Tag Archive for: environment

Editors’ picks for 2024: ‘Australia should grow its own fuel’

Originally published on 18 March 2024.

Australia really does run on the smell of an oily rag. Our fuel reserves are pitifully low by international standards, and we produce very little fuel domestically. This is a risk, both strategically and economically. But it also presents an opportunity we should grasp.  

The opportunity is to ramp up domestic production of fuel made from plants, creating a secure local supply that isn’t exposed to the risk of disruption beyond our shores.  

Australia imports about 90% of its liquid fuel and has just two operational oil refineries, and those run only thanks to federal government support. The industry has almost shut down because buying refined products abroad and importing them just in time for consumption is more economical.  

This reliance on just-in-time supply is also one reason why we have tended to store very little fuel locally. In fact, Australia holds 54 days of fuel supply onshore, according to the latest data, well below the 90 days of net oil imports we should hold under International Energy Agency rules.  

None of this is news. But it does explain why various governments have sought to boost the country’s storage and supply—including the previous Coalition government’s purchase of crude oil placed in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which we would need to ship here for use) and earmarking of funding for extra diesel storage capacity. Since then, the Labor government has told large importers and refiners they must hold minimum levels of fuel locally to see them through supply disruptions.  

Having additional storage is all well and good, but it overlooks the tanker-sized elephant in the room. We need to fill that storage capacity with something, and, because we produce very little fuel ourselves, that something must be shipped from abroad. Since the point of a strategic fuel reserve is to see a country through troubled times, relying on free and open shipping lanes, not to mention the availability of ships and crews, is a bit of a risk.  

Just look to the Red Sea for a current example of how shipping routes can be seriously interrupted by an adversary using simple means such as drones. Then imagine the disruption a fully-fledged kinetic conflict might cause. You need not imagine too hard: just ask Europe about the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on its energy supplies. Now imagine trying to arrange imports of fuel to Australia during a conflict, even fuel you have paid for that is sitting safely on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.  

That leads us to the inevitable solution: we need to produce more fuel domestically to fill the local storage facilities we have been building. To do that, we have three options: use more of our existing supplies of crude, seek out unconventional supplies, or look to alternatives.  

By global standards, Australia is not a major player when it comes to conventional geological oil reserves. Our modest supplies have been declining as new fields have failed to make up for the depletion of old ones. While the opening of new Northwest Shelf fields reversed the situation somewhat, the bottom line is that we hold little in the way of geological reserves of conventional offshore oil. They’re likely to be exhausted in about 20 years. Onshore oil exploration is hampered by lengthy and circuitous community engagement and regulatory and environmental approvals that add time, cost and complication to any project, often to the point of unviability. In any case, our two remaining refineries are an inconveniently long way from the source and are not well-suited to refining the oil we extract from the seabed.  

An alternative that is theoretically inexhaustible is the use of biofuels in our energy security mix. Using plants to fuel vehicles is not new technology—it has been around since the 1930s—and Australian motorists currently have access to ethanol-blended petrol and biodiesel. Even the US military and its NATO partners are getting in on the act, looking at biofuel not only to improve sustainability but to cut down dependence on conventional oil supplies.  

Biofuels present several benefits in terms of energy and economic security. In 2022, liquid biofuels internationally avoided the consumption of almost 2 million barrels of oil per day in the transport sector. While that met only about 4% of global transport demand, it showed the potential for growth.  

Moreover, biofuels can be produced from non-food crops grown on marginal land, removing the food-versus-fuel tension and providing an additional income source for rural communities. We are already doing this, in a way. More than half of Australia’s canola crop is exported to the European Union, with at least 60% of that being used in biodiesel production. That product could be sold domestically if we had a local biofuel industry providing demand for the raw inputs.  

Late last year, the CSIRO and Boeing released the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap, which looked at how Australia could develop a sustainable aviation fuel industry using Australian feedstocks. According to the roadmap, non-edible oilseeds ‘offer the opportunity of cultivating and utilising crops that do not have to compete with food markets and can use marginal or degraded land’. In fact, Australia will have enough feedstocks to produce 90% of local jet fuel using biogenic feedstocks by 2050, according to the roadmap, giving an insight into how a sustainable biofuel industry can be developed to take advantage of marginal land growing non-food crops.  

Success in this area will not happen spontaneously, however. It will take a concerted push by government and industry to realise its potential. The US, India and Brazil have been pushing ahead with the development of policies that will support and drive biofuel production, which includes supporting innovation, addressing sustainability issues and sending the right investment signals. Their efforts have seen annual biofuels providing 22% of Brazil’s transport energy in 2022 and 7% in the US. Meanwhile, ethanol’s use in India’s petrol-fuelled vehicles doubled to 6% from 2019 to 2022.    

Bioenergy Australia provides some practical policy ideas for the federal government in its 2024-25 budget submission, among them a commitment from the Australian Defence Force to be a ‘cornerstone customer’ of locally produced synthetic aviation fuel and renewable diesel. According to Bioenergy Australia, this would be a significant driver in the development of a domestic industry, providing certainty and demonstrating the federal government’s commitment. This could be backed up with funding from the National Reconstruction Fund, Powering the Regions Fund and Australia Renewable Energy Agency.  

For a country such as Australia, with limited reserves of offshore oil and difficult-to-exploit onshore oil, farming our own fuel makes sense. It would provide opportunities for agricultural development and diversification, reduce our dependence on imported oil that is at risk of geostrategic disruption, and allow us to fill those extra storage tanks we have built.  

All it needs is some political will.

Tears of the crocodile: global crime syndicates eye Australia’s casinos to ‘wash’ cash

As Australians absorb the damning evidence from inquiries into local casinos, Transparency International Australia has identified the nation as a favourite location for international money launderers.

In its report, Asian roulette, the Geneva-based international research group, the Global Initiative (GI), has identified the Asia–Pacific as the world’s largest and fastest-growing market for online and casino-based gambling.

Some casinos in Australia and the ‘dirty money made clean’ through them have been used as part of larger global operations involving drugs and people trafficking as well as wildlife and environmental crimes.

Alex Simpson, a criminologist from Macquarie University in Sydney, says money laundering or making ‘dirty’ money appear as if it comes from a clean source, is a massive global industry.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates the value of local crime proceeds laundered each year in Australia to be more than $13 billion.

Despite the extensive public revelations about crime in casinos, there is considerable concern about the lack of individual accountability.

Nicole Rose, head of AUSTRAC, Australia’s financial and anti-money-laundering regulator told The Guardian that law enforcers need to make far more money-laundering prosecutions for Australia to be seen as taking this crime seriously enough.

Associate professor Charles Livingstone of Monash University told the ABC that: ‘Clearly, individuals have been complicit in these companies’ breaches of regulation, Australian law, state law and, in some cases, international law, and haven’t been held to account.’

The GI report’s authors say the driver behind the proliferation and demand for casinos in Southeast Asia and the rest of the region is the Chinese appetite for gambling opportunities prohibited in mainland China. ‘It is reasonable to expect the continued convergence between casinos and multiple forms of environmental crime alongside other illegal activities which will consolidate the role of casinos as hubs for illegality,’ they say.

Asian roulette looks in the main at the proceeds of environmental crimes such as wildlife poaching and smuggling and illegal logging that are being increasingly laundered in casinos around the world. Environmental crimes, they write, have flourished since Covid-19 lockdowns, and have become harder to trace with the rise of online gambling and the use of cryptocurrencies.

According to Interpol, environmental crime and animal trafficking are increasingly lucrative illegal markets, in part because they are not taken as seriously as other organised crimes by law enforcement and criminals can take advantage of a lack of regulation and scrutiny.

The international policing agency says organised crime is continuously evolving in response to socioeconomic, political and ecological changes in the world. ‘By shifting their operations, organised crime groups are able to diversify into new illegal markets, including animal markets’.

The GI report finds that, globally, casinos can have a series of damaging environmental impacts from deforestation—that may be required to build the establishment in the first place—to operational activities, such as the sale of protected and endangered species on some of their restaurants’ menus.

Around the time the GI report was released, London Zoo displayed a handbag made from the skin of a Siamese crocodile that was seized in 2018 at a London airport noting that: ‘Many like this one, are hunted for their skins as part of the illegal wildlife trade.’ The zoo has no live exhibits of the animal as there are estimated to be no more than 1,000 left in the wild. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List says it is critically endangered and the exhibit aims to highlight the impact the illegal trade in wildlife is having across the world.

The crocodile handbag is a sad product of these environmental crimes. Proceeds are laundered through casinos as international gangs look for under-regulated countries in which to wash money. And according to Transparency International, Australia has become a favoured location for these activities.

It’s sad to think wildlife such as the Siamese crocodile may be driven to extinction because of a widespread tolerance of ‘green’ crime enabled in part by money laundering in casinos.

Climate activism requires a nuanced security response

The Taliban’s rapid return to power in Afghanistan has sent the Western world’s counterterrorism agencies into a tailspin. They’ll be spending a lot of time considering whether the end of the US’s longest war marks the beginning of a new era of mass-casualty attacks.

Yet a lot has changed over the past 20 years. Afghanistan could once again become a terrorist haven, but, then again, the Western world’s security regimes are much stronger. And the belief systems of Salafi-jihadists are not as widely supported as they were before the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

Once they’ve got their heads around what’s happened in Afghanistan, intelligence and security agencies in Australia and elsewhere will be keen to turn their attention back to the increasing threat of right-wing extremism. They might also want to spend some time thinking about what could come next in terms of terrorism risks. At the top of possible threats for consideration should be radical environmental groups. But that thinking needs to be very nuanced.

Most Westerners find the belief systems of Salafi-jihadists and right-wing extremists to be vile and baseless. In stark contrast, the belief system that underpins radical environmental groups is attractive and based on science. For starters, climate change is genuine.

Everyday Australians seem to increasingly agree that governments must act to limit climate change, and tentative efforts by authorities in both Australia and the UK to frame climate action groups as extremists have failed miserably.

Political debates on terrorism and extremism that draw comparisons between right-wing extremism and Salafi-jihadism are valid. It’s clear, though, that asserting some ideological or moral connection between, say, Islamic State, Aryan Strikeforce and Extinction Rebellion is ludicrous. The logical argument that ‘they’re just as bad’ fails to resonate with what is now a widely accepted social and political movement.

To add some legal clarity to this discussion, terrorism in Commonwealth law is defined as an act or threat that is done with the intention to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

Conduct falls under this definition if it causes death or serious harm to or endangers a person; causes serious damage to property; poses a serious risk to the health or safety of the public; or seriously interferes with, disrupts or destroys critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

Protests are exempt from this definition if they are not intended to cause death or endanger a person’s life or create a serious risk to public health or safety.

In October 2019, more than 300 climate activists clashed with Victorian police at a mining conference. Several officers were injured and more than 50 protestors were arrested. As one protester said, ‘We’ll be here all day, and we’re willing to fight for what we believe in.’ The violent protests really did appear to be acts of intimidation focused on forcing government to change.

In March this year, a group of climate protestors posed as dead bodies on Melbourne CBD intersection. As one protester said, ‘Until people listen, I am afraid we will have to keep doing this.’ Another said they wanted to ‘force action’. While the ends might be noble, it does appear that the means being used are focused on coercing the Australian government to advance an ideological cause.

In April, seven climate activists used hammers and chisels to break windows at Barclays’ London headquarters. They said that they were protesting the bank’s ‘continued investments in activities that are directly contributing to the climate and ecological emergency’. Again, it could be argued that the protestors were trying to influence the bank’s decision-making, with this act and the possibility of similar acts in the future.

On 4 August, approximately 50 climate protesters blocked one of Canberra’s major thoroughfares during peak hour at 5 pm. The aim of this action was clearly to influence the Australian government. Arguably, the activity disrupted Canberra’s transport infrastructure, though there’s no evidence that there was any intent to cause harm.

On 10 August, protestors in Canberra targeted Parliament House and Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s parliamentary home in Canberra with red spray paint and flares. Others set fire to a pram outside the parliament. One protestor said, ‘When our government takes no action, it’s up to people like us to call this to the attention of everyone. Time is running out.’ It seems clear that these activists will continue to undertake this type of action if the Australian government doesn’t change direction on climate.

Of course, these examples fall well short of the legal definition of terrorist acts. But they do reveal a few potential problems. First, a growing number of Australians are dissatisfied with the nation’s progress on addressing climate change. Second, they feel that traditional ways of engaging with political processes, including elections, aren’t having the desired impacts. Third, it seems that more radical steps to forcing change are being normalised in Australian society. The argument here seems to be that the ends justify the means.

This is all new territory for Australia’s security and intelligence agencies. While terrorism may not be supported by many Australians, there’s broad community support for doing more on climate change, and forcing the government to do more through radical measures.

While a revolutionary change in the Australian political landscape and how it addresses climate change is theoretically possible, it hardly seems likely for the foreseeable future. In the interim, any use of narratives that paint climate activists as extremists is set for failure. Any government counternarratives that argue that the interpretation of the ideology or the cause is wrong are factually incorrect.

This raises the genuine question of what climate activist groups are willing to do next if their current ‘radical’ moves don’t work. What means might such groups be able to justify, given the ends that are at stake?

Governments can ill afford to ignore these developments or approach them in a heavy-handed manner. It’s time for genuine public discourse on this issue before the situation deteriorates and starts to further affect social cohesion.