I have a little bookmark with the words:
“Whatever you can do,
Or dream you can,
Begin it,
Boldness has genius,
Power & Magic in it. Begin it Now.”
And so the Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) was launched on Sunday, on World Environment Day, in Tenterfield.
It was some years ago that I realized there was a need for a different kind of environment group; an evidence-based environmental group. It was on World Environment Day in 2001, the day the WWF launched its Save the Reef Campaign.
But I never imagined that it was for me to help get it started. I thought some clever ‘other persons’ would realize the need and people like me could then become members.
As it turns out, and as Kersten Gentle told the world on Michael Duffy’s program on Monday, and Melissa Fyfe repeated in The Age yesterday, I am the reluctant but proud Chairman of the AEF.
For some months one of the team has been saying as soon as we/the AEF launch someone will take legal action against us – and we’ll all be ruin. (But we never imagined the issue would be trade mark infringement!)
As it turned out we were issued with a 6-page letter very late last Friday from a legal firm (Arnold Bloch Leibler) representing the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claiming ‘trademark infringement’ and warning us against the Sunday launch.
We went ahead with the launch in Tenterfield anyway.
The legal advice on Monday was that we will not need to change our name, acronym or logo.
But you be the judge.
At the AEF website we have a poll so you can tell us whether you think our logo is anything like the ACF logo.
The questionaire shows the two logos and has only one question – so take the time, give us your advice go to http://www.aefweb.info/index.php.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You are very coy Jennifer. When I asked you previously about the origins of the AEF and who was involved, you decided not to mention your own involvement, and your role as chairman? How come?
I don’t think the AEF logo looks anything like the ACF logo.
I *do* think that the text “Australian Environment Foundation” is very similar to “Australian Conservation Foundation”, and the acronyms are similar, and I think that at least some people will confuse the two groups.
Not sure that there is anything the ACF can legally do about it though.
The poll is bogus, because it focusses on the logo rather than the title and acronym, where the real issue is. Don’t you agree?
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the comment.
I was coy re. your email a couple of days out from the launch. At that stage there was much happening and we weren’t even sure where the launch was going to be, the original plan was Canberra, but it ended up in Tenterfield.
It was a bit the same with our logo. It wouldn’t have perhaps been my first choice (our current logo). It is the logo from the Eureka Forum that someone with limited graphic design experience ‘knocked up’ at the last minute for that event.
Then when the AEF website was being designed it was suggested we needed a logo – the ‘immedidate solution’ seemed to be to borrow the logo from the Eureka Forum and I guess we are stuck with it now.
As for me as Chair, well it was with reluctance I took on the position and yes, I have been coy about it. Our inaugural Chair was Barry Cohen (x-Labour Environment Minister in the Hawke government) but due to ill health and other commitments, has not continued in the position -he did get us started and for that we are grateful.
Your question last night (posted somewhere else on this blog) related to links to the IPA. The IPA was behind the Eureka Forum (along with many others) and the forum resulted in the formation of a committee that resulted in the formation of the AEF. In the paperwork associated with registering the company/foundation that is the AEF, there was a need to give a physical address and rightly/wrongly the IPA address in Collin Street, Melbourne, was used.
The AEF team works from their own homes which are spread from Townsville (Nth Queensland) through central NSW to Healesville in Victoria. I live and work in Brisbane.
We have a membership and directors drawn from both the left and right of politics. Many dislike the IPA as an organisation. Overwhelmingly our members recognises the need for a new and different type of environment group.
The AEF is not associated with the IPA in any financial, policy or other way. We are an independent, membership-based environmental organisation that really values evidence.
I agree with Steve.
When Jennifer first posted re establishment of the AEF there was not a word about her having a key role. It gave the impression she was just an interested observer. Nor did she disclose anything about Kersten Gentle’s background, although she obviously knew.How can we trust anything Jennifer says about the AEF in future when she has not been open from the start.
What’s the problem about having an environmental organisation that is truly evidence based? Who cares what the new one is called, as long as it truly is evidence based and not idealogically driven? If it lives up to its charter, it will be easy enough to distinguish from ACF, Greenpeace, or any of the more left leaning organisations. It should also have a huge popular appeal to people on both sides of politics who value practical solutions. I hope it prospers!
Remember when the Democrats started off? Gordon Barton and Don Chipp? Then the looney left slowly infiltrated it and we have what we have now.
Same with Greenpeace – it started off with all the right motives until post 1989 when another mass migration occurred.
Will it happen to the AEF?
Yes, because that is the price we must pay if we want the freedom of association.
We have already seen the ACF exercise its enthusiasm for the AEF and no doubt the entire ‘green’-machine will close ranks.
I’ve always found that one of the most despicable aspects of popularist environmentalism is its rampant snobbery. Some up here in the Daintree overtly contend that we need to get rid of the riff-raff; that such a place should be reserved for people with an education.
‘Thinking’ environmentalists, in my opinion, should humble themselves at every opportunity and admit that they can learn a great deal from the people that live at the centre of what is perceived to be ‘at risk’.
The AEF is unique amongst representative environmental bodies for its incorporation of the needs and aspirations of people affected by the organisation’s pursuit of environmental objectives.
An inclusive, politically unalligned environmental foundation that cares about people – what a refreshing approach and one worth fighting for. In this respect, I take great comfort from the integrity, capability and enthusiasm of the Chair, however humble and reluctant.
Mind you when the Australian Liberal Party and Republican Party in the USA were formed they had entirely different ideas until the ‘looney’ right moved in. This sort of thing is not confined to what you term the loony left.
As a member of the Greens I have come up against the more radical environmentalists however I am not one of them. I am trying, this very afternoon in fact, to inject some more reality into the Green policies so catagorising all environmentalists as snobs and riff-raff is totally wrong. If is was not for these snobs and riff-raff as you call them the Daintree would be gone now along with the unique and yet to be discovered species that inhabit it.
Local knowledge counts for a massive amount and most National Parks would be better managed with local input. However there are so many unscrupulous people that claim to be locals that would give advice that is biased toward their latest get rich quick scheme.
It is very hard to find the right balance and I do not think the Green movement has found it yet. I do not think this new movement has the balance either if this is what is on the site.
“rather than just accept the sometimes false ideology that is often taught in schools today”
Who says it is false? In you opinion it is false because it goes against your ideology however that does not make it false.
Lets go though your aims:
” * Evidence – policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.”
Sure if the evidence is not filtered and thought to be false.
“* Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.”
CB analysis are not always approriate. Look at the Ford Pinto – the CB said let the people die as it is cheaper than remaking the car. How does a bird species value get onto a ledger?
“* Technology – appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented.”
Technology is sometimes wonderful however there is not a techno fix for everything. Being humble is admitting that you do not have all the answers.
“* Management – active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic.”
They may be dynamic however that does not mean that it is OK to change them just because you want to. THis is wrong.
“* Diversity – biological diversity is maintained.”
How are you going to do this if the landscape is dynamic as you term it. Every time the landscape changes some diversity is lost.
“* People – the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration.”
But not always the only consideration. If more money can be made from preservation and eco-tourism then why destroy it. Also you have to ask who benefits. Woodchipping only benefits the shareholders of the company and the locals that own the trees. So when you say people who do you mean???? Influential people??
Regarding the legal protest (threat?) from ACF about breach of copyright or somethig similar.
The ACF itself is not entirely pure in the way it has presented itself to the community.
It started off in the 1970s as a benign positive contributor to environmental well-being and the scrutineer of environmental misdeeds. It was largely driven by movers and shakers fron industry and government, and its initial activities were financed basically by industry. In its early years it did some good work.
But the radical environmentalists perceived that they were supping with the devil, and things must be changed. A very dramatic coup was staged and succeeded, with an across-the-board spill of management positions and a dyed-in-the- wool left-wing green in charge. Naturally the industry funds dried up.
The rest is history. ACF has gone through a couple of shifts of emphasis, but apparently it is currently antagonistic to anybody else trying to steal its idealogical thunder.
I say, let the best man(?) win, or better still, let the best ideas win.
Norman Endacott
Ender,
How easily we misinterpret.
Not all environmentalists are snobs; nor are they riff-raff.
In my opinion, Australian environmentalism is rampantly snobbish; it disenfranchises people without academic qualifications.
Is it not fanatical to alienate Daintree landholders on the dubious grounds of academia? Afterall, what greater personal influence can we affect, beyond outright ownership in fee simple?
You postulate that the Daintree rainforest would be gone forever … along with the unique and yet to be discovered species that inhabit it … and yet its very survival, beyond catastrophic global climate change, was most recently secured by Sir Joh Bjelke Peterson in his government’s (uncharacteristic) opposition to wholesale clearing for sugar cane cropping.
No doubt there are good people in the popularist environmental serctor, just as surely as there are good intensions in the AEF, but let us fight the common enemy of disregard and indiffernce and dispense with the political futility of one-upmanship.
How refreshing it is to finally see the establishment of a fair dinkum environmental group!
For over 25 years the lies and misinformation peddled by the extreme green lobby has been suffocating. It is an insult that they try to portray themselves as having a monopoly on caring for the environment.
I have worked in the timber industry for over 30 years and am extremely proud of what I do and what we collectively have achieved during that period.
Why am I not surprised that the ACF so quick to attempt to place barriers in the way of this new organisation??!! Why would they ever want the truth to be known about the real issues of our environment?
It is such a shame that organisations like the Wilderness Society and ACF don’t seem to work towards achieving some of the more positive things that could become a reality. In Tasmania for example, the eradication of some of the introduced weeds such as gorse and willows which are choking so many of our rivers and streams. The elimination of some of the other ferral pests such as cats and starlings. Guess there might not be enough controversy in those ideas for them.
Congratulations on the launch of the Australian Environment Foundation. My subscription to Australian Environment Foundation will be in the mail today!
I say two things: 1. Anyone who does not know how to spell emissions should not be commenting on them. 2. For your new environmental organisation to claim it is ‘evidence-based’ implying the others aren’t, is libellous.
And a question: Is Exxon-Mobil paying you too?