Well, dear Networkers, what can I say. It is clear that Australia (in particular New South Wales and Queensland) is not the only place in the world suffering from the Coal Seam Gas phenomenon. Recent events in Queensland regarding Cougar Energy led a friend to write suggesting a moratorium until the science was settled on this subject. I wrote back as follows: Anything that would stop this would need a REAL campaign. I don't believe a moratorium until the science is right is the way to go. That argument could be knocked over in five minutes flat. One only needs to argue that science is never settled. There is another way - and it uses a phrase I only came across recently on Lateline. I might have been thick - but the big boys know about it. It is the phrase "social licence". Here is the link to the transcript of Geoffrey Cousins on Lateline. The social licence is what is behind what Geoffrey Cousins did in sorting out Gunns at Boardroom level. Social licence means that, whatever the big boys might want to do from the ivory towers of their boardrooms, it can be very difficult when the people around you don't give their permission or their affirmative consensus in what you wish to do. Fast forward then to Background Briefing's program 'Gas Rush'. Here is the link to the transcript and audio. Towards the end of the program, one of the more senior folk in the CSG industry mentions the social licence. He says, more or less, that those who have taken the trouble to consult with people have not had any bother. The bother comes from those who rush in. I believe that on so many environmental fronts this phrase has to become embedded in our society. It can only do this by pressure from widespread communities and campaigns. The social licence for the current CSG push or gas rush is dubious. The effects in so many ways are massive - not only for the environment but for communities and how they live. It is not drawing too long a bow to suggest that Australia's own food security is under threat. Yet do these resource buccaneers have the social licence of the communities they enter, the states they operate in, or of the people of this nation? So,, I am all in favour of a campaign - but a serious one that can get runs on the board. May be Geoffrey Cousins has to be consulted since he has done what seemed impossible to so many - but he has certainly pulled Gunn's teeth and their share price has improved to demonstrate the benefit. So let's set up a campaign that says that, with all the govt permissions and licences you receive, there is one more. The social licence of the community. If you want it, you prove yourselves worthy of it. Oh, and BTW, if you think your company is doing the right thing - the social licence to you have may be withdrawn along with those clearly doing the wrong thing. And just as government licences frequently carry some conditions - any social licence the community might give you may carry some conditions as well. In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the Bimblebox campaign against the coal companies. Please see the relevant post here. At the end of the visible part of the post you will see a link saying 'Read more'. Please click on this and you will find a petition which you can copy, paste, print and sign. I also attach for you a coal map of Queensland. What is happening across Queensland is of significant environmental interest. I don't want to take up any more time because you could go to most places on this map and find a concerning story - and inevitably it would link in some way to impact on water. If anyone wants to know more, please ask. But I think I have given you enough to get going. But if you want to some clues - look at Gladstone and Bowen, both Great Barrier Reef towns. |
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
GAS RUSH : ENERGY : WATER - Across the world
Labels:
Coal,
Energy,
Fair Water Use (Australia),
Mining,
Resources
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.