Environmental/Conservation Groups and Federal Funding (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-stifling-green-critics-Labors/2005/04/11/1113071905440.html

Govt stifling green critics: Labor
April 11, 2005 - 5:24PM


The federal government is being accused of trying to stifle criticism of its environment agenda by cutting funding to state-based green groups.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the government had decided to put a $10,000 cap on grants to state-based environment councils and groups, some of which previously received up to $80,000.

Grants of higher amounts would be considered in exceptional circumstances and where there was a demonstrated need.

Senator Campbell said the cap meant taxpayers' money was going directly to green programs rather than being eaten up in administration costs.

"I've got no doubt that right across the country we're spending far too much on bureaucracy and administration and we need to make sure more of it gets to the pointy end," he said.

"Many groups are missing out you see. There are hundreds of groups who apply for funds who don't get it and we thought if we had a cap on it we'd be able to give far more support to small local volunteer groups."
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Labor and green groups predict the change will damage the environment.

Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said a previous ministerial review found it was important to fund groups such as conservation councils and national environmental groups, not just to plant trees, but also to advocate for important environmental outcomes.

"This (latest move) can only be seen as a backdoor way of trying to silence these groups," Mr Albanese said.

"The environment attack comes just two months after a letter was sent to all environmental groups threatening to remove tax deductibility status from their organisations.

"Were that to occur, it would devastate environmental groups throughout the country."

Australian Greens senator Bob Brown said the government was knifing the funding of environment groups that advocated for the environment, and thereby knifing Australia's environment.

"Environment groups that raise community awareness of lobby federal governments have been at the very heart of protecting Australia's environment for decades," Senator Brown said.

He said the Franklin River, the Daintree in Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef and the wild forests of New South Wales and Victoria were only now protected because of the on-the-ground campaigning of environment groups.

"It can be summed up by the contrast of the government refusing $10,000 to groups that want to stop the destruction of forests while Mr Howard has promised $50 million to the logging industry."

Clive Hamilton, head of left-wing think tank, the Australia Institute, said the change in the government's funding model was an attempt to silence vocal environment groups.

"What they want to do is direct their money to tame environment groups that won't create any difficulties and just go out there and do feel-good activities," he said.

"If the environment movement in Australia is going to be emasculated in this way, there's no question that in a decade or so Australia's environment will be in much worse shape then it is now."

Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said environment awareness would suffer.

Any thoughts?

 

[ohne]

I don't have anything against this. Where do you draw the line? Should think tanks receive public money, or social groups/clubs? If the government is to give out money they must be sure that iti is used productively. Actual environmental protection does far more than activism.

 

[neo o]

If the environmental groups have such little support within the community that they CAN'T SURVIVE without receiving large payments from the government (which I doubt anyway since a lot of these groups employ quite a few volunteers), then there is no place for them. The idea of "spreading the money out" over a greater amount of groups seems solid, especially for say groups in rural areas.

 

[Xayma]

I agree with the policy. Many environmental groups actually survive PURELY on volunteer basis, it would help them greatly if out of pocket expenses (excluding time, it is volunteering after all) would be minimised.

 

[neo o]

Quite simply the reduction in funding ensures that community minded environmental groups survive whilst political groups must gain enough support from the community to be able to carry on.

Seems fair, I don't see why a political group SHOULD be subsidised if it has no community support.

 

[HotShot]

Hmmm

I Should Be Agreeing With You Lot

But The Truth Is, Environmental Activities Groups And The Lot Are Just Bunch Of Crackpot Losers. Because Whatever You Do The Environment Is Freaken Destroyed. So Enjoy The Environment While You Can And Leave It Your Grandchildrent To Suffer.

Its Thier Problem! Lets Enjoy Life While We Can And Stuff The Rest!

 

[eco-activist]

The government exists to look past economic issues and do what is right for mankind doesn't it?

 

[neo o]

The government exists to look past economic issues and do what is right for mankind doesn't it?

1) No, they exist to do what is appropriate for their electorate. Furthermore, the pursuit of economic goals are often in the best interest of the electorate.

2) Read the posts in this thread.

 

[eco-activist]

But most public schools/hospitals wouldn't be able to stand on their own two feet. Do they not deserve government funding either?

 

[neo o]

But most public schools/hospitals wouldn't be able to stand on their own two feet. Do they not deserve government funding either?

Upon consideration of this post, I have come to two possible conclusions.

1) You posted this in the wrong thread. In the unlikely event that this is an accidental posting, my apologies.

2) You're a retard who doesn't know the difference between public hospitals/schools and redundant green groups.

And to tell you the truth, I'm more inclined to go with number two.

 

[Rorix]

The government exists to look past economic issues and do what is right for mankind doesn't it?

Firstly, economic issues generally result in outcomes that are beneficial to society. Attempts have been made to incorporate the social costs of negative environmental externalities into the price mechanism in some areas, but I doubt you're concerned with this since I'm willing to wager that you consider the environment to be unexpressable in monetary terms.

What you mean by 'right', then, is something obviously different from what economics seeks to obtain i.e. right and beneficial to society are not the same thing according to you, though they may overlap in many cases. Myself and Moonlight Sonata will now listen to your moral argument that the government is not doing what is right for mankind.

 

[eco-activist]

Firstly, economic issues generally result in outcomes that are beneficial to society. Attempts have been made to incorporate the social costs of negative environmental externalities into the price mechanism in some areas, but I doubt you're concerned with this since I'm willing to wager that you consider the environment to be unexpressable in monetary terms.

Lol, are you guys always so pompous? Yes, I understand the world we live in and that the mighty dollar comes first and foremost. You're right that attempts have been made to attach economic value to certain environmental issues. I don't have the information at hand but I dare say the economic costs of global warming could run into the billions of dollars.

What you mean by 'right', then, is something obviously different from what economics seeks to obtain i.e. right and beneficial to society are not the same thing according to you, though they may overlap in many cases. Myself and Moonlight Sonata will now listen to your moral argument that the government is not doing what is right for mankind.

Economics is not always the best indicator of what is right because the average investment cycle ensures a short term approach to payback. What if we run out of oil? What if sea levels rise and flood lowland areas? Governments tend to fall into this same trap because they have a limited term of government and thus only use policies that have consequences in their occupancy.

Is it right to do our best to ensure that future generations have a stable environment in which to live? I would say yes.