For all those who would be critical of protesters like Jonathan Moylan, let's zoom out to the big picture. 'Jono', as he is called by his friends, was given a suspended sentence last Friday 25 July. The previous day, Professor Sinclair Davidson took him and other environmentalists to task in The Conversation with 'Environmentalists have a right to protest — but not at all costs'. Davidson also had a go at the campaign to divest from fossil fuels.
In January last year Moylan circulated a media release purportedly from the ANZ bank that announced ANZ's withdrawal of a $1.26 billion loan facility to Whitehaven Coal for its Maules Creek coal project. While this was an act of fraud on Moylan's part, he was not unduly penalised because the judge understood that the hoax press release was not about personal gain, but a desire to protect the planet from Whitehaven's new mine.
When it comes to deception, let's compare the beam in the eye of the fossil fuel lobby with the splinter in Moylan's. Even apart from the findings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, it is well-known that companies regularly agree to environmental protection conditions to win licensing approvals, then fail to fulfil their commitments.
It appears that Whitehaven Coal provided inaccurate information to the NSW State Government regarding the like-for-like forest offsets that were necessary for the project to be approved. Independent ecologists have found that 'the majority of the offsets are not, in fact, box-gum woodland at all ... even the areas that are box-gum woodland are so degraded as to be very unlikely to ever reach a high quality status again.' Yet forest clearing continues and no penalty is imposed.
Likewise, even though the company committed to respecting the cultural rights of the Gomeroi traditional custodians of the area, to date, seven of their 11 sacred sites have been bulldozed. To add insult to injury, the Gomeroi are locked out of the forest even for funeral ceremonies.
Back to fossil fuel companies more generally and there are modus operandi which are quite legal but nonetheless ethically highly questionable. These have been detailed by former political insider, Guy Pearse, and his colleagues in their 2013 book Big Coal: Australia's Dirtiest Habit. For decades, the fossil fuel industry has quietly poured vast sums into supposedly 'independent' climate denial think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and the Heartland Institute (USA).
Large numbers of influential political lobbyists here and overseas are employed to ensure legislation is passed which limits support for renewables and maximises profits for fossil fuel companies. Attempts at regulation are met with public campaigns against either the regulation or the politicians pushing for it. We saw this with the unheralded campaign against the mining tax at the last election. When Davidson is critical of environmentalists for 'failing to convince voters', this is what we are up against.
In Australia, the public has been led to believe the mining sector creates jobs. The truth is, oil, gas and coal combined employ less than 1 per cent of the workforce. There would be many more jobs in tourism, renewable energy, energy efficiency, public transport and manufacturing if mining wasn't so politically privileged.
Regarding divestment campaigning, if anything, we need to protect those means by which ordinary people can organise to resist the distorting influence of the fossil fuel industry on our economies and political systems.
Let's now re-examine the actions of environmentalists. I speak as an insider, but happily not a stereotypical one. I am a grandmother of six, a practising Catholic and for some years was our local Catholic youth group mum. I was drawn to actions at the Leard Forest because other ways of protecting the future for my grandchildren were proving fruitless.
Any perception that environmentalists are 'coercive', feel they have 'an unlimited license to protest' or, worse, are 'violent', as alleged by the CEO of the NSW Minerals Council, are simply false. These claims do not mesh with my direct experience of the protestors at the Leard Forest or of environmentalists generally.
Having stayed with the protesters and seen them in action, I have been impressed with their disciplined dedication to an ethic of peaceful non-violence. They are locking onto equipment, blockading or perching high in tress, but the risk is only to themselves, not to others. It is not 'violence' to take these kinds of actions even if they frustrate the mine workers and annoy the police.
All plans for action are measured against principles of respect for all persons, including the police and workers. Any new people to the camp are drilled that vandalising property is unacceptable. Sexist or racist jokes are not tolerated. Drugs and drunkenness are out. Everyone must help with the work in the camp or on the farm.
If citizens of democracies are no longer allowed to organise either civil disobedience or divestment campaigns, as suggested by Davidson, God help us. The ballot box on its own does not create a robust democracy, and it certainly hasn't proven able to rein in the power of the fossil fuel lobby. How much weaker would our democracies be without a range of means by which to champion the common good?
Thea Ormerod is President of Australian Religious Response to Climate Change.