Federal

Jan 8, 2013

Whitehaven stunt among best environmental hoaxes

The Whitehaven Coal stunt mines a rich vein of environmental hoax activism. Crikey searched the archives to come up with a top ten list of stunts.

Andrew Crook — Former <em>Crikey</em> Senior Journalist

Andrew Crook

Former Crikey Senior Journalist

Anti-coal activist Jonathan Moylan’s hoax yesterday — announcing ANZ had withdrawn funding for Whitehaven Coal’s planned Moules Creek operation — got Crikey thinking about some of the best green stunts over the last few years.

33 comments

Leave a comment

33 thoughts on “Whitehaven stunt among best environmental hoaxes

  1. Jimmy

    Gladthat Crikey see this as a great stunt I am sure the small investors who lost their money wouldn’t be so generous!!

    And what exactly did the “best environmental hoax” achieve? No long term damge to the company, I haven’t seen anyone mention the exact point he was trying to make, even the big institutional investors, those that finance the supposed environmental damage, wouldn’t have lost much as they would have been able to verify the report much quicker than the average Joe.

    The only thing I see it achieving is wiping a few thousand from the SMSF’s of ordinary Australians and self funded retiree’s.

  2. Stefan Landherr

    I predict that Mr Moylan will be prosecuted by ASIC and sued for damages by sundry investors and traders. Wonder if he will still be smiling then.

  3. Jimmy

    Stefan – True he will probably get a fine from ASIC and be forced to pay damages but I dare say he has no assets so he won’t actually pay anything.

  4. gdt

    Considering that he had no intent to make money from his activities I’d be interested in how you think sentencing which lead to a jail term would be just. His lawyers could readily point to comparable activities by corporate directors which resulted in considerable unearned payments but didn’t result in jail.

    I also don’t understand the “small investors” point. They wouldn’t have been effected at all. It takes more than a day for “Mom and Pop” investors to respond to share price changes.

  5. Jimmy

    GDT – “I also don’t understand the “small investors” point. They wouldn’t have been effected at all. It takes more than a day for “Mom and Pop” investors to respond to share price changes.” That’s just rubbish – a lot of small investors walk around with commsec on their Ipads these days, if you were a small investor and had money in Whitehaven you would be monitoring things pretty closely at the minute with all the issues surrounding it.

    As I said institutions would of had the capacity to confirm the accuracy of the reports pretty quick and could quite well have ended up making money out of the saga , ie started buying on the way down. It would of been the smaller investors who got just enough information to be ill informed that lost the most.

  6. Jimmy

    And GDT who said anything about Jail?

  7. Scott

    “CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – SECT 1041E
    False or misleading statements
    (1) A person must not (whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere) make a statement, or disseminate information, if:

    (a) the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading; and

    (b) the statement or information is likely:

    (i) to induce persons in this jurisdiction to apply for financial products; or

    (ii) to induce persons in this jurisdiction to dispose of or acquire financial products; or

    (iii) to have the effect of increasing, reducing, maintaining or stabilising the price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction; and

    (c) when the person makes the statement, or disseminates the information:

    (i) the person does not care whether the statement or information is true or false; or

    (ii) the person knows, or ought reasonably to have known, that the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading.

    Note 1: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). For defences to a prosecution based on this subsection, see Division 4. ”

    Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

    This is all about market integrity. I would assume ASIC would throw the book at him as a cautionary tale so other activists not to try this sort of stunt in the future.

  8. Jimmy

    Yep Scott he is clearly guilty and ASIC will go hard but what is the maximum penalty? If all the cna do is fine him I expect he will declare bankruptcy pretty and they’ll probably find the tree he lives in is in his partners name.

  9. Microseris

    Whilst I don’t endorse fake media releases which may affect small investors, in this instance it is hard to have sympathy of those who would seek to profit from coal investments knowing we are heading for a 4 – 6c temperature increase due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    The environment movement is fighting a rear guard action against a tsunami of environmental destruction facilitated by governments which are merely puppets of big destructive businesses like coal and oil who have power the rest of us could only dream of.

    Try clearing a thousand hectares of a nationally endangered vegetation community. No problemo for big coal.

  10. Jimmy

    Microseris – Pull your head out of your a*se, the small investors who lost their money aren’t the ones who make these mines possible that’s the institutional investor.

    And I hope you have checked with your super fund to ensure they aren’t investing in big coal (or any mining companies if you are really serious), big tobacco, big oil, big pharma, any airline (given their carbon footprint), aluminium or steel manufacturers, or anyone else who emits carbon really. In fact who are people allowed to invest in and not be fair game for having their life savings destroyed by activists?

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...