climate change – Page 3 – Michmutters
Categories
Australia

Federal government declares Australia’s first six offshore wind energy zones

The federal government has declared Australia’s first offshore wind zone, giving developers the green light to ramp up planning and consultation for wind farm projects.

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced waters off the Gippsland coast, in Victoria’s south-east, would be the first offshore wind zone.

Other areas will follow off the coast of the Hunter Valley and Illawarra in New South Wales, Portland in Victoria, Northern Tasmania, Perth and Bunbury in Western Australia.

Developers last week told the ABC projects were being held up by the federal government dragging their feet on the impending declaration, which allows them to consult and then apply for permits.

Mr Bowen said other countries had been successfully producing energy from wind farms in the ocean for years, and it was Australia’s time to catch up.

“We have some of the best wind resources in the world,” Mr Bowen said.

“Just one rotation of one offshore wind turbine provides as much energy as an average rooftop solar installation generates in one day.”

Climate energy market analyst Tim Buckley said the declaration was a step forward, but all levels of government would need to work together.

“Energy Minister Chris Bowen is right to open offshore wind for public consultation,” Mr Buckley said.

“Offshore wind development is going to need a high degree of policy support and forward planning because of the complex supply chains that would have to be developed in Australia and higher costs of construction.

“We need to weigh up the additional costs related to offshore wind construction and see where it makes the most economic sense.

“We need to value the balancing or base-load nature of the generation, to support the sometimes intermittent nature of onshore wind and solar.”

Gippsland moving from coal to wind

Mr Bowen said the Star of the South proposal off the Victorian coast in Bass Strait would generate enough electricity to cater for 20 per cent of Victoria’s energy needs.

Gippsland wind farm sites
Sites of proposed wind farms off the Gippsland coast.(ABC Gippsland: Paul Sellenger)

Star of the South is Danish-owned and was the first proposed offshore wind farm, put forward four years ago.

The company plans to build up to 200 wind turbines, with the closest located 7 kilometers from the coastline.

Star of the South chief executive Erin Coldham says the company hopes to begin power generation before the expected closure of Yallourn Power Station in 2028.

“There’s a proud history here of power generation for more than 100 years so there’s really great access to the grid which supplies to the rest of the east coast, the sea depths are perfect and there’s some really unique wind conditions,” Ms Coldham said.

The company aims to begin construction in 2025 and says the project would create 2,000 construction jobs and 200 ongoing operational roles.

An offshore power plant with offshore wind turbines in the background
Offshore wind power generation is a fast-growing sector of the renewable energy industry, such as this offshore wind power plant in Yantai, Shandong Province, China.(Getty Images: CFOTO/Future Publishing)

Consultation starts now

Mr Bowen’s announcement signals the start of a 60-day consultation period with communities and users of waters in the nominated areas.

AUSWIDE OFFSHORE WIND
Sites earmarked as offshore wind zones in Australia.(ABC Gippsland: Paul Sellenger)

The federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will facilitate the consultation process.

Transmission lines, which are expected to be above ground, will run from the wind zone to the energy grid in the Latrobe Valley, which currently sends power generated by the Yallourn and Loy Yang Power Stations.

“It’s important that issues surrounding transmission lines through private property to link large scale renewable projects to the national grid are handled sensitively and transparently,” federal Nationals member for Gippsland Darren Chester said.

.

Categories
Australia

Climate target bill passes lower house after being amended by Greens and ‘teal’ crossbenchers

A bill to write the government’s 43 per cent emissions reduction target into law has passed the lower house after the government agreed to several minor amendments from the crossbench.

The federal government did not need the votes of crossbenchers in the lower house to pass its climate target bill, but it agreed to support amendments moved by a number of independents.

The “teal” independent MPs who swept into parliament on a platform of climate action and government integrity have celebrated the federal government’s willingness to negotiate changes to its bill.

Independent MP Zali Steggall, who topped former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2019, said negotiations on the first major piece of legislation to be brought to parliament had been much more collaborative than with the previous government.

“I can only say the evidence so far is that there is a genuine desire from senior ministers in the government to work with us, they have heard the calls from our communities,” Ms Steggall said.

“We are getting numerous briefings on significant pieces of legislation, we are contributing, we are raising our concerns and amendments are being agreed to.”

The government voted to amend its bill to spell out that its approach to emissions reduction would draw on the “best available scientific knowledge”, that its 43 per cent target was a minimum standard, and that climate change policies benefit regional communities.

It will now also have to seek advice from the Climate Change Authority before setting future climate targets.

Before voting to pass the bill, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen took a moment to thank the crossbench for their contributions, saying “today is a good day for our country.”

Crossbench lends support, but aims for higher target

The teal MPs were disappointed by a target they see as insufficient for limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, and said they would continue to push the government for more ambitious action.

The government rejected a separate Greens amendment to lift its target to reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said the government’s target would lead to the death of the Great Barrier Reef, failed crops and worsening natural disasters.

“That is the science. That is why we are doing this,” Mr Bandt said.

“We’re not doing this to try [to] stop pollution a little bit. We are doing this to try [to] stop climate change becoming a runaway chain reaction.”

Bowen stands with his arms leaning on the dispatch box on the lower house floor as he speaks.
Chris Bowen said the government would support amendments where they were in line with its policy.(ABC News: Nick Haggarty)

Ms Steggall said the next step for the government must be to phase out oil, coal and gas by ending new approvals, a key sticking point of the Greens, who agreed yesterday to give the bill the votes needed to pass the senate despite not receiving that concession.

Independent MP Kylea Tink said the government must also continue the collaborative precedent it has set.

“The planning starts from now, so whether it’s a fight or whether it’s the capacity to actually work together to move our country forward is what this parliament needs to decide,” Ms Tink said.

“We won’t just accept the minister’s word and we won’t just take it on good faith these things are going to happen.”

Wilson wears a long scarf with bands of red, yellow, white and shades of blue, with rows transitioning from blue to red.
Labor MP Josh Wilson wore a scarf to the chamber that depicted annual average temperatures over time, with each row representing the temperature that year compared to historical averages.(ABC News: Nick Haggarty)

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government’s core policies on climate change were not up for negotiation, but the government would continue to work constructively where reasonable suggestions were made.

He said the climate target bill would not hasten the closure of coal and gas facilities.

Senior Liberal backs 43 per cent emissions target

The Opposition formally decided to oppose the climate target bill earlier this week, though some Liberals have broken with the party in support of an increased target, including Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer who crossed the floor to support the bill.

Shadow Foreign Minister Simon Birmingham said this morning he also supported the higher target, though he stopped short of backing the bill.

“If the 43 per cent target required legislation then I would have wanted to vote for it in a heartbeat. However, it doesn’t require legislation,” Senator Birmingham told ABC Radio.

“[Opposition Leader] Peter Dutton has been clear following the deliberations the Coalition’s had this week that we will be taking a greater level of ambition to the next election.

“The test will now be in terms of that policy, making sure that it is a genuine policy for higher levels of emission reduction.”

Sukkar and Tudge sit looking at their phones, and Joyce sits with his folded arms, on the opposition benches.
The Opposition determined it would oppose the government’s climate target bill.(ABC News: Nick Haggarty)

New MP Monique Ryan, who won Kooyong from former treasurer Josh Frydenberg at the election, said Liberals were leaving their electorates out of the conversation by refusing to engage.

“My predecessor in Kooyong never crossed the floor in his 12 years in parliament,” Dr Ryan said.

“I think that the people of Kooyong today will be very happy that they have a representative who has worked with the government to make this bill stronger, rather than refusing to engage with it and in doing so losing their own voice.

“By taking themselves out of the discussion the Liberals have disenfranchised the people they represent.”

.

Categories
Australia

Tanya Plibersek proposes blocking Clive Palmer’s Queensland coal mine on environmental grounds

For the first time in Australian history, a federal environment minister has set the wheels in motion to reject a coal mine.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has proposed the rejection of Clive Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project on the grounds it is likely to damage the Great Barrier Reef.

The decision remains a “proposal” because a final decision can only be made after 10 days of further consultation, including public comment. But given the wide range of reasons cited by the minister, it is unlikely to be approved.

The planned mining site is just 10 kilometers from the Great Barrier Reef near Rockhampton, and was likely to have contributed to ocean pollution, according to the minister.

“Based on the information available to me at this stage, I believe that the project would be likely to have unacceptable impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and the values ​​of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and National Heritage Place,” Ms Plibersek said.

A map shows the location of a mine and the location of the Great Barrier Reef.
Clive Palmer’s proposed coal mine site is just 10 kilometers from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.(abcnews)

The decision was also based on potential impacts to local water resources.

Although it is the first time a federal environment minister has proposed to reject an application to develop a coal mine, the Queensland government recommended the rejection last year.

The move was announced the same day the government passed its climate bill through the lower house, with the support of the cross bench including the Greens.

The Greens have been pushing the government to reject all coal and gas projects while the government has said it will approve those that stack up environmentally.

“That’s now one down and 113 to go. There’s 114 of these projects in the pipeline,” Greens leader Adam Bandt said.

The Greens have also been pushing for a “climate trigger” that would require the potential impacts of coal and gas projects on climate change to be considered by the environment minister. As it stands, the potential climate change impact of this mine was not considered in the approval process.

Conservationists, activists glad minister ‘listened to warnings’

The preliminary decision was applauded by conservationists and climate activists.

“This is the right proposed decision for the Great Barrier Reef from the environment minister,” Cherry Muddle from the Australian Marine Conservation Society said.

“We are glad she has listened to warnings from government-appointed and independent scientists, as well as the Queensland government who said the mine was ‘not suitable’ to proceed in April 2021.

“In the wake of the fourth mass bleaching event on the reef since 2016, it is vital new coal and gas projects like this one are refused. It shows the government are serious about saving the reef and tackling the issues that threaten it.”

A photo from above the Great Barrier Reef shades of blue ocean
Queensland’s environment department deemed Clive Palmer’s project “not suitable” to proceed last year.(Facebook: Great Barrier Reef Legacy/File photo)

The proposed project included two open-cut pits north of Rockhampton over an area of ​​more than 2,660 hectares.

The detailed reasons for the proposed decision have not yet been released, but included impacts on a world heritage area, and on-water resources. The project’s potential impacts on threatened species was not listed as a reason for rejection.

The public has 10 days to comment on the proposed decision.

Mr Palmer’s company Central Queensland Coal was not available for comment.

The Queensland government concluded in 2021 the mine would generate royalties for the state of between $703 million and $766 million in total.

.

Categories
US

Coal industry ‘shocked and disheartened’ by Manchin climate deal

The West Virginia Coal Association and several other state-based coal industry groups on Wednesday blasted the tax and climate deal that Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) agreed to last week, warning it will “severely threaten American coal” and an estimated 381,000 jobs.

“This legislation is so egregious, it leaves those of us that call Sen. Manchin a friend, shocked and disheartened,” the groups wrote in a blistering statement that accused the West Virginia senator of zigzagging in the energy debate.

“Sen. Manchin has seemingly fought against numerous climate measures advanced over the past year by the national democratic establishment,” the groups said. “The current Schumer-Manchin draft agreement on climate and energy frankly leaves us questioning the motivation and sincerity of Manchin’s previous stance and his repeated chant from him: we must ‘innovate not eliminate.’”

The groups warn the deal Manchin crafted with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (DN.Y.) after months of negotiation “will quickly diminish our coal producing operations and all but obviate any need to innovate coal assets.”

The groups argue the bill — which Democrats have dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act and plan to pass this weekend — will do “nothing for coal or coal generation” and won’t reduce inflation or lower household energy costs.

“By turbocharging the lofty incentives that already extend to renewable energy, our nation’s baseload (reliable) coal electric generation assets will continue to be devalued and thrust into rapid decline,” the groups warned.

The statement was signed by Chris Hamilton, the president of the West Virginia Coal Association, as well as the leaders of the Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming mining associations.

Manchin on Tuesday said he didn’t agree with predictions the bill will lead to coal plants closing in his state.

“I don’t think that’s the case at all,” he told reporters. “We have to have a vibrant fossil industry. We have a lot of coal plants that have been pretty old.”

“Coal is going to be needed for the base load that we’re going to have to have,” he said, arguing that coal will continue to generate enough electricity to meet minimum domestic demand.

Manchin also cited permitting reform, an initiative he is pushing in conjunction with the energy and climate provisions in the budget bill, as something that will also help fossil fuel producers.

.

Categories
US

Coal industry ‘shocked and disheartened’ by Manchin climate deal

The West Virginia Coal Association and several other state-based coal industry groups on Wednesday blasted the tax and climate deal that Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) agreed to last week, warning it will “severely threaten American coal” and an estimated 381,000 jobs.

“This legislation is so egregious, it leaves those of us that call Sen. Manchin a friend, shocked and disheartened,” the groups wrote in a blistering statement that accused the West Virginia senator of zigzagging in the energy debate.

“Sen. Manchin has seemingly fought against numerous climate measures advanced over the past year by the national democratic establishment,” the groups said. “The current Schumer-Manchin draft agreement on climate and energy frankly leaves us questioning the motivation and sincerity of Manchin’s previous stance and his repeated chant from him: we must ‘innovate not eliminate.’”

The groups warn the deal Manchin crafted with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (DN.Y.) after months of negotiation “will quickly diminish our coal producing operations and all but obviate any need to innovate coal assets.”

The groups argue the bill — which Democrats have dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act and plan to pass this weekend — will do “nothing for coal or coal generation” and won’t reduce inflation or lower household energy costs.

“By turbocharging the lofty incentives that already extend to renewable energy, our nation’s baseload (reliable) coal electric generation assets will continue to be devalued and thrust into rapid decline,” the groups warned.

The statement was signed by Chris Hamilton, the president of the West Virginia Coal Association, as well as the leaders of the Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming mining associations.

Manchin on Tuesday said he didn’t agree with predictions the bill will lead to coal plants closing in his state.

“I don’t think that’s the case at all,” he told reporters. “We have to have a vibrant fossil industry. We have a lot of coal plants that have been pretty old.”

“Coal is going to be needed for the base load that we’re going to have to have,” he said, arguing that coal will continue to generate enough electricity to meet minimum domestic demand.

Manchin also cited permitting reform, an initiative he is pushing in conjunction with the energy and climate provisions in the budget bill, as something that will also help fossil fuel producers.

.

Categories
US

Sinema eyes changes to tax, climate portions of reconciliation bill

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is eyeing changes to Democrats’ $740 billion reconciliation bill — specifically increasing climate funding and restructuring the tax provisions — as the Senate moves rapidly toward final passage before the August recess, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Sinema is the one senator potentially standing in the way of Democrats clinching President Biden’s longtime goal of passing an ambitious package tackling climate change, health care and taxes — renamed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”

  • That position gives her a huge amount of leverage as Democrats await a verdict from the Senate parliamentarian on whether the bill complies with the “Byrd Rule,” which controls what provisions can be included in the budget reconciliation process.
  • The fact the negotiations were conducted entirely in secret between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.V.) — catching Sinema by surprise — has left her space for an 11th hour intervention.
  • Sinema has so far refused to weigh in on whether or not she will support the bill until the parliamentarian renders her judgment on the measure.

What we’re hearing: Sinema is looking at significantly beefing up the reconciliation bill’s funding for droughts and water security in the Southwest, sources familiar with her thought process tell Axios.

  • She views the current $369 billion climate and energy portion of the bill as insufficient for addressing threat resilience funding.

On taxes, Sinema has concerns with the structure of the 15% corporate minimum “book tax” and whether the burden could get passed down to employees, the sources said.

  • Sinema supports cracking down on tax avoidance, but has long voiced her opposition to closing the carried interest loophole.
  • She’s concerned that the provision, which would contribute $14 billion toward paying down the bill’s $740 billion total, could undermine economic competitiveness, the sources said.

Behind-the-scenes: Sinema has been meeting privately, both virtually and in-person, with key stakeholders in Arizona as she continues to work through her assessment of the bill.

  • Sinema last week visited Flagstaff, Arizona, where she met with local officials who are still reeling from recent flooding and a wildfire that ravaged the state.
  • Arizona is one of the fastest-warming states in the US, and the state’s largest county, Maricopa County, has already hit a record for heat-related deaths this year.
  • “There are some who were surprised to learn Kyrsten was enthusiastic about the climate provisions last year, because they rightly consider her a centrist. But she’s a Senator from Arizona, first and foremost,” John LaBombard, Sinema’s former communications director and SVP at ROKK Solutions tells Axios.

in to phone call tuesday with Arizona’s Chamber of Commerce, local business leaders and manufacturers discussed with Sinema what the proposed 15% corporate minimum tax and closure of the carried interest loophole would mean for Arizona.

  • The private equity industry, which has contributed heavily to Sinema, is lobbying her heavily on shooting down the carried interest portion.
  • “I remember last year, she was hearing feedback from small business owners, concerned about the potential implications of any tax policy changes, and how it might affect their capital investment streams,'” LaBombard said.
  • “She is somebody who errs on the side of caution when it comes to changing tax policies. … obviously, I think [their input] shaped where she is on the economic parts of this bill.”

What they’re saying: “What’s clear from our conversation is she’s taking a thoughtful and diligent approach as she considers her position on this legislation,” Danny Seiden, CEO of the Arizona Chamber, told Axios’ Hans Nichols.

  • “She was very interested in learning what specific impacts the tax provisions will have on Arizona manufacturers — and we believe she will consider these implications seriously as negotiations continue over the coming days.”

.

Categories
Australia

Government’s 43 per cent emissions target set to become law, as Greens offer votes needed to pass climate bill

The Greens will offer critical support to a climate bill that will legislate the government’s 2030 emissions reduction target, giving it the numbers it needs to pass in the Senate.

Labor has introduced a bill to enshrine its 43 per cent emissions reduction target into law and tighten up reporting schemes to track progress towards the target.

Greens leader Adam Bandt has told the National Press Club that his party will back the bill, giving it the votes needed to pass.

Mr Bandt said he remained “bitterly disappointed” the government would not ban new coal and gas projects, and that the party would vote to send the bill for inquiry, where they hope to prove Labor’s climate policies would fail to meet a legislated 43 per cent target.

“Labor might be holding out now, but their position is ultimately untenable, and they can’t go to upcoming climate summits, vowing to open new coal and gas projects and expect to be taken seriously,” he said.

Mr Bandt said the party will now push to shut down future projects by amending the safeguard mechanism, which penalizes big polluting companies that go over a set carbon emissions ceiling.

Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen shut down any prospect of a coal and gas moratorium being introduced through the safeguard mechanism, saying the government would implement its election plan “without alteration”.

Mr Bowen said it will begin consulting on the emissions lever later this month.

.

Categories
Australia

Blockade Australia climate activist can’t use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

Since late June, Greg Rolles must produce on demand his computer and mobile phone for police inspection, and tell them his passwords.

He is not allowed to use any encrypted messaging apps, like Signal or WhatsApp. He can only have one mobile phone.

And there is a list of 38 people, many of whom are his friends, who he’s not allowed to associate with in any way — even, another activist found, liking a post on social media.

These are the strict technology-related bail conditions imposed on some Blockade Australia climate protesters—a development legal experts have criticized as “unusual” and “extreme”.

The climate action network was linked to a series of protests earlier this year, targeting ports and freight trains in New South Wales, and a property where activists were gathered was raided by police.

More than 30 people were arrested for unauthorized protests and disrupting traffic, among other charges, according to police statements.

In April, the NSW Parliament passed laws with steep fines and jail time for activities that “shut down major economic activity”, including protesting illegally on public roads, rail lines, tunnels, bridges and industrial estates.

a person is held while police officers place handcuffs on the person
A Blockade Australia protester is arrested by NSW Police. Eleven activists were arrested following action in Sydney on June 27.(Twitter: Blockade Australia)

Mr Rolles was arrested in late June, when he was pulled off the street in Sydney for allegedly blocking roads and obstructing traffic.

As soon as he was released under the bail conditions, he deleted Signal and lost many of his contacts. Because he ca n’t use WhatsApp, he said he can no longer communicate with people in Afghanistan for whom he was organizing assistance with his church.

The vagueness of the encryption ban is also a concern for him. As well as barring specific apps like Signal and Telegram, it states “the defendant is prohibited from possessing or having access to an encrypted communications device and/or possessing an encrypted application/media application”.

Large swathes of the internet are encrypted, which simply means that information is converted into code to protect it from unwanted access. Apps from online banking to streaming services are typically encrypted.

“Encryption is everywhere because it’s a fundamental part of keeping modern communications technology secure and functional,” a spokesperson for Electronic Frontiers Australia said.

“[That includes] essentially any modern device, including laptops, mobile phones, ATMs, TVs, PlayStations, and government websites such as myGov, Medicare, and Centrelink.”

Mr Rolles said he was worried the provision could be read in its most strict interpretation.

“I’m quite afraid of how that’ll be enforced.

“I definitely always have that kind of background anxiety — will the police just knock on my door?

“If a police officer was a bit annoyed at me, could they say, ‘you’ve been making phone calls, that’s encrypted’?”

Mr Rolles has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

Facebook ‘thumbs up’ lands activist in hot water

Defense lawyer Mark Davis, who is representing some of the Blockade Australia activists, said the vagueness of the prohibition was concerning.

“It used to name the things you couldn’t have, and then they made it all encrypted communication,” he said.

“It could be you’re on your PlayStation.”

He also takes issue with the non-association rules, and the lack of specificity about what an “association” might be.

.

Categories
Entertainment

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s unprecedented pressure after 12 hellish days

The very best thing about being Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, right now, as far as I can tell, is that no one is going to make them go to Birmingham. On Friday, the Commonwealth Games opened in the Midlands city and in the coming days, various members of the royal family will be sent forth to do their flag-waving best.

Never mind that much of Europe is busy slathering on the SPF 50 or that the Queen has begun her usual summer hols or that the beaches of Mustique are calling. To be a working member of the British monarchy this week requires that all available HRHs front up while looking jolly pleased to have to wear a Team GB polo shirt and watch badminton.

Having absconded more than two and a half years ago for sunnier climes and fatter bank accounts, this sort of tedious duty is no longer part of the Sussexes’ lives.

Small mercies, huh?

However, aside from the fact that the couple won’t have to contend with so much polyester and so many hours of archery anytime soon, things are not exactly looking that rosy over Montecito way, with the couple having taken hit after hit over the last 12 days or so.

Rewind to July 18 and Harry and Meghan were jetting into New York where they had an appointment at the UN, with the duke having been asked to give the address to mark Nelson Mandela Day. In the couple strode to the famed building’s foyer, a masterful demonstration of what has become a hallmark of their post-royal careers – purposefully marching into the important buildings for supposedly important meetings and events after which … nothing much would seem to happen.

Anyway, they were back! Back at doing their quasi-royal darnedest! Harry had a speech, Meghan had a Jackie O-esque black dress – what could possibly go wrong?

Well, for one thing, not that many people turned up. As the Duke of Sussex gave his address to him, talking about climate change (conveniently forgetting that the family uses private jets on the reg), disinformation and abortion rights (all the good stars on these fronts) the vast majority of the seats were visibly empty.

For whatever reason, the bulk of the great and good of the international body would seem to have decided to be elsewhere and not watch the sixth in line to the throne have a crack at international statesmanship. (Maybe the UN cafeteria was serving waffles?)

If Harry looked grim when the couple was caught by the paparazzi leaving Italian restaurant Locanda Verde, he had every reason to look sour. That week saw the publication of biographer Tom Bower’s Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors.

Bower’s book is a largely unrelenting, highly unflattering take on the Sussexes, casting them as fueled by ego and some misguided notion that Meghan was going to be Diana mark two, aside from the fact that, in the biographer’s telling, she seemed to have no interest in the monarchy, no willingness to learn its fusty ropes and little enthusiasm for the boring parts of HRH-dom.

As the week progressed, Bower did the press rounds, offering a series of caustic takes including that he thought “they pose a real threat to the royal family” and labeling the duchess “a very scheming” person.

What is surprising has been the reaction from Montecito, with the Sussexes having so far not commented. While in the past, the duo have filed multiple court cases against various media outlets and sent out legal letters during the storm over their daughter Lilibet’s name, however in this instance they have remained staunchly silent.

Then came the development playing out in a court in Florida when lawyers for the duchess got into the “subjective” nature of truth. Earlier this year, the former actress was sued by her estranged half-sister Samantha Markle for allegedly telling “false and malicious lies” during her bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview last year.

This week, the Duchess of Sussex’s lawyers moved to dismiss the case, with legal papers filed by their side arguing that Meghan’s description of growing up “as an only child” during the interview was “obviously not meant to be a statement of objective fact” and was “a textbook example of a subjective statement about how a person feels about her childhood.”

While it’s an argument that has more than a tinge of Philosophy 101 (what is truth?) this strategy then raises an obvious question: If Meghan’s characterization about her upbringing was “subjective” then were any of the other devastating claims she made during the two -hour tell-all “subjective” too?

One bright spot on the horizon for the duo during all this was Harry’s successful appeal to the High Court for a judicial review over the Home Office’s decision to no longer automatically grant him full-time bodyguards when he is in the UK.

Except, even this was not exactly a slam dunk; just because the review was granted does not mean it will automatically be successful.

Then there is the cost of the whole legal imbroglio. the Sun has reported that the UK government has spent $156,000 on the case from September last year to May 2020. If Harry’s costs are similar then that would mean he has also spent well into the six figures to argue the case over his security arrangements which only pertain to the handful of days per year he has spent, on average, in the UK since quitting.

That bill could only go up if he ultimately loses the case, with the Home Office having previously said it will look to recover costs if they win.

While August is a traditionally quiet month on the Planet Royal, the rest of the year is shaping up to be a barnstormer of a doozy.

Harry is looking down the barrel of some of the most monumental months of his life since the sonic boom of Megxit, with news his memoir will be published before Christmas and with Page Six having reported that Netflix wants the couple’s “at home” docu series (shush you in the back there yelling “reality show”!) to hit screens this year too.

This book and show will very likely prove to be huge commercial successes for the couple, much needed professional wins after having released exactly no content up until this point for the streaming giant, since 2020 – but at what cost?

If either or both of these projects are focused on little more than the Sussexes launching a fresh volley of complaints about their treatment by the royal family, interspersed with some vignettes of them doing some caring, then they could be playing with fire.

If this scenario came to pass, they would run the risk of looking dangerously like little more than perpetual whingers who are clinging to the self-appointed victim status inside their $20 million mansion at a time when war, fire, floods and monkeypox are blighting the world.

Then there is what toll these two releases could take for his tattered relationship with House of Windsor, a bond that is reportedly hanging by a thread.

as the Sun’s former royal editor Duncan Lacrombe recently told the Daily Beast: “Once the book is out, William will have to make a decision about what he is going to do about Harry, but he is not going to do a thing until he knows what is on.” every page of that book. The reality is that if, as a senior member of the royal family, you have written a tell-all book, you have broken rule No. 1 of the royal family.”

If Harry’s book and/or their Netflix series sees them paint big fresh targets on the monarchy’s backs then will Queen & co. sit idly by and suffer through a fresh hellish round of monarchical character assassinations?

Thus far the Sussexes’ repeated media provocations have been met with a certain imperiousness and contrived dismissiveness from London but should the duke and duchess continue to bait the royal family but we might soon discover that The Firm has some very sharp teeth.

For example, the duo do still, of course, use their gifted Sussex titles from the Queen, day in and day out. While only parliament could officially revoke those titles, that is not to say the weight of the Crown and Harry’s father and brother could not be brought to bear pressure on them to no longer use them.

Would Prince Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (or Prince Harry and Princess Henry of Wales) as they could only then call themselves be quite so marketable for Hollywood?

There is so much on the line for them in the coming month – their image, reputations, careers and potentially even a large chunk of money. But, there is always a sliver lining: At least no one is going to be making them sit through a table tennis match any time soon.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.

Read related topics:prince harry

.

Categories
US

Manchin says Sinema not involved in bill talks because he ‘didn’t think it would come to fruition’

Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) on Sunday said the reason lawmakers such as Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) were not brought into negotiations on a climate, health care and tax deal that he struck with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (DN.Y.) was that he feared it wouldn’t come to “fruition. ”

The deal would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats, placing Sinema, who was not involved in the behind-the-scenes negotiations, in close scrutiny until she announces a position.

“The reason people weren’t brought into this, I didn’t think it would come to fruition,” Manchin told CNN “State of the Union” co-anchor Jake Tapper. “I didn’t want to disappoint people.”

The bill is a slimmed-down package from the roughly $3 trillion Build Back Better deal Democrats hoped to pass before Manchin announced he couldn’t support the bill late last year after months of wrangling over a potential deal.

Manchin and Schumer had been negotiating for months on a smaller package. Their talks collapsed on July 14, but the two Democrats surprised many in Washington when they announced a deal last week.

The package would invest $369 billion in energy-focused climate programs over the next 10 years and $300 billion to reduce the deficit in addition to provisions to extend health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

When asked by Tapper if Sinema would support the bill, Manchin highlighted what he said were his contributions to the potential text.

He said Sinema was “very instrumental” in allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and the two moderate senators were in agreement to not raise taxes on Americans.

“She has so much in this piece of legislation,” Manchin said. “She’s formed quite a bit of it and worked on it very hard.”

Manchin added that he and Sinema “speak a lot” but declined to say the last time they met.

“Hopefully, she will be positive about it,” he said. “But she’ll make her decision. I respect that.”

Manchin said he hopes that the Senate will pass the bill this week before they leave for the upcoming August recess.

.