Combust 2025

AcknowledgementofCountry

The 2025 edition of Combust was created and distributed on the stolen land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. Sovereignty was never ceded. We acknowledge that there cannot be environmental justice without justice for First Nations peoples,

who for over 65,000 years have lived on and cared for this land. When the colonial government of socalled Australia approves new coal and gas projects, they continue to perpetrate violent cycles of dispossession and theft.

When money hungry corporations drill down into the soil, they not only plunder resources that have never been theirs for the taking, polluting precious waterways and ecosystems, but destroy parts of the oldest living culture on earth.

We stand with First Nations peoples across the globe, from Gadigal to Gaza, in the fight against genocide and colonial violence in all of its forms.

Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land.

Editorial

This edition of Combust comes amidst the rapid worsening of climate disasters across the world. We stand on the precipice of total catastrophe, ruled by governments deep in the pockets of greedy corporations who bask shamelessly in the spoils of their own inaction. We face a refugee crisis of unseen scale as entire countries sink into the ocean and cities are washed away by floodwater.

Contributors

Along with global average temperatures, political repression is also on the rise. Climate protesters are faced with criminal penalties, sometimes harsher than those imposed upon convicted sex offenders, in attempts to stifle the fight for environmental justice. Even our own campus is not exempt - University management continues to impose authoritarian measures preventing its students from even participating in public environmental discourse. You could be hit with misconduct proceedings for posting an Instagram story from your personal account condemning the Australian government’s inaction on climate change. And don’t even think about trying to hang a banner from the footbridge!

Maddy Barry, Amanda Ching, Eliza Crossley, Eleanor Douglas, Ishbel Dunsmore, Alessandro Fotea, Jack Glass, Deaglan Godwin, Kayla Hill, Tara Marocchi, Angus McGregor, Grace Street, Lilah Thurbon and Khanh Tran

Editors-in-Chief

Lilah Thurbon and Deaglan Godwin

The articles in this edition tackle the issues our movement is facing, from analysis of recent climate catastrophes, to existential debates, to discussions about the solutions we desperately need to take action on the climate crisis

If you like what we’ve got to say, we encourage you to get involved with the enviro collective and activism on campus You can find us on Instagram @usyd enviro

In solidarity, Lilah and Deaglan, your 2025 Environment Officers

Cover Art

Lilah Thurbon

ReflectionsfromRisingTide:“myonlyregretisnotgetting arrested”

Maddy Barry

LessonsfromtheGreenBansinstrikingforsocialgood

Ishbel Dunsmore

WhathappenedtoSchoolStrikeforClimate?

Kayla Hill

Givemebackmymegaphone!

Lilah Thurbon

Pumpunlessotherwisetold

Jack Glass

Australia’s climate future depends on rejecting Dutton’s nuclearsmokescreen

Angus McGregor

Carbonoffsetschemesareahoax

Eliza Crossley

TheUniversityofSydney’sdirtylittlesecrets

Grace Street and Khanh Tran

Palmoil,deforestationanddispossessioninMalaysia

Amanda Ching

The Los Angeles fires are another unnatural natural disaster

Deaglan Godwin

Whywon’ttheleftgovegan?

Lilah Thurbon

Thosemightbemymonkeys,butthat’sdefinitelynotmy circus: why individuals don’t have a moral obligation to reducetheircarbonfootprint

Eleanor Douglas

WhattheCoolCabanadebatecantellusaboutthestate ofmodernenvironmentaldiscourse

Getcultured,envirobookclubisinsession

Lilah Thurbon and Deaglan Godwin

Alessandro Fotea All articles represent the views of their authors All articles represent the views of authors

Reflections from Rising Tide:

“my only regret is not gettingarrested”

Maddy Barry rocks the boat at the 2024 People’s Blockade of the world’s largest coal port

Sitting on the side of the Pacific Highway in a broken down van with the sun beating down on us, we eat through the last of our food. The NRMA will be here in an hour, but we’re not getting back to Sydney in time for Matt’s supposedly important lunch That’s when the news breaks –back in Newcastle, 173 people had just been arrested at the Rising Tide People’s Blockade of the world’s largest coal port

On that Sunday morning, hundreds of kayakers paddled out into the shipping channel to block coal exports in the largest display of civil disobedience in Australian history. Police approached and started making arrests. Yet, despite their best efforts, hundreds of everyday people were able to come together in their collective power to take on the coal industry, with the outgoing coal ship eventually forced to turn around. Moments like these define history, people coming together in their hundreds, risking arrest, to take a stand against coal and gas.

Founded in 2005, Rising Tide was one of the first grassroots climate activist groups in Australia. Known for their community

campaigning and ground-breaking nonviolent direct actions, last year marked the organisation's thirteenth action to block the world’s largest coal port. Shipping approximately 150 million tonnes annually, the Port of Newcastle handles 15 percent of the world’s coal. If the havoc this wreaked on the climate was not enough, earlier in November, investigative journalist Peter Cronau reported that coal from Newcastle had arrived at Hadera port near Tel Aviv, likely to supply Israel’s largest power station. Clearly, this was the time to stand up to parliamentarians and corporations butting profit above people and the planet.

In the lead up to the protest, the NSW Labor government made significant efforts to stop the protest from happening altogether Police took Rising Tide to the Supreme Court, challenging the group’s application to hold a public assembly, which would have protected activists from prosecution for up to 30 hours In a win for the coal industry, Justice Desmond Fagan sided with the police, determining that the planned interruption to the busy port “goes ar beyond what the people affected should be expected to tolerate”.

relentless. Car after car was pulled over and drivers breath tested, with police refusing to tell protesters why they were being stopped. We watched as one protester was issued a fine purportedly for not wearing a seatbelt, although from our vantage point it appeared as though all passengers were firmly strapped in. This was one of many questionable fines issued, most upwards of several hundred dollars.

On the first few days of the blockade these coal ships the size of skyscrapers continued to pass by under the protection of balaclavaclad cops. Frustrations swelled at the camp What were we even doing here?

Then on Sunday morning, our side pushed back The first six of the 173 protestors arrested for blocking the shipping channel at the People’s Blockade faced court last week and were fined $600 There are 167 cases to go with adjournments to follow My only regret is not getting arrested with them. If you are fortunate enough to be able to, please consider contributing to cover court costs and fines of those who took the risk for our planet’s future.

The government also attempted to abuse the Marine Safety Act to criminalise peaceful protest on-the-spot fines up to $1,100. Thankfully, two hours before it was due to kick in, the exclusion zone was overturned by the Supreme Court.

However, the police presence remained

Rising Tide remains one of the most beautiful experiences of my life. I was constantly inspired by the people coming together to take a stand, not just against coal and gas, but against an entire system that has been designed to subdue us. There are people out there who insist that individuals can’t make a difference, but this is clearly just a lie that the system needs us to believe for its survival. The blockade wasn't just a protest, but a rallying cry for a better future, evidence that together, our love for each other and the earth will eventually win out.

The People's Blockade out in full force

Rising Tide flags were all around

The campsite where we all stayed over

Photo Credits Tara Marocchi and Maddy Barry

More kayaks!

Lessons from the Green Bans instrikingforsocialgood

Ishbel Dunsmore uncovers a hidden piece of union history

In the 1970s, trade unionists in the construction industry fought not only for better wages and conditions, but over the very shape of the city of Sydney. They instituted what became known as Green Bans - union enforced bans on the demolition and construction of particular sites. They enforced them on green spaces and parks, working class homes and heritage buildings. The history of these Green Bans holds many important lessons for us today as we fight to save the planet amidst an accelerating climate crisis

Historical Context

The Green Bans and the emergent Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) came to the fore amidst a number of mass struggles across the globe in the late 1960s – anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, anti-war movements in so-called Australia in response to the Vietnam War, civil rights movements in the US and beyond. It was also in this period of upheaval that workers found themselves fighting to advance their own self-interests.

However, there are specific reasons why the BLF was the union that came to the fore during this period. The BLF as a union was taken over by a group of radicals led by the communist Jack Mundey. This newfound leadership would give rise to a number of crucial reforms within the union which transformed it from a placid, right-wing union

into a militant, fighting union.The leadership refused bribes from the Government and developers, limited tenure for union officials, and abolished pay for union officials when its members were on strike.They held monthly delegate meetings and general meetings brought decisions back to the workers themselves, rather than union bosses, and created a form of self-determination for the rank-andfile. These reforms helped center worker democracy, limited bureaucracy and maintained worker involvement in the union

The leadership also fought for unity between different groups of workers They provided support services and decision-making roles for migrant unionists (including translation services), crucial in an era of first generation migrants who knew limited English. This helped recenter the unifying fact of being a worker, rather than being divided along lines of race or ethnicity, as was often the unfortunate experience for migrant workers. Because of this selfdetermination, workers began to seek other ways to involve themselves in broader social campaigns, such as the campaign for Indigenous land rights and the rights of women to be involved in industry. This self-organisation and confidence grew the union, especially by the mid-70s, at which point the union had grown in membership to 11,000.

The post-war period saw a massive

boom in the construction industry. This led to a shift from “skilled” to “unskilled” builders labourers, who had far fewer protections than other workers. The boom gave a lot of economic and social power to these so-called “unskilled” workers and their union, the BLF.

The Green Bans themselves + Tactics

So, the general background from which the Green Bans emerged can be summarised as follows: a general trend towards high rise development in traditionally working class areas, a subsequent “boom” in the construction industry, and a strong and confident militant mass of builders labourers with a rank and file union leadership committed to workers democratically controlling their own struggles, that workers should have a say in what they do and how they do it at work.

The first green ban came in 1970 in defence of an area of land on the Parramatta River. It was the last strip of natural bush left in that particular area. The BLF themselves did not initiate the campaign; a group of middle-class women campaigning to protect the strip of land approached them. The women had previously talked to their MP, written to the government, and appealed to the property developer, all of which were of no use. The BLF agreed to place a “black ban” (or ‘stop work’) on the area until the developer

agreed to preserve the bushland.

The developer, AV Jennings, attempted to go ahead with building work but were met with the BLF and residents, who physically defended the site and eventually won the green ban One letter to Jennings from the BLF and the Kelly’s Bush Battlers, as they came to be known, wrote that “ if [the developers] attempt to build on Kelly's Bush, even if there is the loss of one tree, this half-completed building will remain so forever, as a monument to Kelly's Bush ” Such an attitude set a precedent for what unions and worker self organising could achieve

There were a few different ways the NSW BLF could enforce these ‘Black’ bans, which later came to be known as Green Bans. The first was the most obvious stop-work strike. The second was hard pickets, which physically barred people from entering sites, often at the risk of arrest. Residents also participated. These were used at Kelly’s Bush. Between 1970 and 1974, the bans became increasingly more popular because of the BLF’s commitment to representing the people and its interests, even despite the Bans seeming to counterpose workers’ immediate, narrow economic self-interests; construction workers essentially denied themselves pay and work through their participation in these bans. By 1975, there were 54 green bans which held up an approximate $5 billion of capital.

Subsequent Green Bans ranged in scope and scale, ranging in defence of social and public housing in Glebe, in Redfern, to the Pink Ban at Macquarie Uni which halted the expulsion of a gay student. It's useful to look to these examples as a reminder of what a militant, rank and file union movement can do for society, for public housing residents, for students, and for the environment For further reading, Green Bans, Red Union: The Saving of a City by Meredith and Verity Burgmann is a rich account

Going forward

The obvious link people make between the Green Bans and our

current context is the importance of workers leading their own destiny. They are the ones who can enact change through striking, and they are the ones who can and should lead the way in a just transition to 100% publicly-owned renewables, a transition that enables workers a fair chance at retaining work, one that leaves no worker behind. A small but positive step has been unionists in the CFMEU, MUA, UWU and others supporting student-led climate strikes and site walk-offs.

A modern example is from 2021, when a 19th century heritage building was slated for demolition and relocation to make way for the Powerhouse Parramatta development. The Willow Grove site in Parramatta took on many of the qualities of a Green Ban, with the CFMEU backing it and placing a ban on all work to demolish the site It was, despite public approval of the ban, eventually dismantled when the CFMEU broke the first rule the new BLF established: don’t give into threats from the government or the bosses Regardless of the causes of the defeat, the campaign opened up an important discussion about how to rebuild a culture of militancy and democratic participation that enables unionists to confidently break bad laws, and fight for a world based on principles of social responsibility of workers’ labour.

Today we have no small number of causes to fight around. The climate crisis accelerates, there is the drive to war embodied in the AUKUS pact, the cost of living crisis, and the Australian Labor Government’s steadfast support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. Minority groups - refugees, Indigenous people, LGBTQIA people, and women - are also facing escalating attacks from the right and centre. The NSW BLF gave us one of the most visionary and inspirational moments in Australian labour history. The period of Jack Mundey’s leadership, extending from 1970 to 1974, expanded the revolutionary potential of unions, what a collection of organised workers could do in the realisation of their class interests, and how, ultimately, society could be radically transformed and advanced in its stead The stories and lessons of the Green Bans are, for lack of a better word, evergreen, and should be paid close attention to in rebuilding the climate movement

Where did School Strike for Climate go?

SS4C (School Strike for Climate, socalled Australia) emerged in late 2018 alongside hundreds of other youth climate groups across the world, inspired by Greta Thunberg It was heralded as a grassroots movement of principled teenagers leading climate activism across the country SS4C put forward the following demands: no new coal, oil, or gas; 100% publicly owned renewables by 2030; fund a just transition for fossil fuel workers; and introduced a few years later, First Nations led solutions.

SS4C rose to prominence in 2019, dubbed the “year of the climate”. As Thunberg met with high profile figures such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama, Sydney’s own climate activists were meeting with Jack River and Shawn Mendes. In September, the largest global climate demonstration took place; September 20, where over 4 million people around the world went on strike from school and work. Such momentum only accelerated here in so-called Australia as the Black Summer bushfires raged. The subsequent devastation to land, agriculture, animals and human lives was met with little concern by then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who utterly minimised the urgency of the fires and adamantly denied responsibility for the emergency, all from Hawai’i in his designer boardshorts

The fury was subdued the following year as the Covid-19 pandemic quelled, stifling momentum Schools, shops, and workplaces closed, and there was no longer any physical school for students to strike from or public places for them to march.

The grief of the bushfires was

reawakened in 2021, this time by the heavy rains and floods of La Niña. Year by year, there was more to protest and Scott Morrison’s grossly inadequate response to these crises added more fuel to the fire. Morrison’s continued denial of climate action was a large contributor to his loss in the 2022 Federal election. In Albanese’s victory speech, he declared that “the climate wars are over”.

Overnight, climate organisations backed down, satisfied with this declaration of victory. Climate protests no longer targeted the government, but instead banks, fossil fuel companies, and institutional investments in said fossil fuel companies. Turnout at protests dwindled. This hesitancy to openly antagonise Labor, however, only delayed action against their climate destruction; during their term, the ALP approved 28 new coal and gas projects

Even as Labor’s ecological nefariousness became evident, capacity had worn thin within SS4C Two generations of SS4C had already graduated, and the majority of remaining strikers were reluctant to protest Labor Some of them were even members. Many struggled with the idea that it was not merely the LNP that we were fighting, but the entire logic of capitalism and colonialism that are at the er core of

Th ed, pas ned about the degradation of the planet, not organised socialists fighting against the capitalist and colonial framework around which our entire world is oriented that exploits people and land, intensifying anthropogenic

climate change in the process. This ideology is reflected in their strategy: to mobilise the masses twice a year at a parade that vaguely calls for “climate action”.

Resistance does not exist in a vacuum that suddenly switches on every six months around strike time, and a strike alone is not enough to respond to the environmental destruction that occurs in a six month period.

As activists concerned with climate change, we must first be unwavering in our support for First Nations sovereignty across the continent. The exploitation of nature inherently harms Country – Land back is crucial for honouring sovereignty.

Secondly, we must mobilise against the draconian attacks on the right to protest and freedom of speech Santos was fined $10,000 for a 25,000 litre oil spill into the Indian Ocean, less than half the fine protestors can be subject to under the Minns Labor government’s repressive anti-protest laws Thirdly, we must build up our climate resilience, both on a personal and collective level. Finally, we must make the government and big fossil fuel corporations feel the same fear and existential dread that we do so that they are spurred into action.

Climate change is a complex problem. We ought to give grace to the determined and passionate school students who tried, with limited resources available, to fight such an epoch defining issue. But we must no longer deify SS4C (or what’s left of it that exists, anyway) as the be-all and end-all of the climate movement. I regret much of what I did (and didn’t) do during my five years in SS4C.

But the climate crisis rages on, and so too must we.

Giveme backmy megaphone!

Australia is number one in the world at locking up climate protesters.

This shameful accolade comes from Criminalisation and Repression of Climate and Environmental Protests, a report analysing the global increase in anti-protest measures published by researchers at the University of Bristol in December 2024. The study found that over 20% of climate related protests that take place in Australia end with arrests being made, more than triple the international average of 6.3%.

These numbers are deeply distressing Our planet and democracy are in crisis, yet the government continues to wreak havoc on both

In 2022, the then-Perrottet Government passed the Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Act with the enthusiastic support of the Labor opposition. This amendment expanded existing anti-protest laws criminalising the disruption of major bridges and tunnels, applying harsh penalties to the blockage of major roads, train stations, ports and public and private infrastructure. These laws cast an intentionally broad net so that anyone protesting in a public space without a permit could face up to two years in jail, a fine up to $22,000, or both.

This legislation was manifestly undemocratic, and the Supreme Court of New South Wales agreed. In 2023, the parts of the legislation criminalising conduct that causes the closure of part of a major facility and the redirection of people away from a major facility were declared invalid. They impermissibly burdened the freedom of political communication

implied by the system of representative government established by the Constitution.

However, this small victory for protesters is likely to be short lived. After the Court handed down its decision, the Minns Government began “carefully considering the judgment and seeking advice on appeal options or options for legislative reform to ensure that protest activity is appropriately regulated.” And it looks like they’ve settled on their approach going forward.

Late last year, the Crimes Act was amended to criminalise blockades of railways, imposing the same hefty jail sentences and fines attached to

least 49 anti-protest laws introduced at state and federal levels. In Queensland, protesters that disrupt mining equipment can face one year in prison, and obstructing a public place will set you back $50,000 in South Australia. And it’s not just climate protesters who are repressed by these laws, with pro-Palestine activists arrested and charged for blocking a road at Port Botany. Even the University of Sydney is introducing oppressive new policies that effectively ban protest on its campuses.

The repression doesn’t stop once protesters are arrested. The Australian Democracy Network has observed bail conditions being used in punitive, borderline illegal ways to dismantle activist networks. Magistrates will often bar climate protesters awaiting trial from associating with the climate movement or impose stringent reporting conditions that make protesting impossible There is no explanation for this other than to stifle organising

obstructing bridges and tunnels. This came as a response to Rising Tide protests that stopped a coal train near Newcastle, the world’s largest coal port. By legislating responsively to a real disruption, and having such legislation be incredibly targeted, the State Government can build a stronger case (in the eyes of the Court, considering the specific legal test it must apply) that this burden on political communication is permissible.

As the planet heats up and protests against climate inaction become more commonplace, it’s likely that this incremental erosion of protest rights will continue. In fact, these recent developments are part of a larger trend of repression, with at

When trying to justify this crackdown, the best Minns had to offer was "you've got a right to protest, citizens of NSW have got a right to get about their business, train drivers, rail workers have a right not to have their safety impinged."

This emphasis placed on the “safety” of protesters and the community serves purely to deflect from the fact that this legislation is deeply antidemocratic. Across the country, Labor and Liberal governments seem more interested in jailing political dissidents than they do keeping their citizens safe. If safety truly was their primary concern, they wouldn’t be wasting time criminalising climate activists. Because the best way to keep Australians safe is not to silence protesters and erode fundamental political freedoms, but to take real, radical action on climate change, the single greatest existential threat humanity has faced to date.

Lilah Thurbon Lilah Thurbon rages against the rages against the machine machine

The Murray-Darling Basin water market has no rules prohibiting market manipulation and has only weak restrictions on insider trading. It has no dedicated regulator to oversee it. Theft and fraud are common, price signals are weak, and even the most frequent traders do not have confidence in its fairness and transparency. That a financial market that is so systemically important to the Australian economy and environment has reached such a point of under-regulation, corruption, and neglect is baffling.

To understand how we got to this point, it is useful to begin by asking the question when and why we even started buying and selling water in the Basin at such a large scale in the first place Where water rights are not traded, Australia uses what is called a Riparian water rights system, which it inherited from 19th century English common law Under a Riparian system, landowners have the right to make reasonable use of water which flows through their land As you might imagine, this system has some problems: if your farm isn’t on a watercourse, you have far less water available for irrigation.

This system also doesn’t create an incentive to conserve water and doesn’t discriminate between those farmers who produce efficiently or grow important, high-value crops and those who don’t. These problems meant that over time, what began as a series of informal water swaps between neighbouring farmers developed into an increasingly formalised, government co-signed, multi-billion-dollar behemoth of a water market.

On the face of it, it is a perfectly good idea to divorce water rights from land rights and sell water on a market. This lets irrigators scale their production up or down to suit economic and agricultural needs without facing penalties for doing so. The problem is that the market has not been regulated, or, when it has, been regulated on the assumption that water is just like any other financial asset. However, unlike stocks, bonds, or even other commodities, water has a habit of not staying where you left it. Sometimes, it even falls from the sky.

This inconvenient fact is why practices like ‘floodplain harvesting’ have plagued the north of the Basin, where farmers use earthen banks and levees to create private dams for no other purpose than to hoard rainwater to sell when the price is highest It is also common for certain parts of the Basin to have less water actually in the river than exists on paper contracts

Importantly, there is not just one ‘water market’ where ‘water’ is bought and sold but hundreds of apps and exchanges where all manner of different water obligations, futures, and derivatives are traded. For other commodity markets, this complexity is good – it creates incentives to store goods and leads to price stability. In the MurrayDarling, however, it has allowed a few large agri-businesses to corner certain water markets, pushed out small-hold farmers, local and indigenous communities, and created artificial scarcity.

Pump unless told otherwise

All these issues are compounded by political failure and opacity In 2019, the township of Evans Plains was robbed of 300,000 litres of water during a historically bad drought, and in the same year about a million fish died near Menindee. In response, the Federal Government prohibited employees of the Murray Darling Basin Authority from giving evidence to a South Australian Royal Commission, and the former NSW Nationals water minister, Kevin Humphries, told one cotton farmer to just ‘pump unless told otherwise.’

To be clear: we shouldn’t do away with water trading – it is a good system and alternatives like the continuation of Riparian rights in the Murray-Darling probably would have been exploited and twisted in much the same way. However, if we are to have enough clean and cheap freshwater to grow food or sustain communities and ecosystems, changes need to be made.

Simplifying and centralising the market and its regulation into a few central authorities, bringing reporting requirements and punishments for misconduct into line with other financial markets and improving education and communication between participants would be a good place to start That won’t happen though unless the influence of large agricultural businesses in politics is reduced and activist groups, farmers and other stakeholders adopt pragmatic and agreeable policy demands that recognise both the economic and environmental importance of the Basin.

Jack Glass cries us a river

Australia’s climate future depends on rejecting Dutton’s nuclear smoke screen

Angus McGregor is going nuclear about nuclear

The window for tackling climate change's worst impacts is quickly closing. Last year, the world’s average temperature was more than 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, a target scientists warned would trigger an increase in natural disasters and exacerbate rising sea levels.

Despite taking the problem seriously, the Coalition has poisoned another election campaign by bringing the fantasy of nuclear power to Australia Even if the Coalition does not win the election, fending off nuclear energy threatens to delay the green energy transition.

The opposition’s modeling claims that seven nuclear reactors can be built on the sites of current coal-fired power stations by 2050. Producing an estimated 38% of the country’s energy, the plan is supposedly cheaper and safer than the government’s modest emissions reduction scheme.

Those projections are laughable at best. While Dutton might point to other nations like France or the United States which produce significant amounts of nuclear power, those capabilities were developed over decades. The CSIRO has conservatively estimated building

the first plant would take fifteen years and the cost excluding building a workforce and regulatory framework would cost 50% more than the government's current plan, let alone a more radical shift to clean energy

In reality, nuclear energy is becoming more expensive while renewable energy gets cheaper. Across Europe and North America in the past twenty-five years, only five plants have reached the construction stage. Of those plants, four cost two to six times their original estimate, and one was abandoned altogether.

It is telling that even the Coalition modeling is cautious and avoids claiming the plan would reduce power bills in the short term. They are well aware the economics would break down quickly.

Even if nuclear energy was feasible, diverting government investment away from renewable energy would

be disastrous.

The Coalition frames nuclear as an emissions free energy source that is more reliable than wind or solar, ignoring the implications of a decades long building project.

Firstly, to fill the gap left by a lack of renewable investment while the plants are being built, governments would have to extend the life of dying coal fired power stations and increase gas production. To prevent blackouts, the country would have to increase its emissions.

Further, the Coalition plan would repeal the government’s extremely modest emissions reduction scheme and its target of reducing emissions by 43% by 2030 While inadequate, these policies at least incentivise companies to reduce their total emissions every year Under the Coalition’s plan, there would be no way to reduce emissions in the twenty five years until the plants come online.

The signalling effect of the policy is also deadly. By abandoning government support for renewables, private sector investment in wind and solar is likely to collapse. The Grattan Institute argues it will deter Australians from investing in rooftop solar or electrifying their appliances

First Nations communities have an even stronger reason to oppose nuclear energy The legacy of nuclear in Australia is intertwined with the destruction of their traditional lands Starting with the Emu Field test in 1953, hundreds of bombs were dropped on Indigenous land with no permission or consultation.

A royal commission into the nuclear testing in 1985 concluded that the warning and protection given to local communities was insufficient. The radiation likely caused spikes in thyroid cancer, stillborn children, and blindness

Combined with the nuclear waste Australia has to store as part of the AUKUS agreement, over three tonnes a year will be put in the outback starting in 2037 It does not take a large Fukushima level disaster for waste to leak into groundwater or soil.

With no economic or climate credibility, nuclear is a distraction to take the electorate’s attention away from the oil and gas companies

causing the climate crisis. Advocating a ‘mix’ of energy sources and hedging against blackouts is simple to

communicate and appealing While the vast majority of Australians support lowering emissions, they are also suffering from a cost-of-living crisis and are looking for simple solutions.

Pivoting to nuclear gives the Murdoch press something to write about while allowing them to continue attacking renewables. National Party, in turn, gets to shore up support in the regional seats where the plants will be built, arguing it will bring jobs and

investment Even far right Queensland Senator Matt Canavan has publicly admitted the policy will not work, telling the media it was chosen “because it fixes a political issue for us ”

The sheer absurdity of nuclear has also let Labor off the hook. Rather than being forced to defend its abysmal climate record, which includes approving new mines, extending existing ones, and scrapping a proposed environmental

protection energy, it is now focusing on attacking the opposition’s plan. The debate is centered on preventing the Coalition from gaining ground rather than where it needs to be, expanding the mandate for greater

climate action.

Letting nuclear energy dominate the debate will only serve the two major parties. The Coalition policy must be opposed but more importantly, it has to be overshadowed. The Australian climate debate remains mired in arguments about whether climate change is a problem worth solving.

Carbonoffsetsschemesareahoax

In 2019, a Swiss research team published a paper claiming that the planet has space for a trillion more trees. The paper asserted that planting these trees is one of the most effective strategies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and tackling the climate crisis. At a time when corporations and governments were facing enormous pressure from mass protests demanding climate action, carbon offsets like planting trees seemingly gave these villains an easy way out. Rather than committing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, these entities instead made loose commitments to offset their carbon footprints and signed onto the “a trillion trees initiative”.

It was an environmental policy that even climate denialist, “drill baby, drill”, Donald Trump pledged onto, and his administration planted over 70 million trees before 2020

In the true depths of liberal fantasyland, carbon offsets exist as a neat, temporary, innovative climate solution We can picture a lovely corporation that, even though it is trying its best to decarbonise, cannot do so immediately. So, to achieve net zero they ‘offset’ the carbon that they do produce, meaning that they reduce or prevent emissions in another area to make up for the carbon they have to emit. Alternatively, they might buy ‘carbon credits’ from another company who has reduced emission in order to earn them. This concept is appealing. It is, of course, a scam. The reductions, for the most part, simply aren’t real, and serve as a

smokescreen which allows corporations to both hide from and individualise the climate crisis.

Coming back to our trillion trees initiative, it unfortunately turns out that planting a trillion monocultural trees over native grasslands does little to prevent the climate crisis. Many of these trees were improperly cared for and burnt down, and rows of identical trees deliver few of the ecological benefits of a diverse forest ecosystem. Other forms of forestry carbon offsets are similarly underwhelming. A 2023 investigation by The Guardian found that over 90% of rainforest carbon offset schemes were ineffective and did not reflect genuine carbon reductions. Instead, these schemes exaggerated the threats to forests, selling land that was already under protection or failing to care for areas designated as ‘protected’ What should have been protected instead continued to face deforestation in the following years

Mitch Jones, Managing Director at Food & Water

“these absurd schemes only exist to give polluters and corporate giants cover to claim they are acting on climate when they are in fact doing nothing but buying pointless credits”.

How carbon offsets are supposed to work...

Watch,

Eliza Crossley isn’t wearing a tin foil hat

These schemes can also be actively harmful. Since many carbon offset forestry projects occur in the Global South with the greenwashing benefits going to large corporations in the Global North, offsetting schemes can be a form of neo-colonialism. These projects can displace local and Indigenous communities and exploit workers. Another investigation by the Guardian highlighted forced evictions and poor treatment of labourers in offsetting schemes in Peru. Consequently, rather than tackling the climate crisis, these schemes perpetuate exploitation and neocolonial practices.

Furthermore, these offset schemes distract from the need for urgent emissions reductions. By creating the illusion of climate action, offsetting schemes enable coal and gas giants to pacify those demanding genuine solutions like transitioning to renewable energy ExxonMobil has boasted spending $9 billion since 2000 to reduce their emissions An absolutely pathetic effort, considering they spend $20-25 billion every year just on fossil fuel exploration, and have been responsible for releasing 3.22% of all carbon dioxide and methane emitted for the last 250 years.

Additionally, ExxonMobil has spent over $14.5 million in the US alone in lobbying against climate legislation. It is clear that, by appeasing governments with their greenwashing, carbon offset scams enable a business-as-usual climate strategy, where mining fossil fuels and mass environmental devastation continues.

These schemes also perpetuate the myth that individual action can fix the climate crisis. For instance, Qantas offers passengers the chance to offset their carbon emissions by investing in a forest protection scheme in Papua New Guinea called April Salumei. Not only has this forest scheme likely not been verified since 2013, but the project has reportedly been discontinued due to

land ownership disputes. But even if the project was viable, such programs shift the responsibility for combating climate change away from corporations and onto individual consumers.

Climate change poses an existential threat to life on Earth. It is resulting in increased natural disasters, mass species extinctions, and mass displacement as parts of the planet become inhabitable. To combat this crisis, we need to move beyond superficial simple fixes, and focus on systemic change that holds major polluters accountable and yields genuine reductions in emissions. The time for window dressing is over; we need real climate action that reflects the urgency of the climate crisis

Evidence #2: Qantas’ carbon neutral flight scheme

Evidence #1: Shell advertising their “carbon neutral” credentials

It’s no surprise that the University of Sydney is wealthy, sitting on a handsome $4.43 billion endowment. We hear you ask: just how much is that figure? Here’s the answer: that number is more than three times our closest rival down south at the University of Melbourne ($1.33 billion), taking top spot as Australia’s wealthiest university by a wide margin.

Data that we obtained from a freedom of information (FoI) request under the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) revealed that the University holds shares in over 400 companies as of March 2024 Among them, 35 are in the fossil fuel industry, mining or contractors within the sector The University’s unethical investments stretch far beyond this, especially in gambling, weapons manufacturers and companies tied to Israeli occupation and human rights violations.

By numerical count, fossil fuels and related industries account for 11% of all companies that the University invests in (excluding LICs). This is huge. We’ve included a list of them as of March 2024.

Many of these names are constantly involved in desecration of sacred First Nations sites; Rio Tinto recently destroyed Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura Country and ancient sites with their detonation of Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara in 2023, and in the same year BHP was reported to have been underpaying Australian workers for 13 years.

In 2024, a human rights complaint was brought against Rio Tinto by 156 people whose land and water were contaminated by the company's former Panguna mine in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea Over 25,000 people who live downstream from the mine face life-threatening risks from collapsing levees, leaking tanks of chemicals and flooding due to mine waste build up in the rivers Rio Tinto has shamefully refused to fund any solutions beyond a short-term impact assessment.

There are also a significant number of

TheUniversityofSydney’s dirtylittlesecrets

Grace Street and Khanh Tran Grace Street and Khanh Tran dig up your university’s fossil fuel investments dig up your university’s fossil fuel investments companies who run mines, particularly in critical minerals and gold or lithium mining with operations spanning Australia, Tanzania, the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Brazil.

These investments see the university cashing in not only on environmental degradation, but also large-scale human rights abuses as subsistence miners are often forced to endure inhumane working conditions, frequently being injured or killed by occupational hazards, gross negligence, abuse and corruption in order to fuel the West’s “clean” energy transition. Many of them are only children, too.

The University also invests in arms manufacturers Woodside, Safran and Airbus, all of which have produced munitions used by Israel in its genocide against the Palestinian people. Even after news of a ceasefire, much of Gaza remains unliveable due to the sheer scale of environmental destruction. Nearly half the trees in Palestine have been razed, and the air is quite literally thick with pollutants. Disease and contaminants have made what little water supplies remain undrinkable. Approximately 38-48% of all farmland has been destroyed.

We oppose the corporatisation of our university and its dirty, unethical investments.

Palmoil, deforestation and dispossession inMalaysia

What images do the words “palm oil plantation” conjure in your mind?

Lush rainforests being razed to the ground? Or perhaps you think of those posters of miserable doe-eyed orangutans. The infamous KitKat ad, the Iceland anti-palm oil ad, countless stock photos of activists holding signs. If you even briefly considered the plight of the Orang Asli, congratulations. You’re already doing more for them than their own government.

Malaysia has consistently been the world’s second largest producer of palm oil. In 2024 alone, the country was responsible for a whopping 34% of global exports – a 4.2% increase from 2023, and this number is only projected to grow. This feat was only made possible through the Malaysian government’s destruction of the homes of the original peoples, the Orang Asal. The term encompasses the Orang Asli, the Iban, and the Kadazan-Dusun, the indigenous peoples of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak, and Sabah respectively.

The global thirst for palm oil has irrevocably destroyed their way of life, and the Orang Asli especially so The Orang Asli consist of 19 tribes that together comprise only 0 8% of the Malaysian population The vast majority of the Orang Asli live in absolute poverty and lack access to basic amenities and education For centuries, secondary forests were what they depended upon for their livelihoods, basic sustenance and the continuation of their cultural traditions. Deforestation not only

robs them of their ability to hunt and live in their traditional lands, but there are numerous reports of swathes of entire tribes falling ill, dozens even dying, due to the pesticides and other chemicals used on palm plantations.

Government ‘efforts’ to compensate the Orang Asli are nothing short of woefully negligent. Tribes who find their lands razed are relocated to incredibly isolated settlements, in which the houses are poorly built and completely lack running water or electricity. Politicians pat themselves on the back for providing food programmes and little else in the way of medical or educational infrastructure. Blame for low literacy rates is ascribed to ‘cultural attitudes’ towards education. Who knew that having to walk a hundred kilometres to school,and then another hundred back, might make it difficult for children to learn?

Unsurprisingly, there is no recourse to be found in the law. The Orang Asli’s customary land rights are ignored time and time again No law exists that requires loggers to obtain their consent, consultation, or even to notify them before beginning projects Legislation to ‘protect’ their rights is tenuous at best According to the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954, the Orang Asli are permitted to ‘utilise’ government-owned forests to an extent, and may be compensated for the loss of indigenous reserves gazetted by the state, which of course reserves the right to de-gazette reserves at will.

In 2023, the EU passed the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) If it fully comes into effect by the end of this year, the Malaysian palm oil industry will be seriously hurt. In response, the government has called the EUDR ‘unjustifiable discrimination’, an echo of the comments made by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the 1992 Rio Summit. Western moralism about pollution when colonial powers profited (and continue to profit) enormously from centuries of colonial and climate exploitation is justifiably seen as hypocritical and an affront. Palm oil contributes enormously to the Malaysian economy, and employs hundreds of thousands of lowincome workers, often migrants, who might otherwise struggle to provide for their families. It is also true that Malaysia is genuinely striving towards ‘sustainable palm oil’, for which they have been praised by EU officials just this year.

However, nothing excuses the continued abuse of the Orang Asli in the name of profit, and the State’s complete unwillingness to devote resources that would meaningfully improve their lives Mandating consultations and obtaining consent should be the bare minimum Moreover, providing adequate living conditions and real access to educational and medicinal resources would hardly put a dent in government coffers. After all, they’re only this full in the first place due to the continued dispossession and exploitation of the Orang Asli.

Amanda Ching Amanda Ching Amanda Ching exposes the colonial exposes the colonial exposes the colonial violence of the palm oil industry in violence of the palm oil industry in violence of the palm oil industry in Malaysia Malaysia. Malaysia

TheLosAngelesfiresareanother unnaturalnaturaldisaster

Deaglan Godwin

Deaglan Godwin Deaglan Godwin wants to see the system, not the planet, burn wants to see the system, not the planet, burn wants to see system, not the planet, burn

Los Angeles. The icon of capitalist glitz and glamour. Who doesn’t know that famous Hollywood sign on the hill? A megacity of 18 million people

Yet for most of January this year, LA was a very different sight No longer glitz and glamour, it was fire and fury Wildfires ripped through the countryside surrounding the city, and reached suburban neighbourhoods like the beachside Palisades and hilly Altadena Nowhere was spared from the thick smoke that hung over the city.

Huge swathes of land have gone up in smoke. The Palisades fire consumed 24,000 ha, while the Eaton fire near Altadena swallowed up almost 15,000 ha. Family homes, caravans, neighbourhoods have all been reduced to rubble. According to the disaster modelling firm Karen Clark Company, the fires have caused up to $US 28 billion in damages to insured property. Undoubtedly, this vastly underestimates the homes and belongings of working class and poor Californians who are unable to cover the cost of insurance.

Every time an event like this occurs, the media, politicians and celebrities (of which there is no shortage in LA) rush to decry such a tragic “natural” disaster. There is nothing natural, however, about these wildfires. These fires are man-made catastrophes, the inevitable product of a system that places profit before people and the planet.

Firstly, there is the factor of climate change. 2024 was the first year to see warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, according to the European Copernicus climate service. Mountains of scientific evidence point to the burning of fossil fuels as

the primary cause. Yet the extraction and consumption of coal, gas and oil remains a trillion-dollar industry. The mega corporations that oversee it, such as BP, ExxonMobil and Shell have, according to the rules of capitalism, every right to keep making a profit, even if that means the destruction of the planet’s future.

Warming above 1.5C could lead to millions more people across the world, primarily in the Global South, being displaced, according to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Warming above 1.5C locks in higher sea levels, the triggering of various tipping points leading to climatic and ecological collapse, and more intense and frequent weather events. More intense droughts and heatwaves inevitably lead to uncontrollable wildfires Over the past eight months, LA County has received no significant rainfall This dries out vegetation, creating more fuel for the fire A lack of rainfall also empties lakes and reservoirs from which firefighters draw water

These general dynamics intersect with the specifics of LA’s geography. Mike Davis, a radical urban geographer and historian, makes

the case in his provocative essay The Case for Letting Malibu Burn, that LA has a perfect-storm environment for raging wildfires. Hot, roaring winds enter from Nevada and Utah, and often get trapped in the canyons and hills of Malibu, which sits just north of the city. These winds lead fires to constantly and rapidly change course, making them wildly unpredictable. Like Australia, the Californian vegetation relies on a regular fire regime to burn away old growth and allow for new The vegetation is designed to burn

However, it is human, and specifically capitalist, reasons why these confluence of factors leads to intense burning Fire suppression, aimed at protecting the expensive ranches of Malibu, only leads to a build up in fuel, which only causes greater fires. In the mid 20th century, property developers saw a unique opportunity to expand into the previously untouched Malibu area. They were supported by government backed insurance and reconstruction subsidies. These had the perverse effect of encouraging development in fire-prone areas. As the suburbs of LA sprawled outwards, suddenly there was no gap between the wilderness and densely populated areas.

While the government subsidised the rebuilding of fancy holiday homes in Malibu, it ignored working class and immigrant communities closer to the

city. These communities would be hit regularly by entirely preventable fires, caused, for example, by slumlords ignoring safety regulations. Because of the classdivided and profit-driven logic of the system, billions were poured into building where no one should have built, while poorer neighbourhoods were left to suffer.

The sick logic of the system extends beyond the burning of fossil fuels It encourages austerity in government services and highly exploitative practices The Democrat Mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, cut US$17 6 million from the fire department last year Instead of well-paid, welltrained firefighters, the state is relying on almost slave-like prison labour For as little as $10 24 a day in wages, prisoners face terrifying infernos. The state has deployed more than 1,100 of these incarcerated firefighters. In a state known for its racist policing, this effectively places a double burden on poor and racialised communities, who suffer the greatest effects and are forced to risk their lives to put the fires under control.

As the recently re-elected US President Donald Trump calls to “drill, baby, drill”, the consequences of the unabated burning of fossil fuels are clear. If we are ever to have a chance of saving the planet, and preventing the huge loss of human life, we need to break with the logic of capitalism. It is a logic that places profit before people and the planet, that defies scientific and rational planning, and that places the burden of the crisis onto workers and the oppressed The LA inferno should be but one of many reasons for organising collectively against this system

$28B

The

$10.24

estimated cost of damages to property in Los Angeles

Whywon’t theleftgo vegan?

If you’ve spent any time near a dairy farm in the early days of spring, you’ve probably heard Jersey cows crying for their young So-called ‘best’ practice dictates that calves are taken from their mothers within 24 hours of birth in a cruel attempt to sever the bond between them Yet, still the dairy cows cry, loud and desperate This will happen to a dairy cow on average 5 or 6 times in her life, in between which she is essentially forced to breastfeed professionally. Then, when she is no longer useful, she’ll be “retired” - or at least that’s the preferred term of the dairy farmer’s lobby - because what they actually mean is slaughtered for her meat and skin.

This isn’t the only harm of the dairy industry or animal agriculture more broadly, although I find it to be a particularly confronting one. Millions of chickens and pigs suffer in factory farms owned by big corporations, where they live short, painful lives subject to mutilation, disastrously poor air quality and disease that runs rampant due to low hygiene standards.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates that livestock farming accounts for 14 5% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally

The meat industry is responsible for nearly 60% of

all GHG emissions from food, and its production processes are twice as carbon intensive as those of plantbased alternatives One third of the planet’s ice-free land is used to raise the 70 billion animals killed annually for human consumption, and one third of the grain we grow is used to feed them As demand for animal products only grows, so too does pollution and deforestation (and often the dispossession of Indigenous landowners along with it).

Yet still, the question remains. Why won’t the left go vegan?

In answering this question, I want to make two things clear.

First, when I talk about some sort of principled obligation to support veganism, both through ceasing individual consumption of animal products and collective action to

bring down animal agriculture as an industry, there is always the caveat that this obligation applies only to those with the capacity to do so. My argument is not that people with health issues ought to jeopardise their wellbeing by following a vegan diet, nor that low income families living in food deserts, where the logic of the market has deprived them of access to affordable and nourishing plant-based foods, should lower their quality of life further by boycotting animal food products. Obviously there are structural barriers intrinsic to capitalism that prevent the masses from actualising their principles and self-interests, and thus the obligation falls on those with the capacity, like university educated inner city leftists (perhaps even you, dear reader), to bear the brunt of the costs associated with dismantling them.

And second, speaking of these meat eating leftists, my claim is not that they don’t care about the harms to animal welfare or the planet associated with animal agriculture Anyone with a shred of empathy who understands that livestock and poultry are sentient beings, perhaps even not so different to the companion animals many meat eaters could never dream of laying a finger on, would take issue with the way farm animals are treated.

However, this opposition to cruelty and carbon emissions rarely translates into action, and I find this somewhat confusing. If you speak to left-wing vegans, they will probably tell you that the same compassion that grounds their politics at large

has oriented them towards a plant-based lifestyle that allows them to individually live in accordance with their principles and collectively pressure government and private actors to enact change. This is why, at least anecdotally, the vast majority of vegans probably place themselves somewhere

Lilah Thurbon is one of those vegans

on the left of the political spectrum.

Meat eating leftists don’t have much by way of rebuttal to the moral basis of veganism. They often don’t claim to – it’s manifestly wrong to breed animals en masse for the purposes of brutally ending their lives to meet demand that could be satisfied by plant-based alternatives with a far lower environmental cost. Instead, they rely on a political argument that the mobilisation of the left around veganism is at best futile, and at worst counterproductive.

The futility argument essentially suggests that a large-scale boycott of animal agriculture won’t work, so it’s not worth putting resources toward.

This should be unpersuasive to the camp of leftists who believe in other activist campaigns that seek to create change by manipulating the demand signals they give to the market, like the popular and successful Boycott Divest Sanction movement working to end international support for Israel, this logic seems self-defeating. The market is just responsive to demand signals in the food industry, which is why we’ve seen an uptick in the availability of plant-based alternatives at increasingly lower prices as veganism becomes more

popular. Similarly, coordinated protest movements that put pressure on the government to stop subsidising animal agriculture and sanctioning animal abuse are not meaningfully different to the campaigns we frequently rally around for other left-wing issues.

However, the second version of this claim not only suggests that vegan boycotts and activism don’t work, but that constructing some kind of political obligation to go vegan is counterproductive because it places an undue burden on individuals that’s divisive and impedes movement building.

There are some grains of truth in this argument. Holding individuals to stringent, high standards and then punishing them with condemnation or social isolation for failing to meet them is absolutely not in the interests of the left and makes our movement weak Even without the punitive aspect, an expectation of perfect moral purity is exhausting and unsustainable It’s also true that people like eating meat and dairy, and react defensively when people point out it’s an ethically dubious choice The problem is, though, that this is not what veganism as a political movement has to look like.

There are ways to encourage popular buy-in to soften the personal cost of veganism, whether that’s targeting certain aspects of animal agriculture one at a time instead of adopting an all or nothing approach, or focussing on educating people through discourse and activist campaigns so that they understand how thei individual consumption habits fi into a broader picture of exploitation

But for the rusted on stalwarts of the left, or even just those who purport to be affiliated in some way with the broader movement, I think the expectation should be different. It is hypocritical to stand agains violence, subjugation and corporate greed in every aspect of your life except for your diet. It is incoheren to claim that your politics are grounded in compassion, that we are

obligated to fight for the voiceless and oppressed, yet actively support an industry concerned with the most cost effective way to kill sentient creatures and the planet we all live on.

Non-human animals quite literally have no voice – no language, no vote, no interests that are deemed important by the standards of any government, anywhere. We have a total monopoly on force, there is no way for them to fight back. The way we feel comfortable treating animals is a test of our compassion and principles, because in many ways, it truly is what we’re doing when no one is watching.

Those might be my monkeys,

but that’s definitely not my circus: why individuals don’t have a moral obligation to reduce their carbon footprints

Climate change presents a collective action problem: billions of people emit greenhouse gases (GHG), contributing to global warming, yet it's difficult to hold any single individual responsible. This essay examines, from a consequentialist perspective, whether individuals have moral obligations to reduce climate change despite this challenge. I will argue that while we should pressure governments to address climate change, the collective action problem poses a serious challenge to assigning moral responsibility to individuals for reducing personal emissions.

Philosophers Walter SinnottArmstrong and Shelly Kagan present contrasting views on individual responsibility for climate change. Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individual emissions are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause climate change's harmful effects. He contends that since no single person's emissions alone cause climate change, and climate change would still occur even if one person stopped emitting, our individual actions make no meaningful difference Therefore, he argues, while reducing one's carbon footprint may be praiseworthy, there is no moral obligation to do so Under his view, even "joy-guzzling" (driving a gas-guzzling car purely for pleasure) is morally permissible

being the trigger is small

I will now demonstrate that even considering Kagan’s argument that Climate Change is a tipping point case and not a mere difference case, it is impossible to establish that we have individual obligations to reduce our emissions.

Establishing a moral obligation based on the probability of harm in tipping point cases is problematic because the complexity of the risk calculations leads to uncertainty about whether the expected utility is negative.

a large collective risk does not necessarily mean that their individual action has a negative expected utility, given there are many ways to weigh up how utile something is. The certainty and magnitude of the short - term benefit of joy-guzzling to an individual might be worth the trade-off for some individuals. This is significant because it demonstrates that contributing to a large collective risk does not always entail the individual action itself is morally wrong, making it difficult to suggest there is always a moral obligation to refrain from these actions.

Kagan challenges this view by arguing that collective action cases involve thresholds where one more act can trigger harmful consequences. While any single act of emission is unlikely to be the triggering act, there is always some chance it could be. If the potential consequences are severe enough, an act will have negative expected utility overall, even if the chance of

Kagan’s argument relies on the premise that we can reliably expect the expected utility of an individual GHG emitting action to have expected negative utility. However, it is not clear that the expected utility calculation isn’t positive in some instances. We trade off uncertain risks for short term harms all the time- hundreds of millions of people around the world drive cars every day, accepting the small risk of death for the short-term benefits of faster and more comfortable transportation Most people do not consider this an irrational trade off In the case of joy-guzzling, some individuals might gain so much immediate happiness that the extremely unlikely possibility of them being the tipping point case for GHG emissions worsening climate change is a tradeoff that is morally justifiable. One could argue that the collective risk of climate change is so severe that it should always take precedence over individual benefits. However, this would lead to overstringency, as then we would have to stop doing all activities which emit GHG.

The fact that they are contributing to

The strongest objection to my argument is that the moral obligation can be reframed such that it allows exceptions for cases where people do gain positive utility from GHG emitting actions, while still imposing a general obligation to refrain based off expected utility calculus.

The issue with the analysis that suggests that expected utility calculations could be positive is that it focuses too much on individual actions, instead of considering the lifestyle of individuals The idea is that if someone has made substantial efforts to reduce their GHG emissions in many aspects of their life, they can justifiably allow themselves occasional indulgences, even if those specific actions also emit GHG. So, if being allowed to go joy-guzzling is something that means so much to you that it could give you positive utility, it is permissible to do if you generally make choices that reduce GHG under this moral obligation, like often taking public transport.

Significantly, this lifestyle-based view aligns with how most people

approach moral obligations in practice. We generally judge the morality of a person’s actions holistically: for example, if somebody was rude to somebody but this person is an otherwise kind person and they were just having a bad day, we would take that into consideration This defeats the ‘positive utility’ argument because it allows for circumstances where an action might have positive utility, while still demonstrating that in most instances where it will lead to having negative utility, we have an obligation to avoid this action Instead of imposing a strict moral obligation to refrain from every single action that emits GHG, we can argue for a general moral obligation to reduce emissions, with exceptions for activities that significantly contribute to an individual’s wellbeing.

One could object to this by arguing that this might create circumstances of unfairness, as some individuals might believe they are entitled to more concessions than others. However, it is important to recognize the non-ideal circumstances we face. In this context, advocating for a general moral obligation to reduce emissions, even if it allows for some individual exceptions, is more likely to lead to the greatest overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

However, even if reframing the obligation makes the argument stronger, there is too much uncertainty surrounding the calculations to ground a moral obligation, regardless of whether one believes the expected utility calculation is positive or negative

person’s actions contribute to harm. Even if we could measure these things accurately, we still have to figure out how to weigh their importance relative to each other.

For example, imagine Action A has a high expected harm but the person’s contribution to that harm is indirect Now compare that to Action B, which has a lower expected harm, but the person directly causes it Which action is worse and creates a stronger moral obligation to avoid it? The answer isn’t always clear There may be cases where an action has a small chance of causing a huge harm, versus an action with a higher chance of causing a small harm.

Different moral theories might weigh these factors differently, and we don’t have a universally agreed-upon formula for balancing them.

Secondly, fully accounting for all the possible consequences of an action is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in practice. For example, while driving a gas-guzzler, one could conceivably save a dying man on the road by driving him to hospital, and this man could go on to invent a lifesaving cure for tuberculosis. While this scenario is highly unlikely, it illustrates the complexity of calculating the expected value of an action’s outcome when considering all potential consequences. The inherent complexity in weighing and relating the various factors involved in expected utility calculations, coupled with the practical impossibility of fully accounting for all potential consequences of an action, makes it exceedingly difficult to establish a clear and universally compelling moral obligation based solely on such calculations

imposing unjustified constraints on people’s choices. Moreover, weak or uncertain reasoning behind a moral obligation may lead to resistance and lack of motivation to comply, undermining its effectiveness in shaping behaviour.

While we have a collective responsibility to push our governments to enact policies that address climate change, individuals do not have a clear moral obligation to reduce their personal emissions The potential for positive expected utility in some cases, combined with the inherent complexity and uncertainty in calculating expected utility, makes this an insufficient foundation for establishing a strong moral obligation. Understanding these limitations allows us to more effectively prioritize collective actions that have the greatest potential to mitigate climate change's impacts.

Firstly, when we try to figure out if someone has a moral obligation to do something based on calculating the expected utility (the balance of potential benefits and harms), it’s not as simple as just comparing the size of the expected harm to the cost of preventing it, or how directly the

Moral obligations require a high degree of certainty because they are typically seen as binding and overriding individual autonomy. If there is significant doubt about the basis of an obligation, we should be on the side of liberty to avoid

What the CoolCabana debate can tell us about the state of modern environmental discourse

The once pristine beaches of Australia’s east coast have been inundated by seas of gaudy and overbearing CoolCabanas Quite frankly, I don’t like them I think they obstruct views of the ocean and detract from the feeling of freedom of being in natural spaces. I think they’re a stark reminder of the commodification of every inch of the natural world humans can get their hands on, and that nothing can be sheltered from the ever-expanding grasp of the market (after all, the beaches are not covered by any old Cabanas, but CoolCabanas with a $249 price tag). I also think they stifle the organic movement of people around small colonies of towels and clothes, where chance encounters with others are spatially encouraged. Instead, the beach experience is relegated to the logic of property acquisition – you and your clan arrive at the beach, claim a good spot, and view other beachgoers merely as competition who decrease your spot’s value as they set up too close or play music too loudly.

I could go on all day about the drawbacks of CoolCabanas, but fortunately, I don’t need to It’s clear that much of the population has reached the same conclusion In recent months, social media has been filled with videos criticising the overpriced tents and their everexpanding popularity

On the other side of the great CoolCabana divide, many beachgoers have defended their choice to use them; who are we to deprive them of such modern conveniences and stop them protecting their skin?

These defences don’t stand up to much scrutiny. Take sun protection as an example. Sunscreen, hats and protective clothing exist; it’s a poorly

calculated opportunity cost to build a fortress with a moat when a motion alarm and a locked front door would suffice However, spending time debunking each argument put forward by the Cabana Heads distracts us from the bigger picture this discourse is a part of. As trivial as it may now seem, the CoolCabana debate offers insights into complex dilemmas like tragedy of the commons, restrictions of individual freedoms for the public good, and the pitfalls of private ownership of land.

However, all of the nuance was lost when the conversation was annexed by politicians attempting to capitalise on a public interest story large enough to warrant comment, but low stakes enough to be safe. The real debate had morphed, since its inception on social media focussing on the presence of the Cabanas themselves, into a fundamentally different argument with a scope narrowed to capture merely those who “set up their Cabana on the beach to reserve their spot, leave the beach, and come back later in the day” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese denounced this behaviour as “not on”, proclaiming that “Australian beaches are for everyone”

This, of course, was hardly a win for the anti-CoolCabana front Albanese’s recommendation did not even acknowledge the real problem, he merely condemned one particularly bad symptom of it. NSW Premier Chris Minns also saved his condemnation only for those who decided to abandon their CoolCabanas once placed, but did not otherwise comment on their broader use. The moment the Overton window shifted, the revolutionary dreams of the anti-CoolCabana movement were crushed.

The way that this discourse evolved was totally organic – no cabinet meetings, campaign strategies, or think tanks This makes it an interesting case study into how politicians mould discourse for their own political ends, without all the usual trickery and obfuscation that goes into the same task when applied to bigger ticket issues – like the climate crisis.

The lifecycle of the CoolCabana discourse bears many structural similarities to popular debates related to the climate crisis, and exposes why the current spectrum of opinions tolerated by the political establishment makes meaningful progress so difficult.

Firstly, many Australians hold rather radical views on the environment before they are moulded into watered down, acceptable versions by a political window so heavily reliant on capital. The initial grassroots commentary from people on social media was far more extreme than what politicians were willing to make There is, of course, a distinction to be made between the diminishing quality of beachgoing experiences

Alessandro Fotea Alessandro Fotea just wants everyone to chill out just wants everyone to chill out

due to an uptick in Cabana use and the irreversible damage caused to our planet caused by climate change

Regardless, the former can be understood as a microcosm of the latter. Australians are clearly outraged to see public property damaged by private use. Surveys indicate that around 70% of Australians are highly concerned about climate change Many would assume that discourse by politicians contributes to this concern. Perhaps we should have more faith in Australians to see the natural disasters, learn the science, and come to revolutionary conclusions. Perhaps commentary by politicians, even on the so-called left, does nothing but temper the natural outrage we feel about the impending climate crisis.

essentially that beaches would be better simply if there were no Cabanas. An obvious implication of this is that they would have to be banned by some kind of government intervention – shamming everyone at a social level would be manifestly inadequate in this kind of scenario. It seems precisely because of this inherent implication of government restriction that neither of the two Labour leaders could come out and echo this sentiment. Even on a topic as light-hearted as Cabanas, neither leader could even imagine limiting freedom of individuals for the public good With this framing, it makes sense why Australian climate policy has been so abysmal; decades of

seldom willing to expressly acknowledge. However, if they are unwilling to make this honest admission to the electorate, they are handcuffed when it comes to making policy.

Albanese could not explicitly come out against CoolCabanas in all instances, as he would possibly upset the wealthy, pale subsets of the population who like them, so he instead came out against only those who have a Cabana reserving their place. If his criticism is taken seriously, and anyone with a CoolCabana feels obliged to remain under it for the duration of their beach day, the CoolCabana crisis will

not subside. Similarly, the Albanese Labor government promised to announce reduced emissions targets for 2035. Yet, they are likely to be only slightly more ambitious than the goals of the

Secondly, encroachment on personal freedoms is increasingly unpopular with the Australian public We are fortunate enough not to hear the term “freedom” arbitrarily tossed around in response to even the mere mention of government restriction However, it is nonetheless a lingering principle that underpins Australian politics. The position of the CoolCabana opposition was

weak subsidisation and flimsy targets reflect this. There is a silent caveat to the politicians who, according to their campaign slogans, will “take actions on climate change”. They are only willing to do so if it comes at no cost to personal and market freedoms. Even more concerning, the debate is reframed such that the conflict between environmental progress and freedom is never even exposed

Finally, on a more pessimistic note, we just can’t have it all Just as addressing the Cabana crisis may involve a sacrifice to sun safety, effectively addressing the climate crisis will require a sacrifice to economic production This is a tradeoff which governments, especially left leaning ones, are

preceding Liberal government. Even if they wanted to be more ambitious, the lurking possibility that there would be drawbacks for economic output prevents this. Perhaps progressive parties should be more willing to acknowledge these tradeoffs, and have faith that a modern, educated population will nonetheless vote for sustainable policy.

Get cultured, ENVIRO book club is in session

Lilah Thurbon and Deaglan Godwin start a reading group (original!)

Silent Spring is an important piece of environmental history. Published in 1962, Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking research is often credited with bringing environmental discourse into the political mainstream. She exposed the severely negative impact of the widespread agricultural use of DDT pesticides on both the environment and people’s health. Carson also took on the chemical industry, calling out the disinformation campaign it waged, and condemned the willingness of the American government to accept its donations uncritically. The environmental movement was bolstered significantly by these claims, forming the Environmental Defence Fund in the wake of its publication to bring lawsuits against the government seeking to "establish a citizen's right to a clean environment".

Andreas Malm’s How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a radical critique of mainstream climate activism, arguing that nonviolent protest alone is insufficient to address the urgency of the climate crisis. Malm examines historical social movements, showing how strategic property destruction has played a role in achieving political change. He argues that targeting fossil fuel infrastructure is a necessary escalation to disrupt the status quo and force meaningful climate action. The book is both a theoretical exploration and a call to rethink the limits of environmental activism in the face of corporate and governmental inaction.

Upstream: Selected Essays by Mary Oliver (2016)

Oliver’s love for the natural world is the beating heart of her poetry and this essay collection. Upstream is worth reading for many reasons; it’s prose is beautiful with an almost meditative quality, and weaves poignant reflections about connection, both with each other and ourselves, into vibrant descriptions of the North American wilderness.

“I would say that there exist a thousand unbreakable links between each of us and everything else, and that our dignity and our chances are one The farthest star and the mud at our feet are a family; and there is no decency or sense in honouring one thing, or a few things, and then closing the list The pine tree, the leopard, the Platte River, and ourselveswe are at risk together, or we are on our way to a sustainable world together We are each other's destiny ”

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)

How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm (2021)

“The empire that poisoned the air and curdled the seas… that wreaked the chaos our ancestors had to contend with… The heat. The lost places. Lost people. The mass extinctions. Such is the legacy of this empire, these people.”

Tim Winton’s latest novel ventures into a new genre of speculative fiction. Set in a dystopian future where the climate crisis has destroyed life as we know it, the West Australian landscape that itself often comes alive in Winton’s novels is scarred by the legacy of fossil fuel giants and the politicians who enabled them.

As the protagonist weaves together stories of his life in an unrecognisable Australia, we learn that climate change left huge swathes of the planet unliveable, causing war, refugee crises and the total collapse of society. Undoubtedly confronting, Juice is a sharp warning of what’s to come and an essential rallying cry to try and stop it.

Drylands is a book for “the world’s last reader”. Set in the fictional Queensland town of Drylands, aptly ravaged by drought, the harshness of the weather holds a mirror up to the ailments of the characters. Violence, isolation and dysfunction are all depicted against the unrelenting backdrop of the drought-stricken northern landscape, and the narrator watches on, lonely and powerless, as the town is slowly drained of its inhabitants. Astley’s vignettes of rural life not only shed light on the shameful underbellies of racism and misogyny that often fester under the dirt roads and weatherboard of towns like Drylands, but tie our fortunes to the natural world around us.

Set on Bundjalung country in Northern NSW, Mullumbimby is about connection to land and culture. A neglected hinterland property on the land of protagonist Jo Breen‘s ancestors becomes the centre of a native title claim brought by Jo’s boyfriend, Twoboy. Lucashenko picks apart the colonial logic of native title, highlighting the absurdity of requiring First Nations claimants to compile extensively documented proof of unbroken attachment to country. The legacy of colonial violence, dispossession and the destruction of Bundjalung culture by white Australia is dealt with powerfully, confronting themes of grief, loss, survival and resistance.

Juice by Tim Winton (2024)

Drylands by Thea Astley (1999)

Mullumbimby by Melissa Lucashenko (2013)

JOIN THE COLLECTIVE