The government believes that a key way to improve the resilience of the reef to climate change, bleaching events and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks is to improve water quality.

The fund will seek to do this by supporting projects that reduce run-off of pollutants, fertiliser and sediment. Such projects could include the wide-scale installation of more energy and water-efficient irrigation systems on agricultural land. Other projects could support more energy efficient pesticide sprayers and fertiliser application systems.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-coalitions-1-billion-funding-promise-for-great-barrier-reef-20160612-gphd86.html#ixzz4BSFgnNz7 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

And build a gigantic coal terminal at Abbot point?... 

Meanwhile, little Malco Turnbull little mate in New South Wales, Mike, is about to "lawfully" (change the present legislation) unleash massive environmental degradation like never before by allowing farmers to remove more trees from their paddocks, while federal Labor wants their mates in queensland to do more to protect nature which the previous Turnbull's mates, the Liberals (CONservatives) under Newman, encouraged to be massively destroyed by farmers. The environmental record from the Liberals (CONservatives) is terrible. So when Turnbull announces some patch up coastal solutions, he does not really want to talk about the real cause of global warming: burning coal and other fossil fuels, especially the mining thereof.

Smoke and mirrors in Coalition's Reef 'rescue'

You have to hand it to the Coalition when it comes to their climate policy, it's the ultimate confidence trick ("Coalition's $1 billion funding promise for Great Barrier Reef". smh.com.au June 13). This is evident in the announcement of a "special $1 billion fund to protect the Great Barrier Reef from the ravages of climate change and declining water quality".

Look more closely and what you see is a directive that $1 billion of existing funds already allocated to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation be used in the reef catchment area. As if building a wind farm on the Atherton Tablelands will somehow magically reduce emissions affecting the reef. Memo to government: you have to close down coal power stations to do this, not open up new ones fuelled by mega coal mines.

There is no new money and no admission that the weak emission reduction policies of the Coalition are contributing to the problem. The reef is dying from high ocean temperatures due to global warming.

Making irrigation pumps more energy efficient and reducing chemical run-off will not save the reef. Most of the dying coral is in the northern section, unaffected by farming. What is needed is real climate action to reduce Australia's emissions, no new coal mines, and calls for urgent action globally.

Harry Creamer Port Macquarie

I was appalled to read the Prime Minister would announce $1 billion for green energy projects to save the Great Barrier Reef. Appalled because he is in government and had the power to do that before the election.  Why do we need to have an election to do what should be done?

Gail Cornford Teralba 

May was 13th Straight Month to Smash Previous Temperature Records

Last month was the hottest May on record. It was the 13th straight month to set a new record, amid increasing global warming. This comes as the Central United States is slated to experience a sweltering heat wave over the weekend. Meanwhile, hundreds of people in Southern California have been evacuated from their homes near Santa Barbara as a drought-fueled wildfire exploded in size Thursday. Scientists have linked the increase in wildfires to climate change.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/17/headlines/may_was_13th_straight

A university in China has responded to complaints about a lack of air conditioning in student residences by ordering huge chunks of ice to cool people down.

Lushan College - in the southern city of Liuzhou - brought in a lorry-load of ice each evening as temperatures top 35C, Beijing News reports. The college, which is part of the Guangxi University of Science and Technology, has spent 5,000 yuan ($750; £565) on 28 tonnes in total, the report says.

Images from the campus show students breaking off chunks of the large ice blocks and filling buckets to take back to their dormitories. One man tells the China News Service he'll use it to keep drinks cool in his residence, but on social media most users think the university just needs to sort out some air conditioning.

"This is not a permanent solution," says one person on the Sina Weibo microblogging site. Another points out that the situation is far from unique, as most universities in the region have no air conditioning. But one user approves, writing: "I think this is very good, it's environmentally friendly."

A university official tells the paper that air conditioners can't be installed yet because the local power grid doesn't have enough capacity to cope with the extra demand, so the ice is an interim solution.

In recent weeks, students at other universities have complained about scorching temperatures making life uncomfortable in their housing blocks. Some opted to sleep outside, while others shared images online to show how they're beating the heat, using the hashtag #UniDormsWithoutAirCon. Among them, a group of male students inflated a large paddling pool in their bedroom, with one rather riskily setting up a little desk for his laptop above the water line

read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-36703487

...

The recent election campaign provided a perfect example. Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference in Townsville to announce a $1 billion Reef Fund “for projects that will both reduce emissions, use clean energy and, of course, protect the reef”. Farmers living near the reef could get loans from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for solar-powered or energy-efficient projects to reduce agricultural runoff. Solar could “substitute for diesel”, drive water-efficient irrigation, or power electric fences to keep cattle out of creeks. 

Turnbull didn’t say how much CO2 would be saved by the undoubtedly worthwhile projects supported by the Reef Fund. Progress to date with the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund suggests eight million tonnes a year might be achievable. Pretty impressive, except that the carbon pollution exported in our coal negates that saving every three days. We’re meant to ignore such facts, but take the environmental commitment seriously.

It’s the same with approval processes for new coalmines and export terminals, all subject, as Turnbull’s government says each time, to the “strictest conditions in Australian history”. From protecting endangered species and water quality, to requiring dredging spoil to be disposed on land, we’re assured no stone is unturned. When then environment minister Greg Hunt approved the largest coalmine in Australian history, he said the conditions would ensure “that all impacts, including cumulative impacts, are avoided, mitigated or offset”. Except one, which happens to be the biggest by far: the emissions that occur when the coal is eventually used. 

Read more: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2016/07/23/truth-about-australias-coal-industry-and-climate-policy/14691960003525

Read from top...

Adani, which is vying to build Australia’s largest coalmine, has announced the site of a $200m solar farm near a central Queensland mining town.

The Indian energy conglomerate plans to build a 100-200 MW solar plant on 600ha that was formerly part of the Rugby Run grazing property near Moranbah.

Adani, India’s largest solar generator, said on Thursday the Rugby Run solar farm would be “one of the world’s most advanced solar energy plants”.

The company’s first solar foray in Australia has prompted rare praise from environmental groups, including one that has taken it on in court over its bitterly contested Carmichael coal project near Bowen.

Peter McCallum, of Mackay Conservation Group, said on Monday the company’s latest move would bring it far more widespread support. 

“Adani is fundamentally an energy company, not a miner, and its expertise is shifting rapidly towards becoming a clean energy producer in India and now in Australia.”

Rugby Run is the first of a number of solar projects through which Adani plans to provide up to 1500MW in Australia within the next five years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/24/adani-to-build-one-of-w...

Why is Mr Adani not building his solar plant in INDIA? Is it because Solar Energy is viewed as "funny" electricity? Is he for real? Are Australians becoming so dumb as to allow this man place a foot in this country? Don't answer this last question, please... Illusions, illusions, ... tada.

A proposal to use $9m to pump cold water on to the Great Barrier Reef’s tourist hotspots to stave off coral bleaching has been described as a “band-aid” solution, which does little to address the fundamental threats to the world’s largest living structure. 

The plan, proposed by the tourism industry and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, seeks to protect six reefs with high economic or environmental value near Cairns and Port Douglas.

It would involve using low-energy technology to push adjacent cold water from a depth of about 40 metres to the surface. The aim is to use the cooler waters to alleviate bleaching, which is caused by global warming-induced rises in sea surface temperatures.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/07/plan-cold-water-barr...

READ FROM TOP...

The Turnbull government is facing pressure to explain why it awarded nearly half a billion dollars to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation during a private meeting in April between the foundation’s chairman, John Schubert, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and Frydenberg.

The $443.8m grant was awarded without a competitive tender process or any application for the money, at a time when the foundation had just six full-time staff.

A parliamentary inquiry has been examining the process by which the grant was awarded, with Labor and the Greens pressing the government to explain what was said in the private meeting in April.

But Frydenberg has dismissed concerns about the grant process, saying the government did nothing wrong.

“Firstly, we have complied with the governance guidelines on grants,” he told the ABC’s 7.30 program on Thursday night.

“We have reached an extensive partnership agreement with the foundation which is public. The Australian Audit Office will be able to follow the money, and there will continue to be close cooperation between the foundation, the federal government, and the Queensland government.”

Asked if it was standard practice for the federal government to hand $400m to an organisation without any tender process or transparency, Frydenberg said the process had “a lot of transparency”.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/02/a-lot-of-transparenc...

A lot of transparency IS NOT ENOUGH... The whole thing smells of "job" (mostly cash) for the mates in the Liberal CONservative camp about limiting the damage that real sciences could show.... UNLESS, say for example that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation finds that the bleeching is due to a fast growing global warming due to burning fossil fuels, then the Liberal CONservatives will have nowhere to go... Very smart Malcolm... But should the Great Barrier Reef Foundation not touch this issue, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS A CROCK.

Over to you, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation... Do your job without favours, despite having been given a rorting one.

The Prime Minister claims the funding process was above board and transparent, but this has not satisfied anyone outside of the Liberal Party.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told IA that the whole deal is “at best, a collapse in proper process” and has “a dodgy stench about it”.

The May Budget revealed the grant, $443 million plus change, to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, which until it was thrust into the media spotlight with this huge cash injection, had flown under the radar for most people.

To say that it took established environmental groups and most of us by surprise is an understatement. According to Andrew Wilkie, the GBRF is “an obscure organisation” that was gifted nearly half a billion dollars (more when the interest it will earn the Foundation is calculated) “without any tender process.”

It seems that even the GBRF’s own executive was a little taken aback by the Government’s generosity.

The Foundation’s chief executive, Anna Marsden, expressed her surprise and told a Fairfax journalist that it felt like winning the Lotto:

"We didn’t have much time before the announcement to be prepared for it. It’s like we’ve just won lotto — we’re getting calls from a lot of friends."

Well, yes, except the Great Barrier Reef Foundation didn’t actually buy a ticket in that particular lottery. It turns out, we learned this past week, that the Foundation had not even asked for the money — it was handed over on a whim by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

In early April, there was a private meeting in Sydney between Turnbull, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and the chair of the GBRF. The Foundation did not ask for the money and did not have the capacity to manage such a large injection of funds.

Indeed, the Foundation had six staff on its books and, in 2017, a turnover of just $8 million. This hardly put it in the position to become the lead organisation charged with coordinating efforts to save the Barrier Reef, from coral bleaching, eroding water quality and the effects of climate change.

That’s OK then, because it has now emerged that climate change is not even mentioned in the publicly available documentation outlining the terms and conditions of this extraordinary gift.

And there’s no mention at all of the damage being caused to the Reef by fossil fuel consumption, or anything at all about proposals for more coal-laden bulk carriers to traverse fragile areas of the reef transporting brown coal to China and Japan.

This is surprising, because scientists and environmental groups have identified the shipment of coal through the Reef as perhaps the most important threat to its ecosystem.

Another little snippet that adds further intrigue to this already curious tale is that the organisation that made the May 2016 claim that transporting coal is detrimental to reef health was the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University.

This might leave you wondering why the Centre was not the recipient of the $443 million handout; or why other groups were overlooked.

Well, if there had been a competitive tendering process – the usual way such grant funds are distributed – maybe other groups with a good track record of work on reef recovery might have been given a share of the funds?

But, as we now know, there was no tendering process. The whole deal was concocted, cooked up, conceived and consummated with unseemly haste and in secret, away from public scrutiny.

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg tried to clean up the spillage late in the week in a series of media appearances and, finally, Turnbull himself fronted the media and gave a grim press conference that repeated the assertion the deal was above the waterline, but he gave no relevant details.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/malcolm-bligh...

Read from top... The Great Barrier Reef Foundation sounds a bit like a charitable organisation to support ailing holiday resorts on the reef...

The Reefgate rort may be the biggest scandal in Australian political history — but is just the latest in a long line of taxpayer cash splashes from Turnbull to his cronies, including the Murdochs.

MALCOLM TURNBULL giving almost half-a-billion dollars of public money to his business cronies is, perhaps, the biggest rort in Australian political history.

But the fact this so-called #Reefgate scandal has scarcely made a ripple in Australia’s mainstream media says everything you need to know about where this nation is in 2018.

Let’s look back over the facts.

In a private meeting on 9 April this year, Prime Minister Turnbull met with an old business acquaintance. There was no public servant at this meeting, just one other cabinet minister.

The Prime Minister told his old mate that the small charity he chaired, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF), was to be given almost half-a-billion dollars of public money. The GBRF chair was surprised. He had never tendered for the money. Had never even asked for it. Indeed, he had no immediate way to spend the money, his charity having only six full-time employees. But he accepted the money nonetheless.

When the GBRF told his managing director about the meeting, she said it was “like we had just won the Lotto!”

She was understating the magnitude of the prize, however. No lottery in Australia’s history had ever given out even a quarter of that amount, let alone to someone who hadn’t entered and didn’t have a ticket.

Last week, an application document eventually emerged. It was only half filled out, with key details missing.

Yesterday, 8 August 2018, news emerged that the Government had broken its own rules by not putting the grant through a competitive tendering process and also that the auditor general was considering investigating the scandal. It is hard to imagine a bigger schemozzle.

But here’s where it gets truly concerning.

In what could be construed as a calculated insult to environmentalists, the scientific community and everyone who actually cares about the future of the Great Barrier Reef, the Foundation’s “partners”make up a veritable "Who’s Who" of big business and the mining industry, including Qantas, Boeing, Rio Tinto, BHP, Peabody Energy, Shell, Downer EDI Mining, Worley Parsons, Wesfarmers and Aurizon — the very ones, arguably, responsible for the Reef becoming bleached in the first place.

And the chair of the Foundation? The one who was in that 9 April meeting with Turnbull and Energy and Environment Minister Frydenberg? That was former BHP director and Esso Australia CEO John Schubert. Esso is the Australian subsidiary of ExxonMobil — not only the world’s biggest oil company, but also the world’s biggest funder of climate change denial. They also sank the Exxon Valdez oil tanker off Alaska, causing one of the most devastating environmental disasters in human history — so they do have some experience dealing with damaged coastlines.

When asked in Senate Estimates whether they would lobby governments about emissions reductions, land clearing, or the approval of new coal mines, the Foundation said it had no plans to do so. No surprises there, because this Foundation is not designed to save the Great Barrier Reef. It’s aim is to provide a public relations fig-leaf to the very polluters that are sending it to a watery grave. This insidious practice is known as “greenwashing” in environmental circles. The idea the Government would give this organisation – of any organisation – the biggest environmental grant in Australian history is beyond perverse, it is downright diabolical.

As Opposition environment spokesperson Tony Burke said on ABC Insiders on Sunday − in the brief 90 seconds they allowed him to discuss the subject – the situation is absurd. The Government has cut $100 million from the CSIRO, so that if the CSIRO wants to study the Great Barrier Reef, it will need to apply for a grant from this private Foundation run by bankers and fossil fuel company executives.

And just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse, it has emerged that two colleagues of Turnbull’s from his Goldman Sachs days were directors when Turnbull gave Schubert the good news in April.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/turnbull-reef...

Read from top.

SINCE #REEFGATE hit the news about ten days ago, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg – and others in the Government – have made the following assertion scores of times:

“Under Labor, the Great Barrier Reef was put on the UNESCO Watch List.”

The problem with this claim is that, while UNESCO has a "World Heritage" list, a "Tentative" list, and an "In Danger" list, there is no such thing as a UNESCO "Watch List”. Moreover, the Great Barrier Reef has never been on the UNESCO “In Danger” list ever in its history — under either Labor or the Coalition. So Turnbull and Frydenberg are categorically lying — not that anyone in the mainstream media has called them out on it so far, even with Opposition environment spokesperson Tony Burke repeatedly alerting them to the truth.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/turnbull-unes...

read from top.

Read also:

The government was warned that there was a “significant” risk that on-the-ground projects for the Great Barrier Reef could be delayed because of a $443.8m grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, documents reveal.

The documents, obtained by the Guardian under freedom of information laws, also show the environment department and the office of the environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, discussing a $5m “reef islands” grant, but do not contain any mention of the much larger grant until after the 9 April meeting where it was offered.

According to the material, Frydenberg’s office was aware of the risks of the unusually large grant. “The rapid increase in operational scale for the foundation poses significant capacity, governance and capability challenges,” it states.

Read all:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/18/great-barrier-reef-g...

Meanwhile:

Accounting trick frames reef grant 

“It’s a most cynical piece of accounting trickery. A piece of chicanery. That’s the only way I can describe it.”

Mike Seccombe  The government’s surprise $444 million grant to a private foundation is allegedly being used to fudge its commitment to UNESCO on Barrier Reef protection.

Read more:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/edition/2018/08/18

Read from top...

Coral reefs are under intense pressure from anthropogenically induced climate warming and habitat destruction. It has been suggested that coral reefs in deeper waters may provide a refuge less affected by human development and climate change. Rocha et al., however, show that shallow and deep reefs are biologically different. Furthermore, deep (or mesophotic) reefs are also suffering from human impacts. Thus, deep reefs do not represent a potential refuge for other reef ecosystems. Indeed, they too are threatened and need protection.

Science, this issue p. 281

The rapid degradation of coral reefs is one of the most serious biodiversity problems facing our generation. Mesophotic coral reefs (at depths of 30 to 150 meters) have been widely hypothesized to provide refuge from natural and anthropogenic impacts, a promise for the survival of shallow reefs. The potential role of mesophotic reefs as universal refuges is often highlighted in reef conservation research. This hypothesis rests on two assumptions: (i) that there is considerable overlap in species composition and connectivity between shallow and deep populations and (ii) that deep reefs are less susceptible to anthropogenic and natural impacts than their shallower counterparts. Here we present evidence contradicting these assumptions and argue that mesophotic reefs are distinct, impacted, and in as much need of protection as shallow coral reefs.

Read more:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/281

The lack of condemnation by the scientific community over the Government's treatment of the Reef is not helping the cause, writes Sue Arnold.

THE FIRST CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Graeme Kelleher, is appalled by the half-billion-dollar grant which the Turnbull Government has bestowed on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

In an interview over the phone, Graeme said:

This is a totally absurd act by Turnbull. No tender, nobody has looked at how to spend half a billion. The handout is an unacceptable act showing a complete lack of integrity and honesty. All this Government thinks of is short term economic benefits to them and the Australian economy.

Most likely it will be spent on programs referenced in the 2050 Reef Plan, but we don’t know which ones and nor does it seem the Foundation has any idea.  

The grant is a complete failure to address the most urgent issue facing the Reef — the damage done by fossil fuel burning.

The National Energy Guarantee (NEG) is a con, we must transfer to renewable energy. 

The Reef is terribly badly damaged. I don’t know how the Coalition Government has managed to claim the Reef doesn’t need to be classified as In Danger under the WordHeritage Convention.  

It’s time for a Senate Inquiry or an independent investigation, this is a shocking waste of money. The Government’s support for coal mines and for shifting coal through the Reef to burn coal elsewhere in the world will affect the global atmosphere temperature and CO2 will make the oceans acidic.

Coral can only survive in alkaline waters.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/government-ha...

Read from top.

Read also:

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels. Some of that carbon dioxide makes its way into the world’s oceans. This changes the chemistry of seawater, lowering its pH, making it more acidic, which could have a large impact on marine life in the future.

Marine creatures such as corals, clams, snails, and many types of algae and plankton build their skeletons and shells from calcium carbonate. These creatures get the chemical building blocks they need to form the calcium carbonate mineral of their skeletons from seawater.  Some, like algae, passively collect these ingredients from the seawater. Others have a more deliberate mechanism for getting the calcium ions and carbonate ions they need from the seawater.  As seawater gets more acidic with more carbon dioxide dissolved in it, these creatures might have a harder time making their skeletons and shells.

Calcium carbonate mineral dissolves in acid.  Try it out for yourself.  Put a clam shell (one that you don’t want to keep) into a container of vinegar and wait.  While a pH of 7 is neutral, vinegar has a pH of 3 so it is an acid. Within a few hours its surface will become pitted with tiny dimples that you can see with a magnifying glass.  Over a day or two you will notice that your clam shell is disappearing.  The calcium carbonate that makes up the shell dissolves into the acidic vinegar.

Seawater's pH is not dropping as low as vinegar. The pH of seawater varies between 7 and 8, so it is a little more basic than neutral. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, pH of seawater has dropped about 0.1. In the next century it is expected to drop another 0.1-0.35. But scientists suspect that even these small changes can make a big difference.

How will more acidic ocean water affect marine life? Will clams and other marine life be able to grow their skeletons at the rates that they do now?

“We are only beginning to understand the complex interactions between large-scale chemistry changes and marine ecology,” said Joanie Kleypas, scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co.  This is an area of active research.

Because reef corals build massive structures from calcium carbonate, and because those structures become a home to diverse communities of marine life, the impact of increasing acidification on corals is of particular interest to many scientists.

Read more:

https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/coral2.html

The chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, John Schubert, has told a Senate inquiry he did not know the government was going to offer a $444m grant when he agreed to meet with the then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg.

In the hearing on Tuesday, Schubert said the prime minister’s office called with an invitation two days before the 9 April meeting but gave no information on what was to be discussed.

He said Turnbull and Frydenberg and a staff member from each of their offices were in attendance at the Sydney meeting but no officials from the Department of Environment and Energy were present.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/18/reef-foundation-chai...

How to save the reef by not considering global warming? Give cash to a reef foundation that is a friend of coal... Would not including global warming in saving the reef work? NUPE. Global warming is the original culprit in the reef bleaching events. 

A company given millions of taxpayer dollars to cull the devastating crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef altered a scientific report about the "poor management" of its own program, an ABC investigation can reveal.

• Original report into effectiveness of crown-of-thorns culling program was highly critical
• Company that commissioned report made changes to version uploaded online
• Report author says he "didn't think they would go down that track and actually manipulate a document"
• The not-for-profit company says the report was submitted as "under review"

The changes to the document were made despite the author demanding it be published "as is", with a company employee suggesting it "wear the wrath" of the scientist.

Marine biologist Dr Udo Engelhardt told the ABC he was "baffled" as to why changes were made to his report.

"It's difficult to speculate about this, the reason for these changes appearing. They are quite extensive changes, so a bit of effort has gone into that quite clearly," he said.

The not-for-profit company, the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre (RRRC), was helping deliver a $4.2 million government contract to destroy crown-of-thorns between 2013 and 2015.

In 2014, it hired Dr Engelhardt to determine how effective the program had been.

Dr Engelhardt's final report, which has been obtained by the ABC, was highly critical, stating there were "several serious concerns relating to overall poor management [of the program]".

The report also said the program had been "operated without any concern given to the inherent ecological risks of inadequate control measures".

The ABC has also obtained email correspondence between Dr Engelhardt and the company, as well as internal correspondence between its managers.

They show Dr Engelhardt agreed to a number of changes to the document, and then put his foot down.

"Please find attached my FINAL, FINAL COTS [crown-of-thorns starfish] Controls Efficacy Report for publication as is!!!," Dr Engelhardt wrote in an email to the RRRC.

A few days later it was forwarded to Sheriden Morris, RRRC's managing director.

In that email, a RRRC project manager said: "Udo has accepted a reasonable amount of changes. But the barbs and emotive words are still peppered through."

The employee also noted that the report could cause problems with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which had given millions of dollars of grants to the RRRC.

The email then provided four options for what to do next, including a possibility to: "Keep our changes and publish it with Udo's name and wear the wrath of Udo."

Six days later, a version of the report was uploaded to a commonwealth Department of Environment reporting portal, with changes made throughout the document, including ones Dr Engelhardt had refused to make himself.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-19/reef-company-altered-scientist-report-crown-of-thorns-program/

Read from top.

An official audit of a controversial $443 million government grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has found numerous deficiencies by bureaucrats, including failure to scrutinise the sky-high administrative costs and properly mitigate against conflicts of interest.

The Environment Department took just three days to select the small foundation as the "obvious partner" for the grant, and helped draft the organisation's subsequent funding proposal, the Australian National Audit Office reported.

But the audit did not accuse Treasurer Josh Frydenberg - the then environment minister - of any wrongdoing, saying he awarded the grant without a competitive tender based on "a clear funding recommendation" by bureaucrats who assured him the foundation met the criteria.

At the time, the foundation was in discussions for a government grant of just $5 million over five years, and the decision to award nearly $450 million was described by critics as "opaque" and "almost mind-blowing".

In a review handed down Wednesday, the Australian National Audit Office said Environment Department bureaucrats applied "insufficient scrutiny" to the GBR Foundation's proposal.

In particular, it said the department failed to anticipate the true administrative costs of the foundation's subcontractors, ignored its past fundraising performance and neglected the capacity and capability of its partners to scale-up their activities.

The report also noted the department helped the foundation craft its proposal, which was not a unique occurrence, but that subsequent conflict of interest risks "were not adequately addressed".

Imogen Zethoven, director of strategy at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said this was "concerning".

"It’s not normal process and it's certainly not the experience of other non-governmental organisations," she said.

"Applying the pub test to this, it’s clear that this was an exceptional process driven by politics. That’s the bottom line."

Read more:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/audit-finds-bureaucrat...

Read from top.

One smells the premise that the minister asks, the bureaucrats deliver. Josh should be hung by his short dick and curlies.

In other parlance, the president of the USA wants war with Saddam, the CIA and other spy agencies deliver the false "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction" mantra. It's normal crooked practice. Then we blame the bureaucrats or intelligence for report failure.

Nothing new. The same applies for giving cash AND WATER to the friends of the Nationals while the rivers choke to death in NSW...

Or that the NSW government "owns more than xx per cent" (or at least $6 million worth) of the Opal Tower... and that it destroyed its own system of verifications and constructions...:

The NSW Government Architect’s Office will be a major casualty in the state government’s proposed restructure of the NSW Public Works department.

The office will be decimated, going from 120 staff to just 12 over a two-year transition period, as reported in the Australian Financial Review. The office will also transition from its design and construct role to one of strategic design advice to help the government on infrastructure projects.

“We are greatly concerned by the loss of jobs,” said Shaun Carter, president of the Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter, who is looking to the government for more detail about the reforms.

Read more:

https://architectureau.com/articles/nsw-government-architects-office-fac...

See also:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-16/opal-tower-investigation-what-the...

On level 10 the team found a number of points where the construction differed from the design or industry standards.

It found a lack "grout coverage" led to an "eccentric bearing load" on the hob beam on level 10 (a hob beam sits on the edge of a slab of concrete or pillar, sometimes resembling the kerb on a road).

They also questioned the location of reinforcing steel, a cut or incomplete steel bar in the area and overhanging precast panels.

"There is compelling evidence indicating that the wrong size reinforcing bars were placed in this area during manufacture of this particular panel — 20mm diameter bars were used instead of 28mm diameter bars," the report found.

"It is likely that a combination of some of the above design and construction issues led to the observed structural damage on level 10."

The engineers concluded that a "progressive build-up of load on the structure as [the] apartments became occupied" also culminated in the crack at level 10.

Time to get rid of ALL THE LIBERAL (CONservative) governments in this land of the fair. Get rid of Gladys and her no compensation for cracks in your house due to tunnelling below it ('Farcical': Sydney residents' claims over WestConnex cracking denied, see also: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/) and get rid of the Noah's Ark society bogan/yobo chief (wear your tie and shoes on Australia day), Scummo.

Read from top.

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has been told to use more open and competitive selection processes in order to undertake procurements.

The foundation was controversially given a $443.3 million grant by the federal government in 2018.

The auditor-general found the grant was handed out without a clear assessment criteria that would determine whether it was value for money.

The Australian National Audit Office has on Wednesday released the findings of its second probe into the foundation.

It looked at the design and early delivery of the government’s partnership with the foundation.

It has been “partially effective”.

Most of the money is being held in term deposits with six banks.

At the end of last year, 81 per cent of it was still in term deposits.

“The department and the foundation did not ensure that bank deeds were always in place to protect the Australian government’s interests for each of the term deposits,” the report says.

Interest is expected to earn the foundation at least $21.8 million, which will go towards its administration costs.

Some $19.7 million of the six-year grant had been either spent or flagged to be spent for administration and fundraising, as of the end of last year.

The ANAO has made seven recommendations, including for the foundation to increase its use of open and competitive selection processes to undertake procurements.

“While competitive selection processes have been employed most of the time when awarding grant funding, there has been insufficient use of open and competitive approaches for procurements,” the report says.

“For grants awarded through non-competitive processes and for the majority of procurements (both competitive and non-competitive), it has been common for selection criteria to not be specified.

“In addition, written contracts have not always been put in place by the foundation.”

GBRF chairman John Schubert says all seven recommendations have been agreed to and will be acted on.

He said 200 projects were underway and $275 million will be spent or under contract by the middle of the year.

“The scale and breadth of the partnerships and actions already having an on-ground and on-water impact are unprecedented,” Dr Schubert said.

The $443.3 million grant is the largest recorded on the Department of Finance’s website.

Concerns were raised after it was awarded, particularly in regards to how the foundation was chosen and how much parliamentary oversight of spending could occur as it is not a government agency.

The government said it chose the foundation for its ability to leverage private investment in order to raise money for projects to help improve the health of the reef.

-AAP

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/05/05/great-barrier-reef-foundation-told-to-improve-processes/

Read from top

assange2

The CSIRO’s recent report detailing carbon credits required to offset gas fracking in the Beetaloo Basin is based on faulty assumptions to suit the gas industry, say experts. Callum Foote reports.

The CSIRO has been criticised in the past for being compromised by gas industry funding. That criticism has just reached new heights as progressive think tank The Australia Institute (TAI) has debunked the credibility of the science agency research and said the research was designed to expand the gas industry.

The report which TAI has questioned details whether the Northern Territory government could offset all the greenhouse gas emissions from fracking the Beetaloo Basin. It was produced within CSIRO’s internal Gas Industry Social and Environment Alliance (GISERA), which receives a third of its funding from the gas industry.

The Australia Institute’s (TAI) acting director of Climate & Energy Program, Polly Hemming, says:

I’m yet to see a more striking example of the way a government science agency has been so brazenly co-opted by government and industry to run an agenda purely designed to facilitate gas expansion.

The “Mitigation and Offsets of Australian Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Onshore Shale Gas in the Northern Territory” report estimates annual GHG emissions for five scenarios of Beetaloo Basin onshore shale gas production and consumption. The development has been reported as “requiring unproven CCS and/or unapproved international offsets for some scenarios,” according to Steven Spencer, Energy and Climate Senior Analyst Engevity Advisory and former senior Technical Advisor (Electricity) at the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. Spencer says:

The Beetaloo Basin GHG emissions would become the largest of any facility in Australia for four out of five of the scenarios.

According to Hemming “Whether you believe offsetting is a legitimate premise, it is clear that the entire concept is not being used as a temporary measure by industry while it decarbonises. It is being used as a way to lock in fossil fuel production.”

Between 39 and 117 mega tonnes, or a billion kilograms, of Co2 will be released every year from fracking the Beetaloo according to federal FOIs.

The Beetaloo development has only been allowed to proceed due to undertakings by the Northern Territory government to offset all emissions from production and onshore combustion of the gas.

To do so, the CSIRO’s report suggested that there will be up to 156 million carbon offsets available to the gas industry in the NT every year.

“Even if you accept the premise that this is possible according to physics, to date there have only been 124 million carbon offsets generated in Australia in TOTAL since 2012,” says Hemming. The new stash of credits has been designed to “conveniently and comfortably being able to cover all the emissions from the Beetaloo development” according to Hemming.

According to Hemmings analysis, this contradicts previous advice from CSIRO saying that offsets were limited and “Unless a Beetaloo gas project can obtain >~10-20% of Australia’s land-based offsets, then overseas offset schemes would be needed to cover 15-30% of annual emissions from onshore shale gas.”

However, CSIRO’s latest report suggests that 60 million offsets from planting trees (equivalent of 3 million ha -assuming optimal growth & no fires) and soil (even though our soils will continue to lose carbon as Australia gets hotter and drier) will be available every year.

The report not only assumes dramatic increases in planting trees, it also assumes that around 50 million hectares of Australia’s rangeland (the ‘outback’) have lost 95% of its vegetation and can be regenerated as a way to offset emissions.

Polly Hemming, TAI

These figures come from another CSIRO report, commissioned by the Climate Change Authority & Clean Energy Regulator.

For Hemmings, “Unlike the technocratic promise of ‘future’ carbon removals from carbon capture and storage, direct air capture and other fantasy technology, carbon offsets offer governments and industry a real-time solution to ‘balancing’ emissions in a spreadsheet and greenwashing fossil fuels.”

READ MORE:

https://michaelwest.com.au/brazenly-co-opted-experts-confront-csiro-for-gas-industry-infiltration-greenwashing-fossil-fuels/

SEE ALSO: https://michaelwest.com.au/the-gas-industry-has-infiltrated-the-bureau-of-meteorology/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Australia’s peak science body, CSIRO, has refused to disclose its advice on Carbon Capture and Storage technology. Is it telling the ministers that it doesn’t work, or not? Rex Patrick does the FOIs.

CSIRO is the Australian Government’s peak scientific body standing ready to guide and advise ministers and their departments in relation to some of the nation’s biggest challenges. It focuses on the big things that really matter. So, why is it all cowardly when it comes to disclosing its advice to the government on CCS technology – which the coal and gas industries claim is an effective method of containing emissions?

After all, the government has put taxpayers on the hook for enormous CCS subsidies, despite the high profitability of gas and coal companies.

CSIRO started life in 1916 as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry. It has evolved over more than a century but has always been an organisation focussed on open scientific research pursued in the interests of Australia and the world It’s now an organisation of more than 6,000 people with a budget of more than a billion dollars.

Budget documents state that one of the returns the taxpayer gets for its contribution to CSIRO is an organisation “providing the Australian Government with independent scientific and technical advice as required and informing the policy-making process to assist the government in deciding how to best meet the challenges Australia faces.”

So, noting all the controversy about whether carbon capture and storage (CCS) actually work, I thought I’d ‘FOI’ CSIRO to see what they’ve been telling the Government about CCS’ technology readiness levels. After all, that’s an important question as the country tries to tackle climate change. 

CCS is a critical part of the Government’s plans to deal with CO2 emissions from power generation, LNG exports and some hard-to-abate sources in the aluminium, cement, and steel production sectors.

In response to the FOI request, CSIRO provided a number of public domain documents on CCS and advised of two letters it has sent to Federal ministers on the topic.

So what’s the scam?

They’re refusing to make those two letters available for the public to see. 

Why? Well, they say that disclosure would “impede the ability of CSIRO to provide full and frank advice to a Minister when consulted …” and expanded ion that theme by saying “that disclosure of the conditionally exempt information would have on CSIRO’s ability to effectively provide advice to the Minister on matters of public”.

It’s the ‘shrinking violet’ argument.

The CSIRO code of conduct demands that it, as an organisation, it “be accountable for our actions” and that its management and employees must “act in a transparent and accountable manner”.

In relation to advice, CSIRO’s code of conduct demands that employees provide “frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice”. That’s a demand for fearless advice.

“How very odd! The fearlessness of a person confident that his or her position will be known to very few. The frankness of a person who can be confident of the limited audience he or she has.” These comments from Bret Walker SC seem apt.

Rarely do you meet a scientist shy of publishing his or her scientific views? Scientists live to have their work published. So, one is left pondering the reason why CSIRO has taken to secrecy. 

Is their advice to the Minister different from their published advice? Or is the organisation engaged in politics? Are they concealing something that might be, to adopt for US Vice President Al Gore’s phrase, “an inconvenient truth” for the Government?

The FOI was not seeking access to low-level and unreviewed correspondence between junior scientists. It was asking for advice that the organisation has given a Minister, presumable for the Minister to rely or act on as they try to tackle the existential crisis that is climate change.

Of course, this FOI response will be appealed.

The conduct of the CSIRO, in this instance, is disgraceful. It damages the CSIRO’s longstanding reputation for integrity and openness and, unfortunately, drags the organisation into disrepute. Perhaps its senior executives have forgotten who pays their salaries and who they really work for – the Australian people.

https://michaelwest.com.au/csiro-hides-carbon-capture-and-storage-advice/

CCS MIGHT WORK ON A TINY SCALE, BUT ON THE MEASURE OF THINGS, A WHOLE CCS PROJECT MIGHT NOT SAVE MORE CO2 EMISSIONS THAN HALF A TESLA IN A GARAGE....

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..............