will want to continue this important conversation. Only if we build on the critiques we have of each other can we build campaigns and movements that will truly achieve the post-extractivist world we believe is possible.

There are many ways we could campaign for a postextractivist future

Avoiding talking about extractivism and post-extractivism misses the best opportunity we have to push for and create a transition that will actually work for the planet and its people. It will be so much easier to transition to low carbon technologies if we as a society need less energy and materials, and ensure we are tackling climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity-loss at the same time.

Here are some examples to get us thinking about how we can do this better.

Some great framing around post-extractivism comes out of Latin America, where the term extractivism (extractivismo) was first used in systemic critiques. Their chants of ‘extractivismo no es desarrollo’ (extractivism is not development) have been heard on the streets for years, clearly telling the world and the mining companies that more mining will not solve any problems, and mining companies can’t jump in and claim to be our climate saviours. Another example of inspiration comes from the degrowth movement, which is flourishing around the world. “Degrowth is an idea that critiques the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction. The degrowth movement of activists and researchers advocates for societies that prioritise social and ecological well-being instead of corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption. This requires radical redistribution, reduction in the material size of the global economy, and a shift in common values towards care, solidarity and autonomy. Degrowth means transforming societies to ensure environmental justice and a good life for all within planetary boundaries.”16

Convivial technology is an inspiring framing of technology that has been around since the 1970s with Ivan Illich’s book ‘Tools for Conviviality’, and continues today with the development of the ‘Matrix of Convivial Technology’.17 This is an exciting way to start reframing technology conversations away from the ‘technology is progress’ mantra towards understanding we can choose to develop technologies that benefit the earth and its people, and reject technologies that destroy the earth and drive people apart.

Campaigns surrounding banning planned obsolescence and most of advertising and a shorter work week,18 could bring the critique of extractivism and the profit driven economy together with the urgency of avoiding climate and ecological collapse. It is a big hole that no such campaigns exist on this continent.

A great specific example of post-extractivist organising within the Friends of the Earth network is FoE Europe, who authored a paper a few years ago called “Green mining is a myth”.19

A more local example can be seen within the New Economy Network Australia and Regeneratives Songlines communities, with many conversations about learning from indigenous knowledges and imagining a wellbeing economy, which has a strong potential to be postextractivist, and open up the conversation about the world we need.20

There are also exciting developments happening within localising power supplies with nonprofit microgrids, mini-hydro and a whole host of healthy ways to reduce energy demand like community gardens and housing efficiency, many which can be seen in the permaculture movement, especially the recent literature on retrofitting the suburbs.

Friends of the Earth Australia and all of its many parts can be drawing the picture of what post extractivism could look like, and how to directly and clearly critique and fight extractivism. There are so many benefits of explicitly rejecting the profit motive as our main societal organiser and focusing on what humans and our earth actually

need - localisation, more relationships in community, more meaningful work for everyone, less inequality, and so much more.

Hashing out the details of the post extractivist world we need is important, and so we invite the rest of the FoE community to engage in these discussions and help us move them forward. Our first discussion group will take place at this edition’s launch – August 24th, 7pm. Email nlo@foe.org.au if you’d like to be a part of these ongoing discussions.

Anisa Rogers and Zianna Faud are two of FoEA’s National Liaison Officers, and both are passionate grassroots activists.

Further reading:

• FoE Europe, “’Green Mining’ is a Myth”

• Real Solutions, Not “Net Zero”, www.realsolutions-not-netzero.org

• Degrowth, https://degrowth.info/en/degrowth

• “Green Extractivism & Violent Conflict” conference recordings, The Global Extractivisms and Alternatives Initiative (EXALT)

• J. Hickel 2019, “Is Green Growth Possible?”, New Political Economy, 25(7576), p. 1-18, access via ResearchGate.

• Womin, “Right to say No Information Pack”. Published 2022, http://www.womin.africa/right-to-say-no-information-pack/

• Vetter, A 2017. “The Matrix of Convivial Technology – Assessing technologies for degrowth”, Journal of Cleaner Production.

The Greenbushes Lithium mine in WA. Lithium mines are growing in WA as they are needed to produce virtually all traction batteries currently used in Electric vehicles as well as other consumer electronics.

Credit: Lithium Australia

References

1. Gaia Foundation, Beyond Extractivism, www.gaiafoundation.org/areas-of-work/beyond-extractivism

2. WWF, published 2022. www.wwf.org/

3. Australian Conservation Foudation, Solve the climate crisis and shift to clean energy, published July 2022. https://www.acf.org.au/climate

4. Greenpeace, published 2022. www.greenpeace.org.au/

5. Environment Victoria, published 2022. www.environmentvictoria.org.au

6. AYCC, published 2022. www.aycc.org.au

7. Éléonore Lèbre, Martin Stringer, Kamila Svobodova, John R. Owen, Deanna Kemp, Claire Côte, Andrea Arratia-Solar & Rick K. Valenta, 2020, The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals, Nature Communications, 11(4823), doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18661-9

8. ibid

9. On the frontlines of lithium extraction, YLNM Lithium Communique #1, 2021, https://yestolifenotomining.org/latest-news/ylnm-lithium-communique/

10. Duncan McLaren, 2020, Guest post: A brief history of climate targets and technological promises, https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-a-brief-history-ofclimate-targets-and-technological-promises

11. Camilla Hodgson, 2021, Carney’s stumble at Brookfield intensifies focus on ‘net zero’ claims | Financial Times, <https://www.ft.com/content/2d96502f-c34d4150-aa36-9dc16ffdcad2>

12. Extinction Rebellion, published 2022. www.ausrebellion.earth

13. Blockade Australia, published 2022. www.blockadeaustralia.com

14. Blockade IMARC, published 2022. www.blockadeimarc.com

15. https://www.foe.org.au/federal_climate_environment_policy_platform_2022

16. What is degrowth?, https://degrowth.info/degrowth

17. Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row, 1973.

18. Further exploration of these examples and many more can be found in the ‘Invitation for dialogue’ put together in response to IMARC - www.imarcinvitationfordialogue.com

19. Green mining is a myth, FoE Europe, 2021, https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/green-mining-myth-report/

20. Regenerative Songlines Australia, published 2022. www.regenerative-songlines.net.au

First Nations Rights and Colonising Practices by the Nuclear Industry

Jillian Marsh and Jim Green

This is a summary of a journal article which explores the tensions between First Nations, industry and government in the context of uranium mining and nuclear waste management in Australia.

We outline challenges faced by Aboriginal Australians in their role as custodians of the land, and as community leaders. A critical examination of some of the barriers to First Nations empowerment includes government engagement through legislation and practices that have repeatedly resulted in dispossession and disempowerment of Australian Aboriginal Traditional Owners. We argue that existing measures provide feeble rights and protections for Aboriginal people as laws have repeatedly produced outcomes that favour government and industry and deny Aboriginal rights to sovereignty. Our research highlights patterns of colonial oppression that transgress human rights, and frames mining and nuclear waste in a way that lacks a decolonisation strategy and are based on industrial violence.

Government and industry approaches to environmental and cultural justice sit uneasily with the principle of free, prior and informed consent enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ‘Consultation’ is somehow an equivalent and acceptable form of a consenting process. There are examples of governments acknowledging the use of sham ‘consultation’ processes to fine-tune promotional propaganda; a case in point was the Howard government’s planned national nuclear waste dump near Woomera in SA. Questionable practices are extensively used by mining proponents to negotiate compensation of loss with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for the adverse impacts caused by exploration and mining. The reality for many Aboriginal people is a continuation of the erasure of human rights, and continued denial of the illegal claims made by the British in claiming sovereignty to lands already occupied. Indigenous occupancy of lands and waters was never ceded, and Traditional Owners are forced to continue living with damage and destruction of their country.

First Nations peoples of Australia continue to argue against nuclear expansion on Aboriginal lands for a range of reasons including lack of due process, questionable economic viability, dismissal of environmental risk factors, denial of cultural significance, and disregard for Indigenous human rights. To suggest that Aboriginal opposition rests purely with religious beliefs (and is therefore ineligible for debate) is ironic, inaccurate and racist. The irony of such a claim

is evident from the history of colonial oppression enacted during the 1900s by the Australian government which enabled the cultural genocide of First Nations peoples across the Australian continent on the basis of sub-human status.

Feeble rights further curtailed

There are numerous examples of State and Commonwealth laws, ostensibly designed to provide some rights and protections for Aboriginal First Nations, being curtailed or overridden to facilitate radioactive waste repository projects and uranium mines. For example, the Federal Government used the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act 1989 to seize land for a national radioactive waste repository in 2003 and native title rights and interests were extinguished. Another example is where Aboriginal groups were coerced into signing heritage clearance agreements consenting to test drilling of short-listed sites for the proposed waste repository in South Australia and their consent was repeatedly misrepresented by the Howard Government as amounting to Aboriginal consent for the repository. The Commonwealth legislation governing the process of establishing a national radioactive waste repository, the National Radioactive Waste Management Act, dispossesses and disempowers Traditional Owners in various ways. For example, it curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 as well as the Native Title Act 1993 and this latter act is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste repository. An earlier example of proponents having such liberties is the Olympic Dam mine being exempt from provisions of the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988. Likewise, subsection 40(6) of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights Act exempts the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory from the act and thus removed the right of veto that Mirarr Traditional Owners would otherwise have enjoyed over the development of the mine.

The case study concerning the Beverley Uranium Mine demonstrates how the impact assessment process and native title negotiations were used to dispossess Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners of their sovereign rights to governance practices, cultural and economic resources, and their obligations to customary land rights. Confidential engagement between the proponent and three initial native title named applicants claiming interest over the Beverley lease commenced during 1995, and agreement was struck between those applicants and Heathgate Resources without the

The nuclear-free Black-Green alliance is forging a global citizenship through the assertion of Indigenous sovereign rights, environmental sustainability, and human rights.

free, prior and informed consent of the wider community. Under the Native Title Act, ‘named applicant’ status would confer a ‘right to negotiate’ about mining and to secure what is legally known as consent determination or recognition under the Native Title Act. In practice, Heathgate used native title to divide and disempower Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners and to undermine the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

Resistance

While these patterns clearly demonstrate gross power imbalances between Aboriginal First Nations on the one hand, and industry and governments on the other, it should be noted that resistance has been strong and numerous projects have been stopped. Examples include proposed national radioactive waste repositories in South Australia (1998–2004) and the Northern Territory (2005–2014), the defeated plan to establish a nuclear waste import business in South Australia (2015–16), and proposed uranium mines such as Jabiluka and Angela Pamela in the Northern Territory.

Existing laws and legal challenges have sometimes been used to challenge and delay nuclear and uranium projects. Examples include the successful challenge in 2003 by the State of South Australia and a native title claimant against the Federal Government’s acquisition of land for a national radioactive waste repository; and a legal challenge against the nomination of a site in the Northern Territory for a national radioactive waste repository (the nomination was withdrawn in 2014, before the court case had concluded).

Currently, Barngarla Traditional Owners in SA face the imposition of a national nuclear waste dump by the federal government despite their unanimous opposition to the proposal. Barngarla

Traditional Owners are currently challenging the Morrison government’s declaration of a dump site near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula in the Federal Court, and are calling on the Albanese ALP government to withdraw the declaration and abandon the dump proposal.

Legal challenges have a place in resistance against nuclear and uranium projects, but community resistance outside of the legal system has been a more important and successful strategy to stop such projects. Case studies such as the Jabiluka and Angela Pamela uranium mines, failed attempts to impose a national radioactive waste repository in South Australia and the Northern Territory, and the defeated plan to establish a nuclear waste import business in South Australia, all reveal a common pattern. That pattern involves strong determined resistance by Aboriginal people, supported by civil society allies including environment groups, trade unions, church groups, public health groups and others.

Collaboration at the grassroots, as well as intellectual level, offers dignity and purpose to First Nations peoples and a process of cross-cultural reconciliation that offers the opportunity to build meaningful relationships. These processes of community engagement

stand in stark contrast to the dubious government-led processes of consultation that typically result in community divisions and failed attempts to engage respectfully and meaningfully with First Nations peoples in Australia.

At a national as well as local level, the nuclearfree Black-Green alliance is helping to forge a responsible and peaceful global citizenship through the assertion of Indigenous sovereign rights, environmental sustainability, and human rights. This is an extract from an article published in The Extractive Industries and Society, July 2020, available at nuclear.foe.org.au/racism

Dr. Jillian Marsh is an Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner who teaches at Newcastle University. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

The fight for a uranium-free WA

In Western Australia, the long running campaign to stop uranium mining has had some wins and losses over the past six months. Three out of the four uranium mines approved under the former Liberal government have expired and not been renewed by the WA Labor government. However one of the projects, Mulga Rock, is advancing. The company Vimy Resources is in the process of merging with Deep Yellow. Deep Yellows executive team have links to the Rio Tinto Iron Ore division during the Juukan Gorge destruction and also to Paladin Resources, whose uranium mines in Namibia and Malawi have been plagued with social, environmental and economic problems. Paladin filed for bankruptcy and its mines in Namibia and Malawi were put into care-and-maintenance.

The Mulga Rock campaign is now ramping up in solidarity with Upurli Upurli and Spinifex Traditional Owners and Custodians who are connected both to the Mulga Rock area and to Maralinga. Their old people fled South Australia during the British atomic weapons tests in the 1950s and settled in Cundeelee, 50 km from the proposed Mulga Rock mine. The community has a long and strong understanding and connection to the nuclear cycle and are determined to keep uranium in the ground.

– Mia Pepper, WA Conservation Council

Protest in Port Augusta, 2016

Anti-Protesting Laws –Stories from Victoria & Tasmania

After a landslide federal election result which showed the public are voting for stronger action on climate change and protection of our natural environment, it’s surprising to see a dangerous trend spreading across state government’s that are attempting to criminalise peaceful protest. Laws introduced in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania are aimed at targeting climate and forest activists with heavy-handed penalties and draconian legislation to silence activists and the public from speaking out against destructive industries like logging and mining, which are fuelling the climate crisis in Australia.

First Nations groups and people, unions, human rights, legal, environment, and climate groups, are calling these laws ‘unnecessary’ and ‘undemocratic’. The right to protest should be guarded by all, especially in these times of environmental crisis. Safety at work has long been the result of peaceful protest as well, that of strike action or stopping work. The right to strike is critical actually, and one which Australia has some of the most draconian conditions to do so in the world.

Victoria’s Anti-protest Laws

Tuffy Morwitzer

The proposed protest laws in Victoria for forest protectors are a direct result of pressure from the CFMEU and are aimed at protecting the interests of a widely opposed native forest logging industry while it’s in decline and transition. Ultimately, their effect is to wedge workers against environmentalists and is a pre-election gambit to try and marginalise the green-slide movement. The introduction of the laws wrongly locates workplace risk within the democratic right to protest. To date no data has been provided to substantiate these claims. They are a cover, and one that is not only bad for the environment movement, but bad for the union movement too.

The laws were introduced to parliament on May 24th 2022 by Mary-Anne Thomas – Victorian state ALP Minister for Agriculture and Regional Development and Ingrid Stitt – ALP Minister for Workplace Safety as the Sustainable Forests Timber Amendment (Timber Harvesting Safety Zones) Bill 2022. This bill is set to come through the upper house when parliament comes back from break in August.

The new powers would involve the ability to search vehicles, confiscate personal belongings and ban people on the mere suspicion of an offence. The length of time someone is banned can be varied according to the head of the Department Jobs, Precincts, and Regions, but

the minimum is 28 days. Like the Queensland laws they also expand the description of a “prohibited” thing to include a PVC or a metal pipe. If someone is found using one of these prohibited items to hinder, obstruct, or interfere with logging, the fines can increase to $21,000 or up to 12 months jail time. These laws can be applied by “authorised officers”, aka the Game Management Authority, and do not rely on the police to be enforced. Similarly to other states, opposition to the laws has seen a broad coalition of groups signing up to an open letter, pushing a public petition, and encouraging letters and meetings with MPs. The Victorian Forest Alliance also created a postcard to letterbox in marginal Labor electorates. Currently GECO is working on creating a register for people to pledge to take action for forests - either in the form of direct action or election campaigning. These laws, like in other states, are designed to split the movement into good and bad protestors. If we feed that distinction we lose the ability to command the narrative that inaction on climate and forests is the real violence being perpetrated on communities. The only way to confront that is to create a broad group of people not only willing to sign on to a letter but to demonstrate the public opposition that exists on logging our native forests.

In 2019 Daniel Andrews announced an end to native forest logging by 2030. Since then Victoria has been through the worst bushfires in living memory putting further strain on already collapsing ecosystems. VicForests, the government owned logging company, has continued to log with impunity after the bushfires despite operating at a 18 million dollar loss per year in 2021. Inaction has been pervasive by both VicForests and the government both in attempts to cover up illegal logging, spying on activists, changing laws through parliament to facilitate greater logging, rolling over the dodgy Regional Forest Agreements which give logging a special exemption from federal environment laws.

With all this in mind, we need to protest more, not less, for native forests and for climate action. There is no other choice. Direct action is a historically important tool for change, and one the forest movement is probably the most skilled at in the country. GECO will be continuing to push for an immediate end to native forest logging with every tool we have in the tool kit. Tuffy Morwitzer is a campaigner for the Goongerah Environment Centre around native forest logging.

Tasmania’s Anti-protest Laws

Finn Leary

lutruwita/Tasmania is once again on the precipice of cascading into authoritarian rule. After failing at their first and second bids, the Tasmanian government are again attempting to push through anti-protest legislation that will disproportionately affect activists, and specifically environmental activists. As cartoonist Andrew Marlton suggests, the nationwide rollout of this legislation is exactly what state capture looks like.1

This legislation formally known as The Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill 2022, has been framed by the government as ‘protecting workers’, but this legislation is unashamedly designed to vilify activists and protect corporate profits - especially those from native forest logging, mining, and toxic fish farming in lutruwita.2

This legislation will see the maximum penalties for public annoyance and trespass increase drastically. Under the new laws, individuals could face up to 18 months’ imprisonment or a $12,975 fine for a first offence.3 This would place the penalties for peaceful protest on-par with trespassing with a firearm or committing aggravated assault. Unsurprisingly, this legislation has been widely criticized as being disproportionate and excessive, and lacking the robust safeguards and oversight needed to protect against misuse.4

Outside Tasmania’s State Parliament in 2021, protesting Tasmania’s new “anti-protest” laws. Photo: Grassroots Action Network Tasmania

For decades, protests have been conducted peacefully in lutruwita. One of the founding and false basis anti-protest bills is that laws will help reduce safety risk to workers within logging coupes. However on June 6th 2022, the Tasmanian Attorney General confirmed during the Workplace Safety Estimates hearings there have been zero injuries or reports to Worksafe at anti logging protests.5 Activists have no ascendant powers, yet government officials and industry spokespeople continue to portray environmental activists as dangerous “eco-terrorists” and radicals at the fringe of the Tasmanian political landscape. Guy Barnett, Tasmania’s minister for resources, continues to frame climate activists as extremists, so the question must be asked: when did fighting for a livable planet become an extreme position to take? As the United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres perfectly articulated, “Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”6 lutruwita’s growing corpocracy is arguably one of the worst on the continent. As local activist and grassroots campaigner Hugh Nicklason asserts, “it is critical to note that Tasmania currently has the weakest political donations laws and anti-corruption commission Australiawide.”7 He continues, “To many of us looking on

References

in horror, it is clear Tasmania does not have a protest problem but an issue of systemic government-corporate collusion.”8

Protesting is a time-honored right. Peaceful protest is a pillar of democracy. One need only imagine a society without peaceful protest to understand the magnitude of this legislation. So many of the rights that are taken for granted today were attained through peaceful protest. Tasmania has such a proud history of activism, from decriminalizing homosexuality to protecting the Franklin River; the first environmental political party globally, grew out of peaceful protest in lutruwita.

This island state has so much worth fighting for and protecting. takayna/ the Tarkine, the world’s second largest temperate rainforest, is set to be turned into a toxic waste dump with a 285ha tailings dam being constructed in the center of this globally unique rainforest – all so that a foreign owned mining corporation can save a few pennies. For over a year BBF and hundreds of forest defenders have staunchly resisted this development through innovative, creative, and life-bringing expressions of protest. Without the ability to stand peacefully our island will continue to lose these wild places.

But there is hope. The Tasmanian Aboriginal community, NGO’s, charities, civil society organizations, unions, and grassroots groups across lutruwita are mobilizing. Leading Tasmanian and national civil society groups have delivered an open letter to the Parliament of Tasmania calling for this legislation to be rejected. Rallies continue to be held by prominent environmental organizations and grassroots groups and collaborative meetings are being held to unify lutruwita against this abhorrent piece of legislation.

With the final vote for this legislation likely to take place in the second half of August, the people of lutruwita will continue to fight for their democratic right to engage in peaceful, legitimate protest.

Finn Leary is a grassroots activist and campaigner in Nipaluna.

1. Andrew Marlton, 27th June 2022, First Dog on the Moon: Brenda the Uncivil Disobedience Penguin on all these anti-protest laws, The Guardian.

2. Tasmanian Government: Department of Justice. (2022) Fact sheet for the Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill 2022. https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/community-consultation/closed-community-consultations2/police-offences-amendment-workplace-protection-bill-2022

3. ibid

4. The Australian Institute. (2022) Anti-Protest Law Must be Stopped: Civil Society. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/anti-protest-law-must-be-stopped-civil-society/

5. O’Connor, Cassie MP, “Anti-Protest Laws ‘Based on Lies”, Tasmanian Times, 6 June 2022, https://tasmaniantimes.com/2022/06/anti-protest-laws-based-on-lies/

6. Guterres, A. (2022) Twitter, April 5th. https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1511294073474367488?lang=en

7. Nicklason, H. (2022) Direct quote

8. Nicklason, H. (2022) Direct quote

IMARC’s Dirty Laundry

Ashleigh Byrd, Rowen Lay and Nadia Murillo

The International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) is one of Australia’s largest mining events, happening 2 nd – 4 th November this year at Sydney’s International Convention Centre. For people and groups organising to protect land, water and life, disrupting IMARC is both an opportunity to get in mining’s way and to act in solidarity with communities on the frontline of resistance to extractivism around the world. Many of the world’s most destructive mining and investment companies do business at IMARC, signing deals to rip massive holes in stolen land and pollute water and air. While most investments made at the conference are an undisclosed amount, 12% are between one hundred million and two hundred and fifty million dollars.1 Disrupting IMARC is a means to disrupt those deals – holding the mining companies to account, and creating communities of resistance whilst doing so. IMARC 2022 will host companies like OceanaGold, Woodside Energy and BHP. OceanaGold bulldozed and burned the houses of local villagers and used tear gas against people who resisted eviction without prior consent in the Philippines.2 Woodside Energy are pushing ahead with the Scarborough Gas Project that’s set to create yearly climate pollution equal to that of 15 coal-fired power stations.3 BHP are responsible for human rights abuses around the world, including the collapse of a tailings dam which wiped out an entire Brazilian village with toxic sludge, killing 19 people, displacing 700 others and tainting drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people.4 These deaths and displacements are not from climate change, but from the industrial expansion of extractivist companies that fuel the crisis. Extractivism is dangerous.

Since IMARC’s inception in 2015, there have been different forms of protest to disrupt and undermine the yearly conference. Resistance to IMARC began through Latin American Solidarity Network (LASNET) in 2015 and 2016. When

the CEO of Adani Australia (now known as Bravus) attended in 2017 hundreds of people turned out to rally against Adani’s Carmichael coal mine, Northcote highschool students dropped an 18-metre wide banner in protest, and several people managed to enter the building and interrupt the conference.

In 2018, Rainforest Action Group, LASNET, Frontline Action on Coal and Mapuche Struggles for Indigenous Land formed an alliance and staged a zombie-themed march outside IMARC’s Halloween gala dinner with the message “mining equals death”. In 2019, hundreds of people joined the resistance against the conference. The Victorian State Greens Executive endorsed the protest and three local councils passed resolutions supporting it.5 When a group of people linked arms to blockade entrances to the conference building for significant periods of time across several days, police responded with violent repression.6

In 2020, IMARC moved online and so did the alliance of resistance. A small and dedicated group of people held the Beyond Mining: protecting land, water and life online counter-conference that ran concurrently with IMARC from November 22-29. The aim was to amplify the voices, on this continent and globally, of communities on the frontline of resistance to extractivism. The recordings from the conference are available online as the Beyond Mining 2020 podcast.7

Fast forward two and a half years and IMARC is set to return as “Australia’s largest mining event.”8 International mining companies will fly into the major cities, making plans and signing deals. In recent years the messaging has shifted towards the decarbonisation of the mining sector, highlighting the sector’s reliance on greenwashing climate solutions to maximise profits.9 Solutions to the climate crisis and exploring what is at stake can’t be diluted to a slogan or a simple demand for renewables. Nor can the global effects of frontline communities and the violence they experience from mining development be ignored by the wider climate movement. This is why there is a need to physically disrupt IMARC.

Alongside the need for direct action, community conversations are integral to redirect climate solutions away from the mining sector and into the hands of informed community members. Leading up to IMARC this November, the Protecting Land, Water and Life Coalition has put together An Invitations for Dialogue, which drafts “a non-exhaustive summary of the changes [that] could prevent the destruction caused by mining and extractive industries, create a fairer world, and how they can be achieved.”10 Growing the resistance to IMARC has been and is an opportunity to share knowledge and educate ourselves on global extractivism, how it is entwined with capitalism and colonialism, and the continued struggles of Indigenous communities resisting mining globally. This ongoing resistance to IMARC finds inspiration from and is indebted to similar mobilisations here and overseas.

Artist: Alejandra Andreone (Che Alejandra); Part of PDAC’s “Imaginings” (see p. 33, this edition)

The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), the world’s largest mining conference, for many years, has been creatively disrupted. From June 13-15 this year, Indigenous representatives and allied activists protested outside the world’s largest mining convention in Toronto for PDAC 2022. “Don’t be fooled by corporate greenwashing! We can’t mine our way out of the climate crisis!” was the chant echoing on the streets outside the conference. A focus of the protest was resisting mining companies’ attempts to co-opt the language of climate justice and highlighting the key figures in the mining industry that profiteer from the climate crisis with greenwashing business ventures.

One of these figures was Australian mining magnate Andrew ‘’Twiggy’ Forrest. Forrest is painting himself and his company, Fortescue Metals Group (FMG), as the saviour to the climate crisis.11 In the coming years, Fortescue will seek to own and operate large-scale hydropower, geothermal, solar and wind projects, in part to generate electricity from ‘green hydrogen’. The Fortescue company will also aim to become a world leader in the production of ‘green ammonia’.12 Forrest claims his charity, the Minderoo Foundation, is tackling modern slavery, indigenous inequality, community bushfire and flood resilience.13

All this despite Forrest having made his fortune fuelling climate pollution. In the financial year 2020 alone steel manufactured in China using FMG’s iron ore released 241 million tonnes of carbon emissions into the atmosphere more than the combined annual emissions of Australian thermal coal exports.14 In its continual pursuit of profit Fortescue refuses to adopt a moratorium on destroying Aboriginal sacred sites15 With mining companies ramping up attempts to position themselves as climate crusaders,

References

educating ourselves on green extractivism and calling out IMARC’s spin has never been more vital. The reality of maintaining a growth economy dependent on development and consumption means the solutions offered come at a great cost. ‘Sacrifice zones’ are designated areas that will either be uninhabitable or (as is already the case) toxic to inhabit, and are being mapped out globally16 . These areas are the environmental and social tradeoffs for extractivist expansion. Furthermore, these sacrifice zones do not include what has and is already being dug, dumped and destroyed by extractivism, nor the lives that have been shortened by it. The unaccounted and ongoing costs and damage to life is the issue with IMARC and its greenwashing spin.

So as we consider the resources required to build a ‘greener’ future, the ongoing environmental and social impact of extracting those resources need to be understood. Living on stolen land in the ongoing settler-colony of so-called Australia requires a deeper dive into extractivism and what the true costs are. Each of our lives are bound to the communities that bear the brunt of a system that requires us to consume for the sake of development. Yes, climate change is a thing. Yes, there is general consensus on the need to act. What that act is is yet to be defined. We are not fully informed on the fineprint of ‘green tech solutions’ and as the climate crisis unfolds, our cushy (however green!) lifestyles here in so-called Australia will continue to be dependent on the literal exploitation of land, water and life. The brighter news is that this codependency can be transformed. Alternative futures that are centred around wellbeing and care can grow from creating active communities of resistance. The networking of mining executives and industry leaders at IMARC threaten these possible futures. This is why there is a wide call-out to join the growing alliance to blockade IMARC this November. We invite people and groups to join the fight to protect land, water and life and create these better futures together.

Email nlo@foe.org.au to link with others organising to disrupt the largest mining gathering on this continent.

Rowan, Ashleigh and Nadia are just three of the organisers who have joined the alliance to disrupt and blockade IMARC in 2022.

1. International Mining and Resources Conference. https://imarcglobal.com/.

2. Scheidel, A. “Didipio Gold and Copper mine, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.” Environmental Justice Atlas. Updated 23 January, 2017. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/didipio-gold-and-copper-mine-nueva-vizcaya-philippines/.

3. Slezak, M. & Timms, P. “Conservation group seeks injunction to stop Woodside gas project to protect Great Barrier Reef.” ABC. Published 22 June, 2022. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-22/scarborough-gas-project-faces-court-challenge-barrier-reef-fears/101169974.

4. Simon, C. “BHP Billiton ‘woefully negligent’ over Brazil dam collapse.” BBC. Published 7 May, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48194377.

5. Smith, K. “Support builds for mass civil disobedience at mining conference.” Green Left. Published 15 September, 2019. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/support-builds-mass-civil-disobedience-mining-conference

6. Legal Observer Team Report. Legal Observer Report: Policing of the IMARC Protests. Melbourne Activist Legal Service. Published 7 December, 2019. https://melbactivistlegal.org.au/2019/12/06/report-the-policing-of-the-imarc-protests/.

7. Blockade IMARC. “2020 Beyond Mining Series podcast.” Published 12 February, 2021. https://blockadeimarc.com/beyond-mining-series-podcast/.

8. International Mining and Resources Conference. https://imarcglobal.com/

9. Mining Beacon Press Release. Sydney to host Australia’s premier resources sector conference. Published 15 June, 2022. https://www.miningbeacon.com/posts/sydney-to-host-australia-s-premier-resources-sector-conference

10. Protecting Land, Water and Life Coalition, An Invitations for Dialogue.https://imarcinvitationfordialogue.com/

11. National Seniors Australia. “Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest. June 3, 2021. “https://nationalseniors.com.au/news/latest-in-lifestyle/andrew-twiggy-forrest-to-battle-climate-change

12. National Seniors Australia. June 3, 2021.

13. Milne, A. “‘Twiggy’ Forrest preaches his green energy dream at an AGM like no other.” Published November 10, 2021. https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/twiggy-forrest-preaches-his-green-energy-dream-at-an-agm-like-no-other-20211110-p597jo.html.

14. Aston, J. “Andrew Forrest forgets how he got here.” Financial Review. Published 17 August, 2021. https://www.afr.com/rear-window/andrew-forrest-greenwashing-fortescue-billions-in-huon-takeover-fight-20210817-p58jke.

15. Milne, A. November 10, 2021

16. Gayle, D. ‘Millions suffering in deadly pollution ‘sacrifice zones’, warns UN expert,’ The Guardian. Published 11 March , 2022.

Citizens Declare Protection of Whale Songline Country

Compiled from blogs by Yaraan Bundle, Jemila Rushton and Liz Wade

This year on World Environment Day, Gunditjmara Whale Dreaming Custodians and Local Gunditj community of the Warrnambool area invited the general community to come together and share in ceremony and the story of Koontapool, the Southern Right Whale, in celebration of their annual return to Gunditjmara Sea Country. This was an special, profound, and unique event for the Warrnambool community

At the event, the Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective launched a Citizens’ Protection Declaration,1 in response to the threats Koontapool continue to face from gas exploration and extraction. All citizens are invited to unite in protection of the Koontapool Songline and Gunditjmara Sea Country by signing on to the declaration, which is hosted at drillwatch.org.au. Read the Declaration in this edition on p. 30.

Every year Koontapool (Southern Right Whales) return to their birthing grounds along the coastlines of South West Victoria. Travelling up from the colder Southern and Antarctic waters, they use the southern coast, waters and songlines to navigate their journeys to and through Gunditjmara Sea Country to feed and birth. These families of Baleen cetaceans, sonar/song speaking navigating mammals, are Gunditjmara Ancestors. Over the past years we have seen state and federal governments earmark vast expanses of Gunditjmara Sea Country for a massive expansion of gas exploration and extraction.2

The Southern Right Whale birthing area covers all the Sea Country east of the Hopkins River in Warrnambool, all the way along the coast to another coastal sacred site located at Johanna Beach in the southern Otways – Gadubanud Meerreeng – Country of the King Parrot Speaking People, not far east of Cape Otway.

These Koontapool Woorrkngan Yakeen – Whale Birthing Dreaming Sites, located in specific bays east of the Hopkins River, and back west along the coast – are known resting and feeding sites for the mother Southern Right Whales. Safe havens for mothers and babies. These places on Country are directly related to Gunditjmara Neeyn (midwives). Right across Gunditjmara Country we have many species that travel to our region to birth their young, this is also one reason why Gunditjmara is a Matrilineal Nation. The safe bays are also rich and important food and tool source areas for the Gunditjmara women whose creation dreaming, lore responsibilities and kinship to totem, belong to that specific part of Country.

Exploration, seismic blasting and existing gas infrastructure along the south west coastline is

already impacting Sea Country, and contributing to climate change. All the while fossil gas, socalled ‘natural gas’, is still falsely promoted as a ‘green solution’ to the climate crisis by the same corporations responsible for the mess we are in.3 For governments and mining companies to take fossil fuels like gas and repackage them as ‘green’ ignores both the immediate environmental risks of gas mining and extraction to Country as well as the irreversible damage of methane and CO2 emissions on the world around us.

We know that oceans and marine life are on the frontline of this ‘gas fired’ recovery. We want to see more people come together in support of the protection of these sacred places and critically endangered species. It is time for everyone to stand up in protection of sacred Country alongside First Nations custodians. We must build movements where First Nations ways of honouring responsibilities to Country can be supported at levels of conservation, protection and education to bring back old ways of doing, being and living in harmony with the land and waters.

“We are now living in the time of mass extinction. When I look out at the magic of the Southern Ocean, I don’t want to see gas mines lighting up the horizon. I want to see rainbows from whale breaths. Resource extractions of this volume will push the already rare Southern Right Whale and other significant cetaceans and sea life species to extinction,” says Gunditjmara woman Yaraan Couzens-Bundle, founding member of the Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective.

This invitation to stand united in protection, and to listen and learn from the deep and sacred knowledge held by the Whale Dreaming Custodians has touched all our hearts. Many reports from those who attended the event on World Environment Day have echoed this

Yaraan Bundle leads Gunditjmara women in ceremony

sentiment and the sense that our collective understanding has grown in ways beyond our anticipation.

For Gunditjmara community and holders of the Whale Dreaming it was a day to stand proud and strong in sharing the deep truth of wisdom and culture held for time immemorial, including how to protect and care for Sea Country through the holding of the Whale Songline.

For those of us who are not First Nations it was a deeply moving and profound opportunity to bear witness to ceremony, story, and song, and to absorb into our beings a growing understanding of Koorondee – behaving properly, the knowing of the way to be here in harmony with the land, Country, the ocean, Sea Country, and all the life, all the beings so deeply interconnected with this place. For us all it is time for standing together in unity and protection, protection of the Koontapool, protection of the Whale Songline, and protection of Sea Country.

Yaraan is a Gunditjmara woman. She is part of the Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective, led by Gunditjmara Elders and Mob in Protection of The Southern Ocean and Gunditjmara Sea Country. Jemila is the Membership & Fundraising Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Melbourne. They are a second generation English migrant living in Warrnambool on Gunditjmara country, and part of FoE’s No More Gas Collective. Liz is a member of FoE’s No More Gas Collective and convenes the Gas Free Vic Network of interested individuals, technical experts, grassroots groups and environmental and social justice organisations working towards a Gas Free Vic. Get involved: Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective on Facebook and drillwatch.org.au.

References

1. Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective facebook page

“It is in the Government’s best interest to respectfully engage and negotiate solutions for country, not breaking their own government’s climate targets to appease high level financial political support from oil and gas mining executives,” Ms Couzens-Bundle said.

Eastern Maar citizen and Senior Keerray Woorroong woman Dr Vicki Couzens, condemned the Victorian Government and corporate organisations involved in these activities.

“This decision shows a complete lack of foresight, care and respect for the ‘living entity’ of our Mother Ocean, our shared Sea Country. The ocean is our birth waters the whales are our Ancestors, all of us. This is our First Nations Law. Our Law holds a place of belonging for all living beings including the invaders ‘stunted vision’.”

“They do not know what they are doing and their ignorance is astounding, to take actions like this that continue to contribute to the destruction of Mother Earth. What legacy do they consider for their grandchildren’s grandchildren?”

“It is an abuse of all living entity rights, from the water, air, creatures and kin, and the government and the corporates have no rights that are greater than those of the rest of us that privileges them to make use of so called ‘resources’ for their own short term gain. Pirates of our Future, they must be stopped!”

2. Department of Industry, Science and Resources. 2021 Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release: Otway and Sorell Basin. https://www.industry.gov.au/dataand-publications/2021-offshore-petroleum-exploration-acreage-release/otway-and-sorell-basin

3. McGreal, C. “Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinformation, report finds.” The Guardian. Published 5 August, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2021/aug/05/facebook-fossil-fuel-industry-environment-climate-change

Gunditjmara women Aunty Vicki Couzens and Yaraan Bundle present the Citizens’ Protection Declaration

Gunditjmara men performing ceremony

Editor’s Note: Written after the Blockade Australia protests, this is a poetic reflection of strong loving communities, police/state violence, and activist tactics. Learn more @BlockadeAustralia, or blockadeaustralia.com.

It’s hard to inhabit the days knowing my friends are in jail. It’s hard to inhabit the nights when I dream of the raids. I don’t want to sound like I’m surprised. Like I’m surprised Australia would do this. I’m not.

It’s written in the land that cracks and fractures as the empire digs for more and cuts trees to posts and breathing bodies to products. The helicopter circled us for hours, more cops than us, we managed to make curry, kettled by cops from every side. Aunty had one pouch of tobacco and we all became smokers for the day. We took turns crying or stoking the fire; the police dog wagged its tail as it sniffed across our gear. They can take our freedom but they can’t take our care.

Before then we’d stayed up late painting by the fire, we’d eat chocolate from the bin and deliberate about one phrase for hours. The police smashed our paint cans and poured it across the grass. They smashed car windows and sawed the head off our unicorn and put its head on a stake. Like the colony did to people in the Frontier Wars.

The police turned back the SES so we took care into our own hands again. We spent a haunting evening echoing a name across the cliffs to find our friend.

We were followed, tracked, tapped, good cars defected, multiple raids in seven days.

124 new additions to the endangered species list.

Many in the movement didn’t ask if we were okay. Maybe they thought roads were a bad idea and that meant we deserved it.

30 years ago 1700 scientists warned us that we were on a collision course. Whole ecosystems are on the brink of collapse. Tell us again of your winning strategy. We deserve your guidance not revile.

There are hundreds of mines proposed across this continent. There are hundreds of forests under threat. Australia is racing ahead to mine, log and profit off a “renewables revolution”.

It is a form of hope to try a tactic in an unprecedented context and see if it works.

We cannot take a homogenous approach to what is happening. Homogeneity is a tranquilliser — like suburbia to topography. Emergence isn’t a mathematical equation and resistance doesn’t take a linear path.

Solidarity means showing up for us because your horizon is the same horizon line as ours.

After us, the rains buckled roads and homes drowned in the fourth flood in a year.

Rivers used to be drinkable and bogong moths once swarmed so thick they blocked out the light of the moon.

I want to tell the 30 people who are banned from talking to me that I love them. And that we’ll take that place we once called ‘paradise’ with us – everywhere we go.

Zianna Faud

Possible Mindsets for Post-Extractive Futures

Aia Newport

Ideas are the foundations of change. To bring about post-extractive worlds we must shift to postextractive mindsets. But what might these mindsets include and how might it feel to transform our ways of thinking about ourselves and each other? I believe that a focus on mutual survival, brought about through decolonisation, degrowth and cooperation, is key to climate justice.

First, let’s consider the mindset behind extractivism. An extractivist way of thinking prioritises the life and well-being of one thing over another, be it a person, community, nation, species or ecosystem. An extractivist asks, “What is the most I can possibly gain from you with the least possible cost to me?”

A post-extractive mindset then recognises the right of all beings and systems to continue in survival and flourishing, with none prioritised over another. It would say “I value your life and purpose equally to mine. I deserve no more than you.” It would ask, “How can we share our resources to facilitate mutual survival and flourishing?”

It is essential that the ‘we’ in this question refers to all living beings and systems, not merely a segment. If the ‘we’ refers only to white people, it remains a colonial question. If it refers to only humans, it remains anthropocentric. It only becomes a post-extractive question when it takes into account all life and life-supporting systems. Similarly, I believe there is an important distinction between anti- & post-extractivist futures. While anti-extractivism opposes extractive industries and systems, postextractivism must be rooted in decolonial frameworks that take responsibility for the harms caused through extraction. This includes treaties, land back and repatriation of stolen goods, as a start. If post-extractivism is to value life equally and strive for mutual flourishing, it cannot exist without upholding the sovereignty of First Nations peoples.

So how do we actually reach a place where we whole-heartedly say, “Let’s thrive together?”

Perhaps, we have to change our expectations of what we deserve and our definition of a “good life”.

Dominant Western narratives, which are also becoming global narratives, tell us we deserve to have everything even if it comes at the cost of someone or something else. Aimed at

anyone who can pay for it, this narrative drives consumption and will perpetuate extractivism for as long as it remains the dominant story. The expectation of luxury and convenience leads us to strive for individually-owned laptops, phones, cars, dishwashers, coffee machines, hot water systems, sound systems, TVs, etc., because we want it here and we want it now. We’re taught our lives are more important than others.

We are also taught to fear scarcity as another motivation to hoard wealth and belongings. Some of us have known scarcity in lives, or been told stories from ancestors, and to a degree these fears are valid. However, this fear also works to drive high consumption and turn the cogs in the capitalist machine. If we are afraid of others stealing the means to our well-being we become deeply individualistic and strive for self-reliance. This highly consumptive lifestyle is what extractive companies want us to want, so we will continue paying them to exploit natural and human resources to dig up more metals and minerals. To reduce the power of extractive industries then, we must reduce our demand for their products and services.

In order to reduce our demands on extractive industries we must change our definition of a “good life” and consume less. Not in an individual, “use less plastic” kind of way, but on the scale of towns and cities. Instead of replacing our private fossil fuel run cars with electrics, we can consume less with public transport. We can reduce our need for energy intensive hot water heating if we have community kitchens and shower blocks. Sharing our energy and resources will greatly reduce our reliance on extractive industries. Yet in a world where we are taught by capitalist cultural norms to prioritise ourselves, how do we shed the layers of individual consumption and self-centered thinking to reveal more community focused ways of being? How do we face the western addiction to convenience and consumption and admit there is no space for private luxuries in a post-extractivist world? How do we overcome our fears and learn to share and co-operate?

I think we need to sit ourselves down and think about our priorities. We have to ask ourselves, “What are we willing to do to achieve postextractivism and climate justice?” Are we willing to give up our luxuries to enable others to

Reflections on rooting change-making into our daily lives, as a means of living the future now.

Sound Map, Palm Valley. Image: Aia Newport

flourish? Are we prepared to shift our priorities to enable future generations, ecosystems, colonised peoples, and even our future selves, the right to flourish? Are we willing to work to overcome our fear of each other so we can share resources? Are we willing to radically shift the way we live? Are we willing to keep trying even if our first attempts fail?

Following these paths involves risk and involves work, but if climate justice is our goal we must be willing to take it all in our stride. We will find boundaries for what we are willing to share and what we are not. We will create new systems and find joy in them. If one way doesn’t work we’ll continue to look for other options, rather than reverting to fear and hoarding. We will give and so create a world where we are given back to.

The post-extractive mindset I’m imagining then is rooted in accountability, down-shifting and cooperation, with an aim for mutual flourishing. The idea of “having less” also prevents us from seeing the opportunities that these post-extractive questions may lead us toward. We might find ourselves with less of the “convenience” we currently know but open ourselves up to other kinds of ease and connection. It may be scary, daunting, confronting and frustrating but also wonderful to be more tied to our friends and neighbours. Imagine getting home from a long day working as a nurse to find there’s hot water and food ready for you. Is that really any less convenient, even if you have to walk down the street to get it? Perhaps we’d find we’re grateful for these new ways of living together.

When I let myself think of the opportunities of downshifting, rather than the things I’m “losing”, I feel a genuine excitement. “A world where I can feel connected, happy, have what I need AND no one else is missing out or being exploited?” That’s my dream. So am I willing to work for it? Yes.

Let’s give ourselves the opportunity to live our collective dreams. Let’s reduce our reliance on extractive industries, work together, share and take accountability through decolonisation in the name of mutual flourishing.

Aia (they/them) was born on Wurrundjeri country and is of Scottish, Welsh, and English descent. Get in contact at sunshine.punch@protonmail.com.

Here are some questions we might shift from towards:

• What do I need What do we need?

• What does my family need What does the broader community need?

• What do humans need How can we meet the needs of humans and broader ecosystems?

• What’s the minimum we need to do to decolonise? How can settlers take deep accountability for the harms of colonisation and extraction?

• How do we spend the least amount of money on this project/system? How do we make this project/system energy and resource efficient?

• How can I get this now? How can we achieve this short-term need without compromising our long-term vision/flourishing?

• How can I be the most independent and self-reliant? What systems of sharing would I feel comfortable in, so we can strive for more community-resilience?

• How can I save the world? How can we heal together through collective action and co-operation?

CREATIVE FACILITATION

Exploring creative and embodied facilitation practices for activist spaces.

New Economy Network Australia (NENA)

Rhiannon Hardwick and Michelle Maloney

The New Economy Network Australia (NENA) is a civil society network made up of individuals and organisations working to change the role of ‘the economy’ in our society. NENA works to challenge the dominant paradigm of neo-classical, growth focussed, ‘top down’ economics, and to promote the understanding and implementation of economic principles and practices that support a regenerative, post-extractivist and socially just society. NENA’s goal is to transform Australia’s economic system so that achieving ecological health and social justice are the foundational principles and primary objectives of our economy. NENA works to facilitate connections, showcase and promote innovative projects, build peer-to-peer learning and use collective strategies to create and advocate for change, so that we can build a strong movement of people demanding, creating and benefiting from a ‘new’ economy. By ‘new’ economy, we mean a system built on the foundational principles listed below – one that focusses on regenerative, not extractivist modes of operation, which supports rather than destroys the living world and one that is socially and economic just. NENA is made up of a growing number of connected, semi-autonomous Sectoral and Geographic Hubs that bring people together to focus on different issues in the new economy. Our Hubs can choose to focus on issues and topics

NENA’s FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

Ecological Regeneration and Sustainability: That economic activity respects and operates within ecological limits, bioregional health and planetary boundaries, and also supports the regeneration of natural systems and recognises and upholds the inherent rights of nature to exist, thrive and evolve. This core principle includes moving beyond extractivism, towards a regenerative society and economy

Social Justice: That everyone can participate and benefit from economic activity in inclusive and equitable ways and that this requires working in solidarity to address the historical and ongoing marginalisation of certain groups by racism, imperialism, classism, patriarchy and other systems of oppression. Democracy and participation: That economic decision-making is participatory, inclusive and transparent and emphasises collective stewardship and management of economic resources, activities and outcomes.

Place-based/ Emphasising Locality: That building strong, local/place-based economies is important for Australia’s communities; rooting wealth and power in place through localised economic activity.

First Nations People in Australia: That working in solidarity with First Nations Peoples’ is vital to creating a new economy in Australia. NENA acknowledges that the sovereignty of the First Nations People of the continent now known as Australia was never ceded by treaty nor in any other way. NENA acknowledges and respects First Nations Peoples’ laws and ecologically sustainable custodianship of Australia over tens of thousands of years through land and sea management practices that continue today. NENA also acknowledges and respects the ancient, Earthcentred, steady state economic system that was created and managed by First Nations People across the continent for millennia. Australian society is in debt to First Nations People for many aspects of the modern economy.

that they think are important, and so long as their work is within the core principles of NENA, Hubs are free to carry out their work together and share their ideas and expertise as they see fit. NENA also has a central coordinating hub that provides support to our Hubs across Australia, and secretariat support to our elected groups. Some of NENA’s Sectoral Hubs include: Indigenous knowledge, democracy and governance, cooperatives, food, energy, ecological economics, housing & human settlements, localisation, narratives & storytelling and post-extractivism.

Our Hubs are made up of people actively working within their fields of interest and expertise, and they share information across our network, enable peer-to-peer learning and important networking and collaboration opportunities. This work enables the breaking down of silos and the sharing of information that enables people to see the systemic connection of all our work, in order to shift our economic system.

After more than five years of building, our network is now made up of many thousands of people, including almost 500 paid cooperative members.. This year, we’ll be sharing our first ‘Civil Society Strategy’ for a new economy, created by all our members sharing their own input about what needs to change in our system to build a postextractivist, regenerative, socially just future. We’ll also be kicking off an 8-10 month process using Citizen Assembly processes, to build our first ‘Alternative Peoples’ Budget’, ahead of the 2023 Federal Budget. These projects ‘show’ others what a vision for a post-extractivist society can look like, and how our society – as a powerful collective –could actually fund and achieve these changes. Our platform of distributed governance, facilitated by our dedicated coordinating hub, continues to demonstrate the remarkable ideas, input and energy of our members, and is building a new story about the role of the economy in Australia’s future.

UPCOMING EVENTS

NENA has a number of themed week-long events planned for 2022, featuring workshops and discussions facilitating the exploration of a particular economic issue. The first of these weeks, NENA Narratives Week, is taking place Monday 18 – Friday 22 July. You are invited to join us as we delve into the power of stories and how they can shape our economy and society. To learn more, join NENA, or register for NENA Narratives Week, visit www.neweconomy.org.au, or email nena@neweconomy.org.au

Michelle Maloney, Co-Founder and Director New Economy Network Australia

(NENA) and Australian Earth Law Alliance (AELA), and Rhiannon Hardwick,

Project Officer,

Coordinating Hub New Economy Network Australia (NENA)

Artists as eco-social change makers.

PDAC’s Call for Imaginings

When Canada’s mining conference PDAC went online in 2021, the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network (MISN) put out a call for imaginings, inviting people to submit creative responses to the question: What would a world without extractivism look like for you? View the exhibition: mininginjustice.org/imaginings

Un mundo para todes / A world for all of us

‘A world without extractivism will be a world without the exploitation of resources or labour, a world where people aren’t criminalized, threatened, or targeted for defending their territories. It will not be a violent world. The planet will be replete with life and all life will be protected. A world without extractivism will be a world of clean water, healthy communities, untouched paramos, innovations we may or may not have dreamt up yet— there will be an undeniable harmony between everyone and everything. My submission is a collage that tries to illustrate this. A world without extractivism will be a world for all of us.’

About the Artist: Laura Rojas is a community artist and designer based in Toronto. Follow her online at @laurrojas.

Transforming Carbon

Aviva Reed

‘There is an eternal reaction in the chemical realm, carbon is always on the move…. It may be moving in slow time or fast time, but is always moving, changing, shifting, warping, mixing, reacting, loving, joining into community, making community, carbon is the beautiful windy choreography of life and death.’

What would happen if we talked of caring for carbon? Carbon has become mythological in the way humans discuss it. Used in the modern lexicon to describe a malevolent, impending doom of emissions, the dominant narratives of carbon are often associated with but just one form of carbon molecule, carbon dioxide. But carbon is far more than a gas that holds heat. Carbon is a form of embodied energy that attracts, repels and builds worlds. Carbon is a ‘trickster’, ‘shape shifter, entity of multiplicities, and offers us a way finding in a time of a changing climate. When we view carbon as both a material and cultural element, we can begin to understand the gifts this trickster molecule may offer.1

‘Transforming carbon (2022)’, explores the world through the lens of carbon as muse, as a chemical agent, with agency. This body of work used illustration, painting, narratives, poems and performance lectures to play and reframe carbon. The process of art making is in itself a methodology for re-searching knowledge, a way to undo the ‘cult of reductionism’2 inflicted upon the world by the western cognitive empire.3 The focus of this project is on western science’s relationship with categories and the chemistry that shapes liveliness.

“It matters what stories tell stories”4

– Donna Haraway

How we discuss, and relate with, carbon matters to how we know, and be in the world. Indigenous peoples and an increasing amount of contemporary scholars have called for the reframing of cultural narratives around ecological relationships as an ethical obligation.5 The shape and symbols created through language is how we make sense of the world. Sense making of the world plays out in legal and financial paradigms. Whilst it is integral to re- vision energy production away from forms rich in carbon emissions, a language of demonizing carbon has dominated the way we approach the current dilemma of a carbon cycle out of balance. A quick audit of how carbon is discussed in the dominant extractive paradigms finds us using words such a ‘decarbonisation’, ‘carbon zero’ and ‘net carbon’ with a strong focus on ‘carbon emissions’. These words exemplify carbon as ‘trickster’ – for whilst carbon in the air and ocean are both reaching saturated levels, terrestrial carbon (carbon in the soil, forests, biodiversity and saltmarshes) are severely depleted. This distortion of carbon in western science narratives neglects the opportunity to create healthy relationships with carbon, with ourselves, with the earth. The process of ‘bringing carbon home’ refers to supporting the transmigration of carbon from the atmosphere into other forms, such as abundant, thriving ecosystems. Enhancing the possibility for biodiversity to exist is creating carbon pathways for both energy and embodied carbon to find a home out of the atmosphere and back into the flow of life.

Carbon is an element that has a supreme architecture. At the atomic scale, its six prong ring has an excellent capacity to bond with multiple other elements to form chains and membranes. Its form can both keep energy moving through a system (in the form of glucose molecules from photosynthesis), whilst also building the structure of a system (through forming molecules such as calcium carbonate in coral reefs). Both an energy holder and a bone builder, carbon is a shapeshifter. It has a structure that yearns for connection with other chemical elements that can then build phenomenal complexity in the form of DNA chains.

Carbon’s homes have been destroyed not only at a physical level, but also at a chemical level. Carbon’s capacity for bonding has been made obsolete through extractivist practices. It is necessary for the carbon dioxide molecule to become other carbon molecules, to shapeshift, to re-form into molecules in the soil, in the bodies of living things, into sugars to feed life. But most modern day soils can no longer hold carbon due to a lack of hydration and organic matter. Forest soils are burnt with high intensity fires and compacted with machinery during clearfelling, killing the fungi that would normally hold carbon in the soil. The oceans are soaking up carbon dioxide from the air, creating chemical reactions where shells can no longer form molecules for carbon rich bones. A focus on restoring the carbon relationships on earth is what a post extractivist world looks like. Carbon literacy is our way into caring for carbon. Redefining the language used to describe and to relate with carbon enhances the capacity to perceive the complexity within the carbon cycle. This reframing offers a way to undermine the ‘carbon imaginary’ offered by traditional western sciences. The carbon imaginary is the historical move of western science to claim there is a ‘life’ and a ‘nonlife’, a breaking apart of the bio and the geo.6 Yet, when we tune into carbon as an elemental force, and trace it through our planetary metabolic system, we find an animacy that moves at different rates, that shifts, twirls, combines and recombines through slow times, fast times in deep time. We find that time and carbon are embraced in a living and dying cycle of millennia, the cliffs made of carbon rich plankton bones. This new ‘imaginary’ of collapsed living and dead categories is not a new concept but has always been part of an understanding for Indigenous communities worldwide.7 This honouring of deep time and the liveliness of mountains, rivers and rocks acknowledges the liveliness of flow and the memories of molecular life, with agency, with animacy.

Throughout my practice, western scientific canons such as carbon chemistry and the categories of biotic and abiotic, live through the haptic process of drawing, painting and imagining these ‘invisible’ chemical forces. Dreaming into them as I tease out ideas, I tune into their stories and

‘We are carbon thinking about carbon, living with carbon, breathing with carbon. We are carbon eating itself.’

This work on ocean acidification plays with the tension of the beautiful shells holding carbon within their bodies, yet being forced to dissolve due to the chemistry of the ocean.

Gondwana reminds us of carbon memories in a slow time landscape, embodied in mountains and supporting life forms in assemblages that have supported each other for millennia.

collapse the ‘carbon imaginary’. There is no such thing as living and dead, bio and geo. In this way, drawing is a way into activating my ecological imagination. This playful space unlocks different ways of thinking. ‘Transforming Carbon (2022)’ found new ways of describing, connecting and being with carbon, as a carbon based life form. These processes initiated an engagement with the waiting ghosts of carbon soon to become ancestors. Thinking between carbon and time and rates of change, carbon as an animate force became very visible. And most, importantly, led me to consider, how we can best love carbon, home carbon and enhance carbons own agency to exist? What language, feelings, insights and imaginings can shift the world to a way of being that reveres and honours the deeply complex nature of things and embraces a world of deep care for the eternal cycles of carbon? How can we support carbon to be its best self?

Aviva Reed is a transdisciplinary visual ecologist of German Jewish and settler heritage, working on Wurundjeri woi-wurrung country. Her practice reframes scientific theories, particularly concepts associated with evolution and ecological categorisations. Her work moves between performance, ritual, lecture, publications and visual art. She explores time, scale and relationship using storytelling, visualisations, soundscapes and conversation.

References

1. Girvan, A., (2017) “Trickster carbon: stories, science, and postcolonial interventions for climate justice”, Journal of Political Ecology 24(1), p.1038-1054. doi: https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20981

2. Yunkaporta, Tyson. Sand talk: How Indigenous thinking can save the world. Text Publishing, 2019. P 193

3. de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. “Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) (2007): 45-89.

4. Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, 2016.

5. Kimmerer, Robin. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions, 2013.

6. Povinelli, Elizabeth A. Geontologies: A requiem to late liberalism. Duke University Press, 2016.

7. Kimmerer, Robin. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions, 2013.

Emu Field: The Atomic Prophecy of Maralinga

Dr Elizabeth Tynan

When the subject of British atomic tests in Australia comes up, most people think of Maralinga. That enormous atomic test site in the South Australian interior was the setting for seven of the 12 major atomic tests held in Australia, and hundreds of toxic “minor trials” that tested various aspects of atomic weaponry. However, the other Australian desert site that pre-dated Maralinga by three years is virtually unknown, despite the fact that it caused immense suffering to Australians, especially to Aboriginal Australians of the Western Desert. Emu Field has fallen into the shadow of Maralinga, 193 kilometres to the south, although it provided a prophecy of what was to come. This ephemeral military and scientific installation operated only for a short time during 1953. It appeared, and then vanished almost immediately. The site, originally labelled X200, quickly became known as Emu Field from the emu claw marks around the bright orange claypan that was

used initially as the airstrip for the site. This first Australian mainland site (following the maritime site at Monte Bello Islands where Operation Hurricane was held in 1952) was where the British exploded two relatively low-yield atomic weapons (9.1 and 7.1 kilotons) as part of Operation Totem. The Australian government was essentially kept out and did not have a formal mechanism for monitoring what the British test authorities were doing during the Emu Field tests. My new book, The Secret of Emu Field: Britain’s Forgotten Atomic Tests in Australia, examines how the British attempted to establish a cheap formula to create an atomic arsenal quickly. The shift from Britain’s first Windscale atomic reactor to the new dual-purpose reactors at Calder Hall – intended to produce fuel both for the weapons program and for civilian nuclear energy – meant that the output of weapons-grade plutonium was going to have a higher-than-desirable proportion of plutonium-240. The test authorities wanted to

Road to Totem.

Photo: Andrew Burden

examine what this would mean for the stability of the Blue Danube weapon designed by the head of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Sir William Penney. The British planned to deploy at least 50 atomic weapons to the Royal Air Force, but had limited raw material (uranium oxide) and had to devise new approaches to obtain as much nuclear fuel as possible. During 1953, when Operation Totem was being designed and put into action, the British government was also trying to negotiate access to Australian exports of uranium, although Australian Prime Minister Menzies drove harder bargains on uranium sales than he did on access to atomic weapons testing grounds. Although the central data from the two Totem tests is still kept secret by the British, the operation was apparently a dead-end, and the Blue Danube weapons that were deployed for a short time to the RAF contained different fuel.

The British undertook Operation Totem under cover of extreme remoteness and secrecy. Only 300 people could be on site at any time, because of the severe water shortage and lack of amenities. Maralinga, by contrast, was able to house thousands of men in relative comfort. The toxic residues from the tests spread far, most notably the terrifying ‘black mist’ that enveloped Aboriginal communities directly after the first Totem bomb in October 1953.

The British government, supported by the Menzies government, was not overly troubled by its test establishment’s lack of knowledge either of atomic weapons effects or of the meteorological and geographical conditions of the Australian test sites. The early British tests, both Operation Hurricane at Monte Bello off the Western Australian coast in October 1952 and Operation Totem at Emu Field in October 1953, were conducted off a remarkably low knowledge base. William Penney was a mathematical physicist who had led the British Mission to the US Manhattan Project that had created the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But the British scientists and technologists, operating under the restrictive terms of the wartime Quebec Agreement that established Anglo-American atomic weapons cooperation, had not been party to all Manhattan secrets. When America’s McMahon Act of 1946 made it illegal for the country to work with other countries on developing atomic weaponry, Britain decided to build an independent civilian and military nuclear program despite significant gaps in knowledge. As a result, and certainly in the case of the early tests, Britain carried out atomic weapons tests with insufficient detailed understanding of effects, and was notably lax in its safety procedures.

Researching this book was challenging because of the cloak of secrecy that the British

government still maintains over Totem, and indeed the whole nuclear weapons program. A large number of Operation Totem files were already retained by the UK Ministry of Defence before the mass withdrawal in December 2018 of all files relating to British atomic tests. The British have been covering up the true nature of Operation Totem for nearly 70 years, and continue to do so. Given that these dangerous tests were conducted on Australian territory, this ongoing secrecy is unacceptable.

The Secret of Emu Field: Britain’s Forgotten Atomic Tests in Australia is published by NewSouth, 2022.

Elizabeth Tynan is associate professor in the Graduate Research School at James Cook University in Townsville. A former science journalist, her book Atomic Thunder: The Maralinga Story (NewSouth, 2016) won the Prime Minister’s Literary Award (Australian History) and the CHASS Australia Book Prize in 2017. The Secret of Emu Field: Britain’s Forgotten Atomic Tests in Australia is her latest book.

Test era debris at Emu Field claypap.

Photo: Andrew Burden

Léandra is a Southern Arrernte woman living on Widjabul Wia-bul Country. Currently working in rainforest ecology and botany, as well as campaigning to prevent the construction of the Dunoon Dam (visit www.waternorthernrivers.org for more info).

Friends of the Earth Australia contacts

Local Groups

National Liaison Officers:

Zianna Fuad (Melb) zianna.fuad@foe.org.au, Phil Evans (Melb) phil.evans@foe.org.au, Anisa Rogers (Melb) anisa.rogers@foe.org.au, Anna Langford Cam Walker cam.walker@foe.org.au

Phil Jackson

Membership issues

Melbourne: Jemila Rushton jemila.rushton@gmail.com, ph 9419 8700, 0426 962 506

Other states − see Local Group contacts or contact nlo@foe.org.au

International Liaison Officers

Chloe Aldenhoven (Melb), 0432 328 107 chloe.aldenhoven@foe.org.au, Emma Harvey (Melb) emma.harvey@foe.org.au, Franklin Bruinstroop (Bris) franklin.bruinstroop@foe.org.au

0466 319 323, Pat Simons (Melb), 0415 789 961 patrick.simons@foe.org.au, Sam Cossar-Gilbert (Melb) sam.cossargilbert@foe.org.au

Financial contributions finance@foe.org.au, freecall 1300 852 081, ph (03) 9419 8700

FoE Adelaide c/- CCSA, 111 Franklin St. Adelaide SA 5000. adelaide.office@foe.org.au. www.adelaide.foe.org.au

Bridgetown Greenbushes

Friends of the Forest PO Box 461, Bridgetown, WA, 6255. president@bgff.org.au, www.bgff.org.au, Richard Wittenoom 0427 611 511

FoE Brisbane

20 Burke St, Woolloongabba (above Reverse Garbage Qld). PO Box 8227 Woolloongabba, Qld, 4102. ph (07) 3171 2255, office.brisbane@foe.org.au, https://brisbane.foe.org.au

6 Degrees: Coal and CSG: karenajallen@hotmail.com

National campaigns, projects and spokespeople

Anti-Nuclear: Jim Green (SA), 0417 318 368 jim.green@foe.org.au, Robin Taubenfeld (PACE), 0411 118 737 robin.taubenfeld@foe.org.au.

Climate Justice: Leigh Ewbank, 0406 316 176 leigh.ewbank@foe.org.au, Cam Walker, 0419 338 047 cam.walker@foe.org.au

Anna Langford, 0478 031 771 anna.langford@foe.org.au;

Climate and Health: Harry Jennens, 0417 418 225 admin@healthyfutures.net.au

Sasha King (FoEM), sasha.king@foe.org.au

Coal and Energy Justice: charlie@tippingpoint.org.au, moira@tippingpoint.org.au wendy.farmer@foe.org.au

Community Energy: Wendy Farmer wendy.farmer@foe.org.au

Finance, Divestment and Banks: Julien Vincent contact@marketforces.org.au, ph (03) 9016 4449

Food and Emerging Tech: Louise Sales, 0435 589 579 louise.sales@foe.org.au, www.emergingtech.foe.org.au,

www.foe.org.au

Food Irradiation Watch: www.foodirradiationwatch.org, Robin Taubenfeld 0411 118 737, robin.taubenfeld@foe.org.au

Forests: cam.walker@foe.org.au, anthony.amis@foe.org.au, Chris Schuringa (GECO) c.schuringa21@gmail.com

Kim Croxford, 0417547433 kim.croxford@gmail.com

Latin America

Indigenous solidarity: Marisol Salinas, 0422 455 331 marisol.salinas@foe.org.au

Climate Frontlines (Pacific & Torres Strait Islands Climate Justice): Wendy Flannery (Bris) wendy.flannery@foe.org.au, 0439 771 692

Pesticides & Drinking Water: Anthony Amis (Melb) anthony.amis@foe.org.au

Renewable Energy: Pat Simons, 0415 789 961 patrick.simons@foe.org.au wendy.farmer@foe.org.au

Sustainable Cities & Public Transport: laura.sykes@foe.org.au

Claudia Gallois, 0448 752 656 claudia.gallois@foe.org.au, www.facebook.com/WeSustainCities, @WeSustainCities

www.facebook.com/FoEAustralia

FoE Far North Queensland

PO Box 795, Kuranda, Qld, 4881. Ph Ingrid Marker 0438 688 229, fnq@foe.org.au, www.foefnq.org.au, facebook.com/FriendsoftheEarthFNQ

FoE Melbourne PO Box 222, Fitzroy, 3065. Street address –312 Smith St, Collingwood. Ph (03) 9419 8700, 1300 852081 (free call outside Melb.) foe@foe.org.au, www.melbourne.foe.org.au, www.facebook.com/foemelbourne, www.instagram.com/foemelbourne

Membership and fundraising coordinator: Jemila Rushton, jemila.rushton@gmail.com, ph 9419 8700, 0426 962 506

Dirt Radio: www.3cr.org.au/dirtradio, Mondays 10:30am and Tuesdays 9:30am on 3CR, www.facebook.com/DirtRadio

Food co-op: food@foe.org.au, ph (03) 9417 4382

Forest Collective: cam.walker@foe.org.au

www.melbournefoe.org.au/forests

No New Fossil Fuels campaign: www.melbournefoe.org.au/nnff-vic River Country Campaign: www.melbournefoe.org.au/ river_country

Tipping Point (climate action) www.tippingpoint.org.au, info@tippingpoint.org.au. charlie@tippingpoint.org.au. moira@tippingpoint.org.au

Trade and Economic Justice: sam.cossargilbert@foe.org.au jemila.rushton@gmail.com

Jarred Abrahams, 0468862503, jarred.abrahams@foe.org.au, cam.walker@foe.org.au

Unconventional gas: zianna.fuad@foe.org.au

War and the Environment: Robin Taubenfeld, 0411 118 737 robin.taubenfeld@foe.org.au

Sam Castro, 0439 569 289 sam.castro@foe.org.au. Phil Evans phil.evans@foe.org.au

Margaret Pestorius (FNQ) mpestorius@foe.org.au

Wet Tropics: Ingrid Marker (Qld) ingrid.marker@foe.org.au

0438 688 229

Gender Justice and Dismantling Patriarchy sam.castro@foe.org.au

0439 569 289

Zianna Fuad, 0401613301 zianna.fuad@foe.org.au phil.evans@foe.org.au

Kim Croxford, 0417547433 kim.croxford@gmail.com

Act on Climate: Anna Langford, anna.langford@foe.org.au, www.actonclimate.org.au

Nuclear Free Collective: nuclearfree@foe.org.au

Affiliate members

Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) info@asen.org.au, www.asen.org.au, www.facebook.com/asen.org.au, Anisa anisa.rogers@foe.org.au

Earthworker Cooperative

Dan Musil, 0432 485 869, contact@earthworkercooperative.com.au www.earthworkercooperative.com.au www.facebook.com/Earthworkercoop, @Earthworkercoop

GM Free Australia Alliance

Alex Mijatovic, 0449 872 327 info@gmfreeaustralia.org.au, www.gmfreeaustralia.org.au

Goongerah Environment Centre (GECO) www.geco.org.au, facebook.com/GECOEastGippsland, geco@geco.org.au, @eastgippyforest, Tuffy Morwitzer 0423 373 959

Healthy Futures www.healthyfutures.net.au, admin@healthyfutures.net.au, Harry 0417 418 225, Kate 0438 347 755, facebook: Healthy Futures

Sustainable Cities Campaign: Elyse Cunningham, elyse.cunningham@foe.org.au, www.facebook.com/WeSustainCities, @WeSustainCities

Yes 2 Renewables: Pat Simons, 0415 789 961 patrick.simons@foe.org.au, Wendy Farmer, wendy.farmer@foe.org www.yes2renewables.org

The Hub Foundation Castlemaine http://mash.org.au/about-thehub-foundation, jo@hubfoundation.org.au, 0455 589 065

Market Forces

Julien Vincent, contact@marketforces.org.au, www.marketforces.org.au, @market_forces, www.facebook.com/MarketForces

Sustainable Energy Now PO Box 341, West Perth WA 6872. www.sen.asn.au, contact@sen.asn.au.

Outreach Convenor

Rob Phillips 0416 065 054. Outreach Organiser

Alastair Leith 0432 889 831

Wildlife of the Central Highlands (WOTCH): wotch.inc@gmail.com, www.wotch.org.au, www.facebook.com/VICWOTCH

School Strike 4 Climate (SS4C) admin@schoolstrike4climate.com