Lifeboats and Icebergs

 

At their meeting on Tuesday, June 14, council adopted their zero-climate-action annual “plan”.

We have said before and say again - in many ways this may be a very fine plan, absent the little issue of emerging climate and ecological catastrophe.  But very, very regretfully we cannot put that little issue aside.

And so, frankly, in the face of the very real climate crisis and in the absence of any plan to address it, the works and programs in council’s plan are about as interesting and significant as the first class dinner menu for April 15, 1912 was to the passengers of the Titanic as they were embraced by the icy waters of the North Atlantic.

The Hills Shire Council must show us that it is able to chew gum and walk at the same time.  Acting on climate does not rule out other fine aspects of their plans.  When they attend to the former we will be glad to congratulate them on the latter.

So we offer this quick (non-chronological) note of how the “debate” proceeded before arriving at the decision to adopt a plan for zero climate action … again.

The Lifeboats

Several councillors spoke in support of much greater climate action:

Councillor Kasby (Greens) acknowledged the work that has gone into the “professionally presented and well researched” plan.  But the councillor went on to lament the lack of attention in the plan to the climate crisis, saying that council’s operations and residents’ future were “put at serious risk” by the omission. Councillor Kasby passionately argued the case for real and significant climate action to be included in the plan.

Councillor Burton (Labor) spoke briefly but emphatically on the pressing case for climate action to be included in the shire’s plan, describing climate change as “the most pressing issue facing us”.

Councillor Hay (Labor) spoke of the increased insurance risks of climate change now and into the future.  However he followed that with some puzzling remarks.  Stating that “there is a changing climate”, he went on to seemingly question whether human activity is primarily responsible.  We infer that Councillor Hay must have been playing devil’s advocate in an attempt to appease councillors that have doubts on this matter.

He went on to argue that “it doesn’t matter”, because a changing climate requires a response, whatever the cause.  We have to vigorously take issue with the councillor on this point.  It matters a very great deal.  If we do not honestly and correctly attribute the causes of climate change (and there is no reasonable doubt on this matter) then we will be unable to take appropriate measures to mitigate it.  While the councillor’s intention may have been sincere, we cannot agree that “appeasement” on very basic matters of science advances the cause of climate action.

Councillor Tracey (Labor) spoke favourably of the things that are in the plan.  But he also lamented that the section of the plan entitled “Challenges for Tomorrow” does not refer to climate change and its impacts.  He bemoaned the lack of any energy strategy, any climate change strategy or any kind of renewable energy target.  He urged that council should seek out presentations and advice from organisations such as the Climate Council and Resilient Sydney and that council should listen to the community on this matter.

The Icebergs

Regrettably denial and delay was on the menu for the Liberal majority councillors:

Councillor Hodges (Liberal) introduced the motion with congratulations to participants on the merits of the plan.  He went on to make the case that a lack of submissions on the financial “charter” amounted to a “ringing endorsement” of council’s fiscal prudence.  That may be -  but if it is then it is unclear what the councillor makes of the 16 (of 26) submissions urging greater climate action.  The councillor did not address that matter.

Councillor de Masi (Liberal) sought to address matters raised in the debate and in the submissions around climate action.  He suggested that, as this is an “annual” plan, there will be opportunities to further debate climate matters at a later date.

Well, of course, the councillor is right.  Debating it at a future date is the only option remaining:  the only option in the face of council’s inaction to date, despite 30 or 40 or 150 years of warnings from scientists (pick your start date); the only option following council’s adoption of this plan that continues their inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence of climate change manifesting all around us.

So, yes councillor, enough delay!  Yes, let’s debate it - now!  Urgently!  Yes, let’s act - quickly, decisively and effectively.  But no, councillor, “tinkering”, as you put it, is no kind of response at all.  What is needed is for council to tell the truth, enact comprehensive plans for mitigation and adaptation and make the climate threat a central consideration in every decision of council.

Fiscal Responsibility - Is There Any Another Kind?

Several other Liberal councillors spoke but with little or nothing to say about climate action.

However a recurring theme was council’s fiscal responsibility.  And certainly, if we do not consider the medium and long-term monetary and opportunity costs of climate change, council’s credentials on this are sound and creditable.  Nobody disputes the importance of this.  We do however dispute the exclusive importance of this.

The experience of the last two years shows us the importance of putting something aside for a rainy day!  Or for months of uninterrupted rainy days. Or for a day of dangerous searing heat.  Or for days when water is scarce, or when fires rage around us.  Or when fresh produce is in scarce supply due to climate impacts.  Or to accommodate vulnerable, displaced people from around the world made homeless by climate change.  Need we go on …

Council’s responsibility extends beyond this year’s balance sheet.  It has other responsibilities too - including the protection of residents and visitors and the natural and built environment, now and for future generations.

And council is one of 500+ councils in our nation, which is one of 193 nations in the world representing 7.5 billion people.  Much of the rest of the nation and the world is acting in significant ways.  Our council is not and their inaction makes this shire a free-loader.

Council’s responsibilities include acting in a way that is commensurate both with our position of relative advantage and privilege and with our historical and present outsize responsibility for the predicament that humanity faces.

Fiscal responsibility alone offers no guarantee of a secure future.  No doubt the Titanic’s maiden voyage and subsequent service might have been highly profitable for White Star Line - if only it had not sunk.

We have previously described The Hills Shire Plan 2022-23 as reckless and irresponsible.  We stand by that assessment.  For the moment The Hills Shire Council has ensured that our shire remains Sydney’s Denier Shire.