Scott Morrison wants to outlaw boycott campaigns. But the mining industry doesn’t need protection


Graeme Orr, The University of Queensland

On Friday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison vowed to craft new laws targeting social and political protest. Speaking to the Queensland Resources Council, he labelled some activist groups as environmental “anarchists”, and lamented how businesses like banks might be sensitive to consumer or protest group pressure to limit dealings with the mining industry.

These laws could ban activists from advocating for certain boycotts against companies. Morrison lambasted progressives, saying they:

want to tell you where to live, what job you can have, what you can say and what you can think – and tax you more for the privilege of all of those instructions.

Boycott laws already exist

The first thing to note is there is no proposal on the table. Morrison merely warned his government was:

working to identify mechanisms that can successfully outlaw these indulgent and selfish practices.

The existing law on boycotts has been driven by conservative governments. In the 1970s, the Fraser government sought to crack down on “secondary boycotts”, with stiff provisions in trade practices or competition law. Morrison also specifically invoked “secondary boycotts” in his speech.

A secondary boycott is simply pressure you put on someone you’re dealing with to have them “boycott”, or not deal with, another person or business. It’s considered secondary action because you have no particular beef with the person you are directly pressuring. The real target of your pressure is the “secondary” person or business down the chain.

It’s easy to imagine secondary boycotts most people would sympathise with. Going on strike to stop your employer dealing with overseas sweatshops, for instance.

The chief concern of secondary boycott law has been with union power. The fear was that a strong union, in a key sector like the wharfies unloading ships, could wield disproportionate social power through secondary boycotts.

As a result, unionised workers are now confined to industrial action, such as going on strike, to improve conditions in an enterprise bargain at their workplace.

Morrison wants to stop consumer pressure on banks

The focus of laws against secondary boycotts has never been against consumer groups or movements involving non-employees. There’s an obvious and good reason for this.

Encouraging or organising consumers to put pressure on one company to limit its dealings with a secondary “target” company is a form of political communication and association. These are freedoms the High Court has read into our constitution.

It might seem unfair to banks for consumers to organise boycotts against them to encourage a change in their business practices. The banks may see themselves as the meat in the sandwich, caught between activists and the mining industry.




Read more:
Cattle prods and welfare cuts: mounting threats to Extinction Rebellion show demands are being heard, but ignored


The Morrison government will not only try to sell this idea as a “get protesters” or “protect coal” initiative. He’ll also argue markets should be as free as possible and boycotts either distort competition or are an abuse of power. There are two problems with this.

Companies don’t need more protection

First, it’s a hard sell to pretend banks are the playthings of activist groups. Financial institutions look at mining investments across a range of risks, including their social brand and reputation.

Second, modern corporations, especially retail ones dealing with citizens every day, have long been aware of the social environment around business. They don’t trade in an economic bubble because economics has never been divorced from society.

Social media reinforces this reality by galvanising and magnifying consumer and activist sentiment.

Things would be different if activists could strong-arm one business to renege on an actual contract with another. It has long been against tort law (laws against “civil wrongs” like intimidation or tresspass) to leverage someone into breaking an agreement, without some justification.

But if a bank reneges on an existing funding deal with a mining company, say because protesters were blockading the bank’s offices, the miners would hardly have to go after the protesters.

The bank would be liable for damages to the mining company director. And the bank would only buckle under such pressure after a thorough cost-benefit analysis to itself.

Morrison also appealed to “quiet shareholders” in his remarks. He implied they were the real meat in the sandwich when businesses did not pursue a singular vision of putting today’s profits above long-term social reputation.




Read more:
Is the Morrison government ‘authoritarian populist’ with a punitive bent?


The irony here is that even company law is not solely about economics, shorn from social reality. Shareholders are entitled to be corporate activists, too.

Previous attempts at boycott legislation

In any case, you can expect the government to sell any proposal to expand secondary boycott law as one to protect smaller businesses, not the banks or big miners.

Last year, it heralded a proposal to criminalise the incitement of protesters trespassing to protect family farms. The law that was passed this year extends to all manner of primary production, including large-scale abattoirs.

We have seen similar kites aloft before. In 2007, Treasurer Peter Costello vowed to crack down on those who organised boycotts. He singled out animal welfare activist group PETA for encouraging a boycott of Australian wool in protest against the de-skinning of sheep.

In the end, Costello’s bill did not expand secondary boycott law. It just allowed the competition watchdog to take representative action on behalf of businesses affected by secondary boycotts. Labor waved it through.

This time, the stakes may be higher.The Conversation

Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Keep it in the ground’: what we can learn from anti-fossil fuel campaigns


Fergus Green, London School of Economics and Political Science

From the fossil fuel divestment movement to the Stop Adani campaign, in recent years we’ve seen a wave of climate activism that directly targets fossil fuels — both the infrastructure used to produce, transport and consume them, and the corporations that finance, own and operate that infrastructure.

What makes targeting fossil fuels so attractive for activists, and can we learn anything from them?




Read more:
The fossil fuel divestment game is getting bigger, thanks to the smaller players


Failure to launch

Climate change became a topic of mainstream international concern in the early 1990s. For the first two decades of international climate cooperation, until the failed Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, the international environment movement embraced a more “technocratic” approach. Professionally-staffed environment groups made technical arguments aimed at persuading politicians and the public to adopt global climate treaties, national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and complex market-based policy mechanisms such as emissions trading schemes.




Read more:
The too hard basket: a short history of Australia’s aborted climate policies


All of these things, if sufficiently stringent, would have been great if they were politically possible. But the groups advocating them were politically weak; they had few political resources. Consequently, in the competition to influence policy they were systematically outgunned by the fossil fuel industry.

Not only did the environment movement lack money and power over the economy, they lacked public support for their policy agenda. While public concern for climate change throughout this period was widespread, it was shallow. It was a political priority for few people, and fewer still were willing to take to the streets to demand strong, urgent action.

A protestor at the coal port in Newcastle.
BREAK FREE NEWCASTLE

Why fossil fuels resonate

Compared with such ineffective climate activism, the present wave of anti-fossil fuel politics has an important advantage: it resonates better with ordinary people.

First, fossil fuels and associated infrastructure are readily understood by lay audiences. In contrast, concepts such as greenhouse gases, “2°C average warming”, and “350 ppm” are abstract, technical constructions not readily grasped by laypersons.




Read more:
A matter of degrees: why 2C warming is officially unsafe


Second, whereas the harms caused by climate change are hard to understand and (perceived to be) remote from their cause in time and space, the production, transport and consumption of fossil fuels cause and are popularly associated with a range of other harms on top of climate change.

These include: local environmental, health and other socio-economic impacts, as well as corruption, repression, human rights abuses and other injustices along the supply chain. Most of these affect people living or working close to fossil fuel infrastructure such as mines, pipelines and coal-fired power stations.

Local communities faced health problems when the Hazelwood coal mine caught fire in 2014.
COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY

Surveys about energy sources in the US and Australia, for example, support the claim that fossil fuels are unpopular. In China, local air pollution caused by fossil fuels is one of the biggest public concerns. And case studies from various countries indicate the potential for proposed fossil fuel infrastructure to generate strong local opposition, social conflict, and wider media attention.

Third, targeting fossil fuels helps to personalize the causes of climate change. One of the reasons climate change is not psychologically salient to most people is that it is typically perceived to be an unintentional side-effect of the everyday actions of billions of people. This makes it hard for us to attribute blame.




Read more:
Unburnable carbon: why we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground


But the fossil fuel industry is disproportionately responsible for our dependence on emissions-intensive energy. Targeting the industry helps to concentrate moral pressure on these more culpable agents and stokes the indignation that fuels climate activism.

Among anti-fossil fuel campaigns, the fossil fuel divestment movement aims most directly and explicitly to delegitemise the fossil fuel industry.
Studies show that the divestment movement has, in a very short time, had a revitalising effect on climate activism through the mobilisation of young people, and improved wider public discourse toward climate change action, among other beneficial effects.

Divestment protesters at UNSW in Sydney.
DANNY CASEY

Targeting fossil fuels also has advantages when it comes to the other elements of successful social movement activism — resource accumulation, alliance-building, and sustaining participants’ enthusiasm over time.

A necessary part of climate politics

Targeting fossil fuels is not the only way to build more successful movements around climate action. Campaigns providing a more positive vision around renewable energy, for example, have also been successful in mobilising grassroots support, and are a crucial component in contemporary climate activism. And successful grassroots mobilisation is not everything: elite politics and international relations also greatly affect climate policy.

But building wide and deep social movements committed to urgent climate action is a necessary element of the political task before us. As the rising tide of anti-fossil fuel activism shows, if campaigners work with the grain of ordinary human motivation, drawing on what we know about the psychology and sociology of social movements, then they are in with a fighting political chance.The Conversation

Fergus Green, PhD Candidate in Political Theory, Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Plastic-free campaigns don’t have to shock or shame. Shoppers are already on board


Louise Moana Kolff, UNSW

With Coles and Woolworths supermarkets phasing out single-use plastic bags at their checkout counters, and Queensland and Western Australia bringing in bans on single-use plastic bags for all retailers from July 1, a long overdue step is being taken towards reducing Australia’s plastic waste.

However, it is only a small step, and much still needs to be done to tackle the problem.

It is therefore useful to explore what strategies might be effective in informing the public about the issue, and in changing people’s consumption and littering behaviour.




Read more:
In banning plastic bags we need to make sure we’re not creating new problems


Research shows that fear or shock tactics, or strategies based on shame and guilt, are generally not effective, and can even be counterproductive. High-threat fear appeals can be effective provided that the target audience is already taking positive steps toward the desired behaviour change, or feel that they can easily do so. Crucially, this means that campaigns not only need to tell people about an issue, but also provide straightforward advice on what do to about it.

In this context, campaigns such as “Hey Tosser!”, run by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, are ill-conceived. The problem is that encouraging the public shaming of “tossers” creates an unhelpful stereotype that doesn’t actually exist. One study found that Australians are often unaware of their own littering, meaning the campaign might prompt people to identify themselves as “non-tossers” and therefore ignore the message.

Tosser shaming.

The author and social behaviour change expert Les Robinson has suggested that rather than try to scare or shame people into changing, it is more useful to create a positive buzz around change, make new behaviours easy to adopt and sustain, and foster supportive communities to help with change.

This means that whether we want to tackle littering or reduce reliance on plastic bags, it is important to make people feel that they are part of an inclusive movement that is supported by the community and relevant to their own lives.

One example is the WA government’s “What’s your bag plan?” campaign, which urges shoppers to decide how they will carry their shopping after the demise of plastic bags, by becoming either a “bagger” (reusable bags), a “boxer” (cardboard boxes), or a “juggler” (neither!).

The good and the bad

A recent action by Greenpeace, in which overpackaged fruit and veg were labelled with a sticker saying “I’d like this product to be plastic free” and “We love plastic-free fruit and veg”, makes it easy for consumers to view those changes as positive. There is no blaming or shaming, but rather a focus on making it easier for consumers to ask supermarkets for more environmentally conscious options.

On Instagram and Twitter Greenpeace is encouraging consumers to share photos of excessive packaging, under the hashtag #RidiculousPackaging. This is a proactive way for consumers to take action, and for others to start noticing the overuse of plastic in supermarkets.

A sticker campaign by Greenpeace Australia Pacific encourages consumers to choose plastic-free fruit and veg, and puts pressure on the supermarkets.
Instagram/Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Consumers are encouraged to post images of excessive plastic wrapping.
Twitter

In contrast, other campaigns seek to emphasise the destructive effects of plastic waste. These can be eyecatching, but without a strong message that customers have the power to make a positive difference, they are unlikely to be effective in implementing sustained behaviour change.

The UK Marine Conservation Society’s campaign, showing a drinking straw lodged up a child’s nose (echoing a horrific viral video of a sea turtle enduring the same fate), is both shocking and thought-provoking. But with no clear, positive information showing people how they can directly address the problem through changes in their own lives, viewers may simply disengage.

Eye-watering stuff.
Marine Conservation Society UK

Winning the war

One of the most powerful campaigns in Australia in recent times has been the ABC documentary series War On Waste. Its success can be attributed to a clever mix of shocking information tempered with entertaining and engaging storylines; a lack of blaming and shaming of individuals (although some corporations and politicians have received their share); clear and tangible solutions that viewers can implement; and a feeling of collaborative empowerment.

In combination, these elements have had a positive impact, with the sale of reusable takeaway coffee cups rising sharply after the series aired. If my experience at my local supermarket is any guide, shoppers have taken the message about recycling soft plastics firmly to heart.

Soft plastic bins overflowing at Coles, Murwillumbah, June 2018.
Louise Moana Kolff, Author provided

The ConversationFew people would argue against the reduction of plastic waste. Most people are ready and willing to change, and the agencies that are designing campaigns on the issue would do well to remember this. Positive encouragement and advice are preferable to fear, shame or shock tactics.

Louise Moana Kolff, Lecturer, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Crowdfunded campaigns are conserving the Earth’s environment


File 20180530 80623 1w2xoxe.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Crowdfunded campaigns to save the orange-bellied parrot are a rare ray of hope.
Fatih Sam

Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao, The University of Queensland; Carla Archibald, The University of Queensland; Euan Ritchie, Deakin University; Rachel Friedman, The University of Queensland; Richard Fuller, The University of Queensland; Rochelle Steven, The University of Queensland, and Tiffany Morrison, James Cook University

If not for the public’s generosity, the iconic Statue of Liberty might not have the solid and impressive footing she does today. In the late 1800s, government funds for the monument were exhausted. Yet through a fundraising campaign, the New York World newspaper garnered support from over 160,000 residents to cover the pedestal costs.




Read more:
Explainer: What is crowdfunding?


Just as large monuments need solid bases to ensure their long-term existence, so too does the environment. In the case of nature conservation, it requires money to support diverse research projects, on-ground activities, and outreach aimed at protecting and managing species and habitats.

While the health of the environment continues to decline globally, in most regions government funding falls short of what is required to stem the losses. Crowdfunding plays an important and under-appreciated role for biodiversity conservation.

Our new research presents a global analysis of how crowdfunding, still a relatively novel and minor financial mechanism in the conservation community, is contributing to conservation around the world.

Show me the money. What’s being funded and why?

Crowdfunding offers a powerful mechanism for mobilising resources for conservation across borders. We recorded 577 conservation-oriented projects (from 72 crowdfunding platforms), which have raised around US$4.8 million since 2009. The people leading these projects were based in 38 countries, but projects took place across 80 countries.

This pattern has important implications for conservation, because there is often a mismatch between high-priority areas for global conservation and countries with the greatest financial and technical capacity. For instance, we discovered that a third of the projects were delivered in different countries to where their proponents were based. The USA, UK and Australia were the countries with the highest outflow of projects (“project exporters”). Indonesia, South Africa, Costa Rica and Mexico had the highest inflow (“project importers”).

https://greenfirescience.carto.com/builder/c1a70aca-e978-4db7-8e1b-063a590dccf9/embed

Global distribution of crowdfunding for biodiversity conservation: countries where relevant platforms are based, countries where proponents of projects are hosted, and countries where projects are delivered. (Interactive map generated using CARTO)

Crowdfunding could be supporting conservation work of actors that do not have as much capacity for raising funds.

The people leading projects were primarily from non-governmental organisations (35%) or universities (30%), or were freelancers (26%). Importantly, among non-governmental organisations, we discovered organisations operating at sub-national levels proposed a majority of projects.

Additionally, crowdfunding for conservation is not all about research. While most of the projects we reviewed focused on research (40%), many tackled raising awareness of conservation-related issues (31%) or boots-on-the-ground activities (21%). This expands the sphere of anecdotal evidence and commentary about crowdfunding related to conservation, which has so far revolved around research. For the first time, we’ve systematically unpacked how these funds are being used for additional activities to support conservation.

Crowdfunding can also support innovative projects that traditional funding agencies deem too risky or unconventional. For example, one project supported buying and training two Maremma sheepdogs to protect penguins against predatory foxes in southeastern Australia. (That might sound familiar to those who’ve seen the movie Oddball.)

Such opportunities for innovation can have important consequences for conservation worldwide; crowdfunding could be considered an incubator for novel ideas before widespread dissemination.




Read more:
Hunting tree kangaroos in the mountains of Papua New Guinea


More than half of the projects we recorded (around 58%) largely focused on species. These included a disproportionate number of threatened bird and mammal species.

Prominent projects to save orange-bellied parrots or Papua New Guinea’s endangered tree kangaroos are important success stories.

This is not to underplay crowdfunding’s importance for ecosystems – whether land-based (20%), marine (9%) or freshwater (4%). Crowfunding is supporting projects ranging from protection of wilderness areas in remote Tasmania to research informing the conservation of the Californian coast.

Crowdfunding benefits extend beyond dollars and cents

The amount of money for conservation via crowdfunding has so far been relatively modest compared to more traditional conservation finance mechanisms. However, the benefits of crowdfunding extend well beyond dollars and cents. Crowdfunding helps communicate environmental issues and empower researchers and communities.

The figure below shows the reach of a single tweet during the Big Roo Count campaign. It shows how conservation-related messages can spread widely and engage communities via social media.

Example tweet (1777 tweets, 512 users) network during the Big Roo Count crowdfunding campaign.
Stuart Palmer

Crowdfunding is an exciting new tool in the conservation toolbox. But, ultimately, traditional funding sources, like government agencies, still have a major role and duty to invest adequately in environmental protection and nature conservation. Considering the current extinction crisis, governments must avoid further outsourcing of such responsibilities.

Examples of conservation projects supported through crowdfunding.

The discussion over novel sources and recipients of conservation funding continues. At the same time, transparency and oversight remain critical for managing expectations and overall effectiveness of funding. Crowdfunding contributes one more building block to democratising conservation funding and increasing transparency.


The ConversationThe authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Edward Game.

Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland; Carla Archibald, PhD Candidate, Conservation Science, The University of Queensland; Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Rachel Friedman, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland; Richard Fuller, Professor in Biodiversity and Conservation, The University of Queensland; Rochelle Steven, Postdoctoral Researcher, The University of Queensland, and Tiffany Morrison, Principal Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.