[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

Environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the Australian Conservation Foundation are some of the biggest recipients of donations from Australians who want to make a difference for the environment.

But increasingly the biggest groups are turning towards working with the government and with corporate Australia – instead of resisting them.

So what does that shift mean? Will it help or hinder us in stopping climate change? And what does it mean for the future of environmentalism?

Today, writer and contributor to The Saturday Paper, Ben Abbatangelo, on why the environmental movement is divided at a time when we need it the most.

It’s Thursday, July 27.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Ben, you've recently been reporting on the biggest conservation groups in Australia. Why did you want to look into them?

BEN:

Well, the origin of looking into this, I think, was, you know, a couple of years ago when I started to see swaths of business leaders and people from, you know, the industries that have been creating these problems swarm, you know, to the environmental movement to position themselves as a solution. And over the last few weeks have been looking into a range of different stories. But a consistent theme has been from those within environmentalism and conservation is the conflict that they feel of the movement, and how they believe that larger environmental organisations are now complicit in, you know, some of this planetary destruction.

The more conversations I was having, the more I was reading, you know, the more communities that I've been going to and spending time with on the ground, who are bearing the consequences of this collusion, of these cosy relationships, it just became really obvious that there's been a significant shift.

I spoke with Richard Deniss, who was kind enough to go on record with me, and, I mean, another thing that was really interesting from his part was that we've got environmental groups and movements that are ignoring the science, which sounds, you know, is like a doctor ignoring the medicine, or an economist ignoring the numbers.

ANGE:

What does he mean by that?

BEN:

Well, I mean, the instances that he pointed to was the band of green fronting organisations that signed up for the Safeguard Mechanism scheme, which was designed to support ongoing pollution. And his institute had published a lot of research leading up to that debate that said, “hang on, not only is this bill just another version of the Coalition's policy from previous years, but beyond that, it's already being implemented.” And, you know, the science suggests — and the way that it is worded — that, you know, this isn't going to prevent emissions. And as we've seen since then, we had a lot of green fronting organisations put their name to that bill. And what it's been used for post that, is to green light more extractivism, including the fracking of the Beetaloo Basin, which is going to be one of the biggest carbon bombs that this country has seen in many years.

ANGE:

And so this shift in how some of the big environmentalist groups are operating, how did that change happen, Ben? And where did it begin?

BEN:

The origins of this change, I think, are decades ago, and we have seen — particularly of late — a significant shift from, you know, environmentalists moving from the streets, into the boardrooms or into the halls of parliament and taking a different approach, which, you know, one is collaborative, one is diplomatic, one is taking, these big corporations and these governments, you know, at their word, and believing that they're acting in good faith. And what we’re seeing because of that, is just, year and year growth with emissions. You know, more really dirty projects being granted and approved for development.

So that's why I wanted to speak with Christine Milne, who's the former leader of the Greens, and a former senator for Tasmania, you know, who is a committed, you know, activist and environmentalist that isn't afraid to speak out.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“The larger of the old environmental groups have taken the bait, and have assumed that the way to bring about change is to go and ingratiate yourself with the political parties and lobby, ingratiate yourself with the companies and lobby, and somehow that will deliver what you want.”

BEN:

I think when you have that revolving door, you start to see vested interest, particularly when there's a lot of money that is sloshing around. So, some of these legacy conservation groups that should be conserving and protecting nature are actually putting their name and their logo to some of these different bills that are really designed to keep extractivism going.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“The minister is very happy to take your calls. You sit down, have cups of tea with the minister, report back to the minister on the meetings you've had with other people in Parliament, and so on, and everyone's all good friends. You help that party get elected, and then when they get elected they say, 'Well, this is as far as we can go'.”

BEN:

So when you look at, you know, that revolving door, you starting to see, you know, the same faces, the same names on these boards that have, you know, previous lobbyists for governments that have worked in different industries, you know, filling these positions of influence and power. And I guess what, unfortunately, we're seeing is that I think they're taking on these positions because they stand to gain monetarily from it.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“And so instead of saying, 'Well, sorry, then there'll be a big rally outside your office next weekend.' they go back to the Greens or to others who are standing up and saying, 'Sorry, you're going to have to back down, because we're told by the government they're not going to be prepared to go any further'.”

BEN:

And Christine is saying if that's going to be the case, then we're just going to continue to see emissions rise year on year. And, you know, more extractivism take place. And instead of us pushing back towards restoring balance, we're unfortunately going to keep walking ourselves to the edge.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“And because you have abandoned the power of the streets, you don't have anything equivalent to the power of a donation. So my view is, you know, ingratiate yourself with the political party and then beg for mercy.”

ANGE:

I guess what Christine Milne is getting at is that the old strategy, or the old style of protesting this power of the streets, this sort of grassroots movement, is very different to what we're seeing today. But I wonder if you can talk to what that old style and strategy of protesting was like, and if it was actually effective anyway.

BEN:

The power of environmentalists and concerned citizens is that of the streets, right? They historically, there's been plenty of examples, whether it's the Jabiluka mine in Kakadu and the Mirarr people that successfully opposed that in the early 2000s.

Archival tape – Activist:

“We want Jabiluka lease properly recognised and returned to Kakadu National Park under the control and management of the Mirarr people for a better future for all of us.”

BEN:

We’ve seen mass movements to stop extractivism at James Price Point.

Archival tape – 9 News:

“Police reinforcements — including the riot squad — sent from Perth to remove about 100 men, women and children from blocking access to James Price Point.”

BEN:

What's been the catalyst for that is sustained movement and political pressure coming from people banging the pavements on the streets.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“And so people went from this idea that when you are on the streets, you bring pressure to bear, no, you actually go inside the process and you exert change from inside. And that's Bob Hawke took the people off the streets and they have never effectively gone back on the streets since.”

BEN:

You know, for diplomacy to work behind closed doors, or for diplomacy to work whilst having a seat at the table, that needs to have sustained aggressive movement out on the streets. And, you know, Christine's point was that that is the power of environmentalists. That is the power of the movement historically. And if you're going to cede that territory and take up the fight in the halls of Parliament, to take up the fight in the boardrooms of big corporations, then you're not going to see anything change.

Archival tape – Christine Milne:

“It is an absolute failed strategy. And if it has been such a successful strategy, where are the results? Where have I seen an end to any of these projects as a result of that strategy? There are none, as far as I can see. And if you go back and look at the ones that we've won, like Jabiluka, like James Price Point, the ones we have won are where you have built enough momentum and political profile to start bringing pressure to bear on the government of the day.”

BEN:

Unfortunately, you know, when I speak to people like Christine and others from within the movement, is that, you know, they have seen that the tactics change dramatically. And, you know, we now see this relationship that is cosy and collaborative and, you know, the combative nature of yesteryear that was really successful in stopping some really significant developments is no longer there.

ANGE:

We’ll be back after this.

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

Ben, you've been talking about how these environmental groups have become less combative. As you say, they're more focussed on collaboration. Can you give me some examples about how these partnerships are playing out practically? What are we seeing them do?

BEN:

Yeah, well, we've seen the WWF and the Australian Conservation Foundation working with the Business Council of Australia, which is what would be an insane collaboration 10 or 20 years ago, essentially to say, “Look, let's turn Australia into a renewable energy export superpower.” And much of that is about, you know, mining lithium, mining iron ore, mining copper, manganese, you know, all of these critical, rare earth minerals that are required for electrification. So decades ago, you would never see those groups working in partnership with, you know, the Business Council and you know, lobbying governments to say, “No, we can become a superpower, we can mine all of these minerals.” And what we're seeing because of that is a lot of these projects go ahead, that actually have really destructive impacts on the environment, and the compromises of turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower and digging up every single critical rare earth mineral, is that those minerals are found on indigenous people's lands, you know, underneath their feet. So, the racist compromises of renewal of renewable energy are actually being invoiced to those communities who have an outsized role to play if balance is to be restored. But instead of that, they are being slated as again, necessary collateral damage to solve a problem that isn't one of their creation.

ANGE:

And I suppose this is all happening at an interesting time because we had the climate election last year, we saw this huge surge in support for the Teals and Greens candidates, and Labor did pass that significant climate change legislation this year, which means we will cut our emissions by 43% by 2030. How do environmental activists that you're talking to view those achievements?

BEN:

With scepticism. I mean, the 43% is just a target, it's not enforceable, and current predictions are saying that we're going to blow that out of the water, particularly with a lot of these really dirty mines coming into play, whether that be the Santos Barossa project, the fracking of the Beetaloo Basin, we're talking about Middle Arm in the Northern Territory and a swath of other gas and coal mines being greenlit. You know, Richard Deniss was clear that there's more than 110 gas and coal projects that are slated for development. So there's a lot of scepticism with targets, right? They're not enforceable. They're, kind of, just like these guidelines or, as some environmentalists say, just another kicking of the can down the road. So, you know, we did have what they dubbed ‘the climate election’. But what we've seen from Labor is very much just more of the same. And, you know, a really insane commitment to the status quo considering that, you know, as each day goes by and more pollution gets, you know, thrusted out into the atmosphere that we track closer and closer towards a point of no return. And what makes this story interesting, I think, is that as we get closer to the point of no return, you'd think that there'd be a more combative approach from environmentalists rather than one that is cosy and collaborative.

ANGE:

And clearly there's tension within the movement about this approach, is there a push within the movement to undo this evolution that you're talking about? Could we actually see a splintering of the conservation movement itself if there is disagreement in the ranks about how they're going about their action?

BEN:

I think so. I think we will inevitably see that, I think we'll see some renewal within the movement. But I think what's really challenging now is because of the money that's sloshing around, and the financial returns that are at play, is that the ministers now have, you know, a huge amount of organisations to pick from, you know, to put their names to the bills that we know are going to be really detrimental.

So I think the movement has become diluted and for as long as we're not seeing sustained pressure on the streets like we saw with the schools strikes for the climate over the last couple of years, which is really significant, then, you know, I think that the game is being played squarely in the courts of big business, you know, and big fossil fuel companies.

ANGE:

Ben, thanks so much for speaking with me today.

BEN:

Thank you for having me.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today,

In the wake of Kristine Ziwica’s reporting, which was featured on yesterday’s episode of 7am, Senator Larissa Waters has questioned Department of Social Services official Greta Doherty about why a government-funded campaign to promote awareness of sexual consent was axed.

Archival tape – Larissa Waters:

“You said that they said to you that the campaign was not viable. And then you also said that it wasn't… that contended it wasn't feasible. What was the reasoning that they came to that conclusion?”

ANGE:

Senate Estimates was previously told by Doherty that an “advisory mechanism” suggested the campaign was not the most effective way to reach students.

Archival tape – Greta Doherty:

“I don't have the details of that, but I think I could summarise it as there not being full support for it to roll out.”

Archival tape – Larissa Waters:

“By whom?”

Archival tape – Greta Doherty:

“From UA members.”

ANGE:

When asked about Ziwica’s story in The Saturday Paper, Doherty conceded that the decision was taken by Universities Australia because the campaign did not have the support of all members — and that she knew this all along.

Archival tape – Larissa Waters:

“Okay. Well, I look forward to us being able to get some better… well not better answers, but some answers directly from them on that point. Thank you. That’s most unsatisfactory.”

ANGE:

I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am. We’ll be back tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]