Gippsland News & Views

Climate Change and Agriculture Part 2 by Nick Blandford


The future for agriculture is bright and there are changes that can be made to the agriculture production models to bring them into line with the goals of drawing down carbon and feeding the global population. The goal of these production systems should be to improve soil health as producing healthy soil can store large amounts of carbon to produce enough healthy food and in turn feed a global population of healthy people.

The development of regenerative agriculture has a number of pioneers who have successfully achieved these goals. This includes Gabe Brown from Browns ranch in North Dakota in the USA, Colin Sies from Gulgong in New South Wales and Alan Savoury from Zimbabwe who have changed the paradigm of how agriculture is practised. The key steps of regenerative agriculture to improve soil health are to use minimal soil disturbance, provide armour (plant cover/mulch), increase plant diversity, have living roots in the soil for as long as possible and use grazing animal impact to cycle carbon and nutrients.

As part of this process we also need to internalise the social and environmental costs alongside the economic costs along our food supply chain so that our produce can be valued more effectively for its true cost. This would give farmers the feedback to change their systems. The project drawdown list of the top one hundred ways to reduce our impact on climate change lists a number of these options for the food system and land use. This includes reducing food waste, moving to a plant rich diet, revegetating tropical forests and developing silvopasture on grazing land in the top 10.

Some examples of where these practices have been undertaken in Victoria on a large scale are Jigsaw farms near Hamilton in Western Victoria. The first carbon neutral grazing operation in Australia through the use of silvopasture as a form of agroforestry. Another example is Niels Olsen from West Gippsland who uses a specialised soil renovator, The SoilKee, and diverse cover crops to increase his soil carbon levels and has been the first to gain carbon credits for soil under grasslands.

Agriculture is at a cross road and due to a lack of policy to internalise the environmental and social costs the food supply chain has not provided the signal to producers to reduce their direct greenhouse gas emissions. However, the practices that will be the most productive into the future will be those that have the greatest ability to draw down atmospheric carbon while producing enough food to feed the global population.

Farmers for Climate Action

FCA is a movement of farmers, agricultural leaders and rural Australians working to ensure that farmers, who are on the frontline of climate change, are part of its solution. They are an advocacy group that aims to influence policy to implement a national strategy on climate change. This has culminated with the tabling of a report calling for a national strategy in Canberra a few weeks ago where a delegation of famers spent the week in Canberra and met with ministers, shadow ministers and members of the cross bench including Helen Haines who is pushing to declare a climate emergency. Other activities that the FCA undertake includes training farmers to undertake climate smart agriculture, mobilising farmers to push for a clean energy transition, advocating rural and regional politicians champion climate action and renewable energy for rural and regional Australia and assisting agricultural leaders to advocate for climate action.

*The author is a farmer near Perry Bridge and a member of the FCA

Climate Change and Agriculture Part 1 by Nick Blandford

Agriculture and the global food and fibre system is the one industry that is most at risk from the challenges of climate change.  To feed and clothe the increasing global population as rising atmospheric greenhouse gases cause extremes in weather patterns such as droughts, floods, cyclones and higher maximum day and night time temperatures is becoming more and more challenging. Agriculture is not exempt from the planet’s natural ecological systems though, and the industrial farming practices that have become commonplace are having a negative impact on the balance of greenhouse gas between the soil, ocean and atmosphere with agricultural emissions direct contribution sitting at 10-12% of global emission. These management practices include land clearing and deforestation, intensive animal agriculture and degradation and desertification of agricultural soils.

Throughout the history of agricultural, the need to increase productivity has led practices such as tillage and heavy grazing releasing stored carbon. This can be very effective in short doses to improve soils; however, the overuse of these practices and the gradual decline of soil carbon has led to reduced bio-diversity, poor water and landscape function, and eventually desertification.

Since World War II the use of synthetic fertiliser and chemicals, larger machinery creating more soil disturbance and larger scale monoculture cropping systems have sped up the reduction of soil carbon and the associated negative impacts. This has been particularly damaging to the soil microbiome where a complex economy works underground to trade mineral nutrients and stored water with sugars from plant roots produced through photosynthesis. These synergistic relationships provide food, air, water and shelter for the micro and macro flora and fauna in the soil and this diversity is vital to maintain healthy soils, retain and purify water and draw down carbon. The use of modern farming techniques disrupts these synergies and creates imbalances in mineral availability, water and carbon storage and the productivity of the soil.

The outcomes are that much of the food we now consume has a much lower nutrient value across many of the essential minerals compared to food from pre-war times. If we continue with these current practices there is a forecast of a 30% increase in agricultural emissions by 2050. As productivity of our soils has stalled more land is needed to produce food to feed the growing global population. Resulting in increased land clearing to meet this demand.

We now have unhealthy soils that are producing unhealthy food that is causing unhealthy people, while our landscapes are failing and the soil is unable to be the carbon sink needed to draw down atmospheric carbon.

The implication is that our agricultural production systems are unsustainable. However, this is not a problem for the farmer alone to fix as the consumer and food supply chain are also responsible. The demand for cheap food has culminated in food being devalued and one third of what is produced being lost or wasted along the supply chain. The other side of this is that due to pressures on production and distribution and with a forecast food calorie requirement of the global population set to increase by 60 % by 2050 this is a real risk of food insecurity in large parts of the globe. The take home message is that our current food system is broken and will not cope in its current form to feed the global population while reducing the nett contribution of greenhouse gasses to zero by 2050.

(to be continued)

*The author is a farmer near Perry Bridge and a member of Farmers for Climate Action

Brief Notes on a Meeting with Tim Bull MP

Climate Strike gathering near Tim’s office (image Shelly Nundra)

Tim Bull is the member for the Gippsland East in the House of Assembly in Victoria. At very short notice I was given the chance to have a meeting with him and his political advisor to discuss climate change. The meeting was amicable with Tim saying that most state parliamentarians accept the science of climate change and that most of them support renewable energy projects, though with some reservations. The big problem with this is that accepting the science should not even be on the agenda – it is the same as accepting fact or reality. And it is the science and its implications that needs to be clearly understood.

When the science is looked at seriously the urgency of the problem becomes paramount thus requiring all our actions to be directed towards mitigation and adaption, in other words accepting and working on the climate emergency. The failure (not only of Mr Bull, but of most of the MPs of the major parties) to grasp the basics of the science becomes obvious when there is contradiction in their statements or a ‘disconnect’ between what they say and what they do. In Mr Bull’s case he failed at the first step by supporting the current logging practices and giving the usual reasons why it should continue.

But under no circumstances will logging continue under the real ‘climate emergency’ as there is substantial evidence that forests must be protected as a carbon store (see here and here). Planning should be under way for a rapid phase out of all logging; land clearing and removing any living trees should become a serious offence. At the same time the responsible government department should be increasing employment drastically in fire protection, emergency services, public health, education etc in the areas most affected by the rapid phase out. In any just transition over full employment must precede the phase out.

Tim stated he is in favour of the Star of the South offshore wind project and I suggested he might be more outspoken in his support and that projects like this need to be fast tracked. I further suggested that it was unlikely that Yallourn would see 2030 and that all Gippsland generators would be closed by 2040. I pointed out that there is a crunch coming in the politics of climate change mentioning the Extinction Rebellion and the recent school climate strike protest attended by about 800 and held in the median strip outside his office. And stated that I was with them.

On the whole I am disappointed with my brief half hour. With 3 people present and normal conversation practice one is left with 10 to 15 minutes to make your point. In retrospect I wish I had emphasized that the climate emergency – his coming ‘crunch’ – overrides party loyalty and the other aspects of the status quo; that his legacy will be trashed by his inaction and his children and grandchildren bound to suffer.

The Collapse of Western Civilization – a review

This little book by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway fully titled The Collapse of Western Civilization: a view from the future (Columbia University Press 2014) is a strange mix. Ostensibly ‘science fiction’ the fiction part is only 52 pages – in reality a long essay – and contains maps of future sea level rise for the year 2300 where much of the Netherlands, Bangla Desh and New York have disappeared under the waves. As well it contains a “Lexicon of Archaic Terms”, notes and an interview with the authors comprising a further 37 pages. All in all most unusual for a work of fiction.

The Introduction notes that “Science fiction writers construct an imaginary future; historians attempt to reconstruct the past. Ultimately, both are seeking to understand the present. In this essay we blend the two genres to imagine a future historian looking back on the present and (possible) future.” The difference between the collapse of western civilization and earlier civilizations was that the consequences were known and predicted. The book then goes on to outline the greenhouse history and the sorry fate of all the warnings of science and identifies crucial years when “immediate steps should have been taken to begin a transition to a zero-net-carbon world. Staggeringly the opposite occurred.”(p.9)

This ‘opposite’ is encapsulated in the chapter heading “The Frenzy of Fossil Fuels” most of which we are in the middle of and already well informed. The collapse – technically ‘not a collapse’- of the West Antarctic Ice sheet brings about rapid sea level rise and ‘social disruption”. Mass migration occurrs with more than 20% of the earth’s population being affected and this dislocation “contributed to the Second Black Death” and consequently the “Human populations of Africa and Australia were wiped out.”(p.33)

In the third chapter entitled ‘Market Failure” the future historians dissect the various inhibiting ideologies of western civilization. They conclude that the “ultimate paradox was that neoliberalism, meant to ensure individual freedom above all, led eventually to a situation that necessitated large-scale government intervention” and that the “development the neoliberals most dreaded – centralized government and loss of personal choice – was rendered essential by the very policies that they had put in place.” (p.48, 49) A much depleted humanity however survives into the future. Though some of the more pessimistic amongst us are not even so sure of that.

Generally as science fiction I feel the work is unsuccessful although it has its moments. I much prefer the straight science history of the authors like their Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury 2011) a copy of which I have on my shelves. Their most recent work Discerning Experts on how science tends to underestimate the pace of climate change (See the Scientific American) sounds far more interesting and perhaps will ultimately be more successful.

*copy in the East Gippsland Shire Library

Gippsland Extinction Rebellion

Gippsland Extinction Rebels (Tony Peck)

The Extinction Rebellion protests in Melbourne over the second week of the month received an enormous amount of publicity. Twenty-three members of the Gippsland XR group – a number of whom are members of East Gippsland Climate Action Network (EGCAN) and the Baw Baw Sustainability Group – participated in the events with as many as 10 being arrested. Climate Activist Angela Crunden of Bairnsdale provided a rough list of those making the sacrifice including former Bairnsdale shopkeeper and Clifton Creek resident John Hermans, West Gippsland medico Malcolm McKelvie and the daughter of former Mayor of East Gippsland Shire Council Mendy Urie. Other Gippslanders not part of the XR group were also arrested. Inverloch resident Bron Dahlstrom reported that “Neil Rankine, the ex-Bass Coast Mayor was also arrested. These people are doing us proud.”

Angela commented on facebook on her week: “We lay down and stay still for 10 minutes Matt signifying deaths associated with the changing climate. We had mini shrouds over our faces. Died in Fed Square, Bourke St, Melbourne Central inside and out and Southbank. We sang once we rose from the dead. Check out EGCAN link for video and thanks for all your encouragement and good vibes.” Also on facebook the television image (Channel 9) of John Hermans being arrested received an enormous amount of attention with over 50 likes, a similar number of comments – mostly praise – and at last count 22 shares.

John noted that “when l was asked to talk on ABC Gippsland radio this morning, l was asked the question, ‘Was it all worth it?’ My reply, ‘Absolutely, look at the media we have generated, and the public discussion on the issues around Climate Change and the need to act now’. This comment no doubt lead to the termination of that interview, I had created my own platform and paid for it with a miserly $330 fine. Talk about getting credibility for something that is otherwise seen as a shameful misdemeanour! Prior to being arrested I was quite anxious about the whole idea of it, but now I can honestly say it has lifted my own spirits and determination. If you are feeling down about the world at the moment, get active, get arrested!

“But first join in with your local Climate Action group to find out how it’s done. The EGCAN group is only 7 months old, but we are punching above our weight with two hundred members and enjoying ourselves as we achieve our goals.”

Civil disobedience requires a certain amount of confrontation, inconvenience and disruption for many as well as the inevitable arrests. A few weeks ago I argued that the protests could be more carefully targeted as with the example of the civil rights movement in America targeting segregated cafes and buses. I have another, perhaps unfounded, worry that the climate change message will be buried. On this occasion at least I concede that the overwhelming attention the protests have received in the media more than compensates for the inconvenience of others and that congratulations are due all round. More to follow.

A Gippsland World First in Soil Carbon

An excellent article on climate change and farming in the Saturday Paper (5.10) by Matthew Evans alerted me to the work of Niels Olsen of Hallora. Niels has developed a carbon farming technique which boosts both productivity and soil carbon – the latter more than trebling in the amazingly brief period of 5 years. As a result of this activity Niels’ Soilkee farm has been the first anywhere to be issued “carbon credits” for “a soil carbon project under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) and the Paris Agreement”.

The Soilkee Renovator works with “minimum till disturbance in spaced apart rows by means of rotating blades create a competition free seed bed for successful germination, leaving around 80% of the pasture undisturbed. A diverse mix of seeds from clover seed to faba bean size can be applied from the seed box during operation with seeds dropping in the kee’s. The undisturbed portion acts as a cover crop protecting the soil from the elements, reducing erosion and keeping around 80% of soil life habitat intact. Whilst creating the seed bed the Soilkee Renovator provides additional benefits of aeration and a green manure crop within the worked up portion, providing aerobic conditions and a food source that activates the soil fungi, bacteria and earthworm populations and the natural soil processes they perform.”

The benefits of this process besides the increase in soil carbon include a substantial increase in dry matter equivalent, better moisture retention and thus some drought protection, a general increase in a wide range of nutrients and their availability and better soil aeration. Sounds almost too good to be true. Aside from minimum tillage using a wide range of seed, especially deep rooted and nitrogen fixing varieties, ensures that the carbon sequestration and soil building process goes down a metre or more. And an added bonus for the Olsen’s has been the $15,000 in carbon credits from the ERF – the first payment for a form of carbon, capture and storage besides trees that actually works.

Understandably, as in many pioneering processes, there have been difficulties to overcome – in particular estimating the amount of carbon being stored and the cost of measuring this. There is also the possibility of governments proclaiming the success of the process and avoiding the dire need for climate action on as many fronts as possible. On the other hand this form of sequestration of soil carbon has massive potential for the rapid removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. But one must ask why the pollies and the news media have not been shouting loudly about this ‘from the rooftops’. Here we have one of the very few tangible developments of their much lauded ERF- a rarity that looks so promising. And we have a world first in Gippsland hardly anyone, even locally, has heard of.

Household Solar Options in the Climate Emergency by John Hermans

The typical solar array doesn’t come close to offsetting total emissions from an average household

(edited version of article first published in Renew No 148)

It is common practice for sellers of solar systems to ask clients for a copy of their electricity bill. With this information, a solar installer calculates the size of a PV array and inverter that brings your bill close to a net annual zero cost. For most customers this is their goal; recent articles in Renew have featured households whose solar systems have not only provided their home’s power requirements, but also powered a plug-in electric vehicle. This is undoubtedly a trend to be encouraged, but it does lead one to think: just how much bigger does a solar system need to be in order to provide for all of one person’s energy usage and emissions?

Our CO2 footprint goes way beyond our home and our personal transport. It includes everything that you can imagine: roads, hospitals, logistics, food production, goods manufacturing and all federal, state and local government infrastructure, are just a few things that give each of us our current high quality of life. Australia is embarrassingly close to the top of the list for highest CO2 emissions per person on the planet. Several sources suggest average per capita emissions of around 20 tonnes per person per year. As this is an average, many will be well below this, but many are unfortunately well above it.

The amount of CO2 released during the generation of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of energy in Victoria is close to one tonne. This accounts for 21% renewables as part of the energy mix, with 79% coal- and gas-fired generation…In Melbourne, a 1 kW PV array may produce up to 1.3 MWh of electricity in one year (depending on orientation, angle and shading). To offset one person’s 20 tonnes of CO2 by producing 20 MWh of clean electricity in a year, each person needs to install 15 kW of PV. An average home with four people would need 60 kW of PV to offset the carbon footprint that sustains their lifestyle as they enjoy the pleasures of living in Australia.

Rather than using our home electrical energy consumption to match it with a PV array, should we be looking beyond our energy-consuming lives by investing in larger PV systems? Minimising consumption is clearly the best option, but there is an awful lot of consumption on your behalf that you are not getting a say in!

It is clear that a privately owned PV system should be as big as possible, so that your meter’s primary function is for handling energy export. Many private dwellings with a 5 kW export limit also have a 5 kW inverter with only 5 kW of panels or less. In order to export as much energy as possible, an oversized PV array is the way to go. With a 10 kW array on a 5 kW inverter, no more than 12.5% of generation is ‘wasted’ annually due to the 5 kW export limit. This potentially wasted power can be reduced by shifting household loads to when the energy is being generated.

Almost all inverters will function with an oversized array. The inverter typically takes the power that it needs to produce its maximum output. A premium system sizing arrangement for a 5 kW export-limited site is for an 8.2 kW inverter with 10.8 kW of panels. This then allows for solar electricity to be used in the home while the full 5 kW is being exported, with enough energy to be diverted into a home battery or electric vehicle in the future. Such a system would use minimal grid energy.

Customers are often told that an inverter will only function correctly with 133% oversizing of the array, but this may not be a requirement of the inverter. The rebate on solar panels (which helps reduce the cost of new system installs) is capped at 133% of the inverter size. You are able to go well beyond the 133%, for good economic and environmental reasons—but check your inverter warranty as it may be tied to an upper limit. Your best interest is a liveable planet. To achieve this, your energy debt needs to be accounted for, so you need to generate a whole lot more than just your house or electric vehicle uses. Your response to a climate emergency needs to be reduced consumption and increased renewable generation.

On Climate Catastrophe by Ed Thexton (part 2)

Coastal erosion at Inverloch

​(Continuing an edited article from the Bass Coast Post)

I fled from the risk of fire into the waiting arms of a flood risk.  With little coastal experience I viewed the model as a conceptual event.  With accumulated observations and experience, I populate the concept with data.  Credibility is given to concept.  Hence the worry. Before Black Saturday, the mantra was “Prepare, stay and defend your property or leave early”. The emphasis was reminiscent of war.  In Strathewen it was so many of the most vulnerable, women and their kids included, who suffered when the prevailing catch phrases were played out to their final, tragic conclusion. The mantra changed in the light of Black Saturday. Catastrophes are not the domain of business as usual.

Stepping back from bushfire to the coastal risk.  A crowded coast, Bass Strait, 1800 kilometres of exposure.  We have the people, we have the risk, and we have the scale.

We need to transfer something from the revisionism of bushfire risk management to coastal risk management.  Perhaps look at strategic withdrawal rather than confrontation or mitigation.  I’ve never really understood some past real estate approvals.  How were the negative consequences ignored?  Was a collective blind eye turned?  Perhaps the embodiment of the term “privatising the profits and socialising the losses. It’s worth noting that in NSW political donations from developers are banned.

At the heart of coastal risk exposure are regulations that govern where people live.  In an advanced western democracy, this is almost the exclusive preserve of those with money.  Yet when disaster strikes, it’s more likely to be the less well off, the young, the old and less able who suffer disproportionately. As a step forward perhaps we should invert the process and learn to speak and formulate laws from their perspective.  Locally, for example, look at it from the perspective of how the least able will cope if houses are built in a particular location with exposure to potential risks, particularly extreme events. 

The trauma of risk exposure goes far beyond the relative few personally affected.  We are part of a society.  We have the capability to intervene, in language and action. There is no better example than the approach we have taken to dealing with road safety. Back in 1969, and for most of my life, the language of road death was “road toll”.  Carnage was masked.  This year it’s 165, so far, out of 6.4 million.   

Reading Black Saturday has made the intervening decade disappear for me, such is the power of a catastrophe close to home.  The subtitle Not the End of the Story is a call to the future. I take it as a call for our society, Bass Coast Shire included, to build on the changes forced by Black Saturday and those learned from averting road trauma; to change the language; to stop pretending; to squarely face up to scientific probability; and to avoid the impending calamity coming to a coast near you.

For the full article go here.

On Climate Catastrophe by Ed Thexton (part 1)

(Edited article from the Bass Coast Post)

A few weeks ago, at the Inverloch library I picked up Black Saturday – Not the End of the Story by Peg Fraser, a cultural history of a small place, Strathewen, with an extraordinary story… A decade after the trauma of Black Saturday, I’m in Inverloch.  Why Inverloch?  For one, it’s not the Yarra Valley, where I was born and raised and where we had a few acres and intended to build.  There are not the tight, winding, timber-bound, inescapable roads; not the poor sight lines, not the completely avoidable stress of the bad fire days.  Inverloch is home now, 400 metres from Bass Strait.  Our safe haven by the sea.

I reflect on home, security and safety.  I turn my mind back, to the still fresh recollections of that day a decade ago.  In the months and particularly the week preceding that Saturday afternoon the State was baked to a crisp.  I remember, the Premier warning on the Friday that Saturday would be the worst day in Victoria’s history. On Black Saturday, an energy intensity scaled at an estimated 1500 Hiroshima a-bombs was unleashed on Victoria with Strathewen receiving just a bit of it. Lives and decades of endeavour were blown into irrelevancy in moments.

How much forewarning – a morning of horrible dry, brutal winds and searing temperatures – is enough? Why didn’t sensible, competent people just get out of there? Why did one in ten people in that place not live out the afternoon? In this context what does forewarning mean?  Strathewen received a short, intense onslaught coming together as a consequence of locality, topography, and climate – general and localised – coupled with imprecise communications on the day.

So here we sit on a creek in a low-lying part of Inverloch on the edge of Bass Strait.  Topography makes us vulnerable.  We have the warnings in science. Why do we act as if nothing is happening or ever likely to happen?  Why don’t we factor in the most basic of precautionary principles when we go to buy or build in this locality? My own research, nearly 10 years ago, told me that sea level rise was of sufficient concern for the Government to have developed an accessible interactive map of sea flooding around the margins of Anderson Inlet. One of only a few places in Victoria.  I bought in the knowledge that with a water rise of five metres we would be in trouble.

Human catastrophes are not the product of isolated factors; they are, as on Black Saturday, the product of factors acting in concert, if only for a moment.  A gathering storm rather than a bolt out of a blue sky.  In catastrophic circumstances, scale compounds.  Survival often depends on the grace of good fortune. A sea level rise of centimetres may seem trivial but factor in a rain-soaked catchment with flooding rains, a king tide, a ferocious wind driving a large swell from the wrong direction.  Add in blocked drains or erosion, and suddenly five metres is surpassed, probably as much from land as from sea flooding. With the living room flooding, who’s going to stop and taste for salt?

To be continued. For the full article go here.

Conscription, Senator Lambie and the Climate Emergency

In a recent interview with the Sunday Age (15.9) Senator Jacqui Lambie from Tasmania called for the conscription of youth to fight the “climate emergency’. Although a headline the term “climate emergency” managed to be split between the front page and the following one losing a fair bit of its punch. The article emphasized how those conscripted could be used in ‘emergency services’ like the CFA and SES. As global warming progresses it is fairly certain the pressures on these and other government and semi government organisations will increase dramatically.

Despite her sometimes misdirected (and basic) rhetoric Senator Lambie has ‘hit the nail on the head’. For in a real climate emergency governments will adopt many of the procedures used in World War 2. Amongst them there will almost certainly be conscription or organisation of labour of some kind. In a way Lambie’s call is similar to the National’s ‘green army’ which turned into another ‘tokenistic’ failure of the governing parties.  But rather than condemn them outright it is far better to work out how this ‘coercive’ policy can be managed for the benefit of society.

Conscription should rightly direct the unemployed and underemployed of any age to unfulfilled tasks necessary to cope, and hopefully overcome, the climate emergency – including both mitigation and adaption. Many of these jobs are unattractive to private enterprise such as forest protection, re-afforestation and the many workers required in extreme weather emergencies such as catastrophic bushfires. This will necessarily include training in various tasks as well as education primers on the basics of global warming.

There are many older age citizens on the unemployment ‘scrapheap’ still able to fill essential roles in organising, directing etc. All those in this new ‘green army’ should receive a basic wage and for all those other than youth there should be no coercion involved – that they should be essentially volunteers. Even for youth those who have gainful employment, are students, or of other means, the draft should not be compulsory. In some ways it should resemble the old American ‘Peace Corps” and be as locally based as possible. Unemployment benefits should eventually be displaced.

For me there is a certain irony in all this. It was through the conscription policies of a Liberal government of more than 50 years ago that I became ‘politicised’. Now I am advocating a policy similar to the one that I once diametrically opposed. Hopefully such a policy, and others like it, will be for life rather than death or war, and be welcomed by the multitudes of youth and their supporters who have been striking for meaningful climate action. Senator Lambie at least seems to be working in the right direction.