James Hansen, Climate Scientist Turned Activist, Criticizes Paris Talks

New York Times - Justin Gillis

James E. Hansen at his farm in Pennsylvania, in 2013. Credit Michael Nagle for The New York Times

LE BOURGET, France — James E. Hansen, the retired NASA climate scientist, issued a stark warning Wednesday that the deal being negotiated here was nowhere close to what was needed to avert dangerous levels of global warming.
“This is half-assed and it’s half-baked,” Dr. Hansen said in a public forum on the sidelines of the conference. He said that the deal, praised by world leaders including President Obama, would allow emissions to continue to increase — until 2030, in the case of China — when what was needed is an immediate and rapid reduction.
The remarks were less notable for what Dr. Hansen said – he has long held a dim view of United Nations climate talks – than for where and when he said them.
Dr. Hansen, who retired in 2013 after decades in charge of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was making his first appearance at one of the annual U.N. climate conferences. He was introduced as “the Paul Revere of the climate-change movement” before a public interview for a video program.
Dr. Hansen, 74, gained fame in 1988 for warning the United States Congress that global warming had already begun and was a grave threat to future generations. He has been a voice in the wilderness ever since, and the failure of politicians to take the issue seriously has radicalized him. He regularly turns up at climate demonstrations, and has made a point of getting arrested several times.
In his appearance Wednesday, Dr. Hansen dismissed the emerging deal and said the willingness of most countries to offer some kind of emissions reductions was insufficient. Only a handful of countries are responsible for the bulk of emissions, and Dr. Hansen instead called for an agreement among those countries to begin an urgent assault on the problem.
“I’ve met with captains of industry,” Dr. Hansen said. “These people have children and grandchildren. They would like to be part of the solution, if the government would give them the right incentives.”
He repeated his longstanding position that the place to start would be a tax on carbon emissions that would raise the price of high-carbon fuels enough to encourage conservation and a switch to alternative energy sources. The money raised by such a tax should be given back to the public, he said.
Dr. Hansen also supports expansion of nuclear power as a partial solution to the climate crisis, and is expected to join other pro-nuclear scientists in an appearance later in the week. His nuclear stance has put him at odds with some environmental groups, though most of them still regard him as a hero for his warnings about the potential consequences of unchecked warming.
Dr. Hansen sketched out a future of profound climate threats that he said was on the verge of becoming unstoppable, including a potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which could cause a rise in the sea levels sufficient to drown many coastal regions.
“Our parents did not know that they were causing a problem for future generations by burning fossil fuels,” Dr. Hansen said. “But we can only pretend we do not know.”

Analysis: The Key Announcements From Day 1 At COP21

Carbon Brief

A model of the Eiffel Tower made from recycled folding chairs stands at an entrance to the COP21 United Nations climate summit in Le Bourget near Paris, France. © Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Demotix/Corbis

The opening day at COP21 in Paris has seen a blizzard of announcements and speeches.
More that 150 world leaders travelled to the French capital to show their support for the much-anticipated climate conference, which aims to secure a global deal on tackling climate change in the post-2020 period.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, opened the leaders summit by saying: "This is a pivotal moment for the future of your countries, your people and our common home. You can no longer delay."
Carbon Brief is in Paris for the next two weeks covering the event. Here, we take a closer look at the key announcements made today:

Leaders' Speeches: Barack Obama
Barack Obama said that the US, along with other nations, would pledge new money today to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDC Fund) — a fund that is specifically responsible for reducing vulnerability in the world's poorest countries (see below for more details). He said that new money would be pledged tomorrow towards risk insurance initiatives "that help vulnerable populations rebuild stronger after climate-related disasters".
Obama laid out his priorities for the new deal, which he said should be an "enduring framework for human progress".
The agreement, he said, should build in ambition through "regularly updated targets", set at a national level, which takes into account the differences between different nations. The start of this process has already taking place, with the INDCs submitted by almost all UN nations over the course of the year.
He also emphasised the need for a strong transparency system, and the need to support countries that don't have the capacity to report their progress on meeting their climate commitments.
Perhaps one of his most significant statements regarding the shape of the future climate deal was his reference to making sure resources "flow to the countries that need help preparing for the impacts of climate change we can no longer avoid" — a reference to the controversial issue of loss and damage in all but name.
He particularly highlighted the plight of the small island states — a group of nations with whom he will meet before leaving the conference. It is possible that the forthcoming donation to the LDC Fund could be a nod towards loss and damage. The US already softened its stance on the issue during a round of negotiations in Bonn in September.

Leaders' Speeches: Xi Jinping
President Xi Jinping repeated the country's pre-existing target of peaking emissions by 2030, telling delegates that China has the "confidence and resolve to fulfil our commitments".
His newest announcement was the fleshed out details of how China intends to spend the ¥20bn ($3bn) it announced in September. Among other things, China will launch 100 mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries, and help them to build up financing capabilities.
He also promised that "ecological endeavours" would "feature prominently" in China's forthcoming 13th five-year plan, a blueprint for its development in 2016 to 2020. This is due to be finalised in March.
He also spelled out some of China's priorities for the UN climate deal that countries are in Paris to negotiate. While he said that the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" should be adhered to, he stressed that the outcome is a regime that should apply to everyone, within their capabilities.
"All countries, developed countries in particular, should accept shared responsibility for win-win outcomes," he said. Such language is far more conciliatory than that adopted by China's negotiating bloc just last month, which took pains to stress the continued divisions between the rich and poor nations.

International Solar Alliance
Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, and Francois Hollande, France's president, launched an International Solar Alliance, an Indian initiative dedicated to the promotion of solar energy. It aims to "significantly augment solar power generation", says a declaration handed out at a press conference.
The alliance will aim to foster cooperation and collaboration between solar-rich nations. A working paper lists 121 "prospective member [countries]". It says solar can "transform lives" for people living without power in off-grid rural & urban fringe areas.
Writing in the Financial Times, Modi said the aim was "to bring affordable solar power to villages that are off the grid".
India will provide $62m over five years to 2020/21, including in-kind support such as land and $27m of funding towards running costs.
The alliance hopes to mobilise "more than $1,000bn of investments that are needed by 2030 for the massive deployment of affordable solar energy". An international steering committee will hold its first meeting on 1 December.
Speaking at the launch of the alliance, Hollande said: "We can no longer accept the paradox…that the countries with the largest solar potential have only a small proportion of solar generation."
Coal, oil and gas have been the foundation of wealth in the past but are the energies of yesterday, Hollande said. "Wealth tomorrow will come from new energies that will be developed everywhere and, namely, solar".
Modi told the launch many nations had long placed special cultural significance in the sun. He said: "The world must turn to sun, the power of the future…There is already a revolution in solar energy…Costs are coming down and grid connectivity is improving. It is [bringing] the dream of universal electricity access [closer]."

Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform
John Key, the prime minister of New Zealand, used the first day of COP21 to officially present the Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC. He was joined by the prime ministers of Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. The communique represents the views of 37 countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, the US, the UK, New Zealand and the Philippines. It is also endorsed by "23 global companies with combined revenues exceeding $170bn" and organisations, such as the International Energy Agency, the OECD and World Bank.
The communique calls for three "interrelated principles":

• Communication and Transparency about the merits of subsidy policies and reform timetables, including through engagement and communications with the general public and civil society stakeholders to ensure a smooth, inclusive, bottom-up approach to reform;
• Ambition in the scope and timeframe for implementing reforms; and
• Targeted support to ensure reforms are implemented in a manner that safeguards the poorest.

It adds: "We invite all countries, companies and civil society organisations to join us in supporting accelerated action to eliminate inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies in an ambitious and transparent manner as part of a major contribution to climate change mitigation."
John Key said that a third of global emissions between 1980 and 2010 had been driven by fossil fuel subsidies. He added that the world spends around US$500bn a year keeping domestic fuel prices artificially low: "[Ending such subsidies would] free up resources to invest in low-carbon energy. They are a huge obstacle to innovation. They are not a benefit to the poor and hinder the transition. Low oil prices mean the timing for reform has never been better. It's an urgent priority."
In response, Christiana Figueres said that "we need to dispel the myth that you have to choose between burning carbon and development, the myth that with only this type of subsidy can you benefit the poor". She also stressed that "we could be tempted to increase the subsidies to make up for losses…We need to decide which direction we are going. We could be locked in [to fossil fuel subsidies] for several decades. We must be guided by benefiting those at bottom of ladder."
Responding to a question from Carbon Brief on what timescale the coalition would like see such "accelerated action", John Key, the prime minister of New Zealand, said:

"In the perfect world, as quickly as possible. Because, in the end, what is happening here is the world is spending close to half a billion dollars subsidising fuel which is not going to poor people. It's money, actually, that governments could spend on so many other initiatives…One argument is to use that money to subsidise renewable energy, but even if you're not prepared to do that, stopping subsidising something that is polluting the world is the best step you can take…I suspect for some countries it will be a phaseout [rather than immediately, as New Zealand did]. But this is the time to do it, as you do have low oil prices now so the elimination of those subsidies would have much less effect."

Rachel Kyte, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, added:

"All of the economic evidences says that to delay costs you more. You run the risk of locking yourself into a high-carbon pathway that will be expensive."

Earlier this year, a, International Monetary Fund working paper found that:

• Post-tax energy subsidies are dramatically higher than previously estimated—$4.9 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2013, and projected to reach $5.3 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2015.
• Among different energy products, coal accounts for the biggest subsidies, given its high environmental damage and because (unlike for road fuels) no country imposes meaningful excises on its consumption.

Figure 4, Global Energy Subsidies 2011-2015, IMF Working Paper WP/15/105

However, calculating fossil fuel subsidies is complicated and open to interpretation, as the IMF paper admits: "These findings must be viewed with caution. Most important, there are many uncertainties and controversies involved in measuring environmental damages in different countries – our estimates are based on plausible -but debatable -assumptions."

Climate Vulnerable Forum
The Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a coalition of 20 countries from Afghanistan and Bangladesh to the Philippines, Rwanda and Vietnam, issued a declaration calling for the Paris agreement to include a 1.5C temperature limit.
The countries also want goals of 100% renewable energy and full decarbonisation by 2050, with peak emissions by 2020 at the latest. The Guardian said the declaration was significant because it broke ranks with the G77, which usually represents developing countries' views.

Climate finance
A number of leaders used their speeches as an opportunity to announce new financial pledges. These include:

• John Key, New Zealand: $20m over four years to reduce emissions from livestock, cropping and rice production, and up to $200m for climate-related support over the next four years, most of which will benefit Pacific nations.
• Justin Trudeau, Canada: $2.65 billion over the next five years. Trudeau made this pledge three days ago in Malta, but reiterated it today in his speech.
• Erna Solberg, Norway: Pledged to double its current donation to the Green Climate Fund ($258m), if the fund "ensures verified emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation".
• Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spain: Pledged to double its €120m donation to the Green Climate Fund.

In addition, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom pledged to contribute close to $300m to reduce deforestation in Colombia.

UN Secretary-General's High-Level Meeting on Resilience
Ban Ki-moon announced a new initiative "to build climate resilience in the world's most vulnerable countries". He said the Climate Resilience Initiative (CRI) "will help address the needs of the nearly 634m people, or a tenth of the global population who live in at-risk coastal areas just a few meters above existing sea levels, as well as those living in areas at risk of droughts and floods". The press release said:

"Bringing together private sector organisations, governments, UN agencies, research institutions and other stakeholders to scale up transformative solutions, the SG's Resilience Initiative will focus on the most vulnerable people and communities in Small Island Developing States, Least Developed Countries, and African countries. Over the next five years, the Initiative will mobilise financing and knowledge; create and operationalise partnerships at scale, help coordinate activities to help reach tangible results, catalyse research, and develop new tools."

The UN's secretary general told the event that "we must absorb risks in new development models". The event then heard from a series of leaders from countries most at risk from climate change, especially sea-level rise. Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands, said that his country's "battle against water had led to innovation and for us to prosper". He then announced that the Netherlands will donate 50m euros to a new programme led by the Red Cross that will complement the CRI.
Meanwhile, a series of leaders from developing and vulnerable countries made the case for extra help. Freundel Stuart, the prime minister of Barbados, said: "We in the Caribbean and Pacific cannot adapt or build resilience to a 3C world."
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt's president, said pointedly that "Africa is contributing least to global emissions, but it is the most vulnerable". He added: "Developed countries not taking the lead exacerbates the problem. Egypt defends Africa's interests on climate change."
France said it would be initiating a new early warning system for vulnerable nations tomorrow and Germany said it would be helping to provide additional insurance for 200m people, although didn't give more details.
Ban concluded by saying: "Most of our initiatives are coming from our hard lessons – politically and physically."
The issue of vulnerability and resilience is a particularly emotive one within the climate talks and often becomes a bitter wedge between developed and developing nations. Ban Ki-moon's efforts today can be seen as an early tactical effort by the UN to smooth edges and build bridges between parties ahead of the many days of negotiating that are still to come.

Breakthrough Energy Coalition and Mission Innovation
Emerging clean technologies received a boost, as investors and countries announced a new programme to help them pass through the "Valley of Death", their poetic term for the gap between concept and viable product.
The group of 28 investors — which includes Microsoft's Bill Gates, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos — have pledged to support early stage technologies, helping them to get off the ground at a time when other investors may be put off by the high risk factor involved. On their website, they outline the principles that will guide their investments.
In particular, the investors say they will focus on projects coming out of the 19 countries that have created the Mission Innovation coalition. This includes countries such as Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the United Arab Emirates and the US. Each has pledged to double their governmental investment in clean energy technologies over the next five years.
Earlier this year, another group launched a "Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change" with the aim of making clean energy cheaper than coal. It said the world should invest $15bn a year for a decade, though it lacked any clear funding commitments.

Least Developed Countries Fund
Switzerland, France, Germany, the US, the UK and others today made a joint pledge of $248m to the Least Developed Countries Fund, including $51m from the US and $53m from Germany.
The fund helps the world's poorest nations draw up national adaptation plans to identify their climate vulnerabilities. It also funds urgent adaptation in sectors such as water and food security.
The fund has allocated nearly $1bn to projects since its inception in 2001, according to a joint statement published by the US State Department. This has unlocked $3.8bn of co-finance from other sources, the statement says.
The fund has sometimes struggled. A year ago, the BBC said hundreds of adaptation schemes might have to be abandoned for want of cash. Its coffers were empty this June, Reuters reported. The world's 48 least developed nations will be hoping today's pledge puts the fund back on track.

Transformative Carbon Asset Facility
The World Bank, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland launched a new scheme to promote carbon pricing in developing countries. The Transformative Carbon Asset Facility (TCAF) aims to secure $500m in initial funding to "spur greater efforts to price and measure carbon pollution".
Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, said the facility's country partners "expect to commit more than $250m next year". He said the $500m target, when reached, would leverage $2bn from the World Bank "and other sources".
The TCAF will help create "the next generation of carbon credits", says Kim in a statement. It is a complement to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, another World Bank initiative designed to increase the spread of efforts to tax or limit emissions through markets.
Fossil fuel subsidy reform, clean energy policy, carbon accounting, carbon pricing and carbon market initiatives could all benefit from TCAF support. The $500m funding target, if reached, would support 10 programmes, the World Bank says.

Links

• Leaders' Speeches: Barack Obama
• Leaders' Speeches: Xi Jinping
• International Solar Alliance
• Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform
• Climate Vulnerable Forum
• Climate finance
• UN Secretary-General's High-Level Meeting on Resilience
• Breakthrough Energy Coalition and Mission Innovation
• Least Developed Countries Fund
• Transformative Carbon Asset Facility

Take No Prisoners: The Paris Climate Talks Need To Move Beyond ‘Fairness’

The Conversation - Luke Kemp

World leaders gathering at COP21 should ditch old ideas about ‘climate equity’. Reuters/Jacky Naegelen

For years now the climate talks have revolved around discussions who should bear the burden of cutting emissions, particularly between developed and developing nations. Much of Paris climate summit will be focused on this notion of equity and how to ensure that each country does its their fair share in the fight against climate change.
Developed countries (known as “Annex 1” in the United Nations' lingo) now typically have falling emissions, but are responsible for the majority of historical emissions. Developing nations (known as “non-Annex”) often have increasing emissions, but are responsible for far fewer historical emissions.
Based on this, developing countries have argued strongly for differentiation. For them this involves developed countries taking the lead on reducing emissions and providing finance and assistance for developing countries undertaking a low-carbon transformation. Developed countries argue that equity means all countries taking action and adopting targets together.
Most of the national pledges that have been submitted for the summit make some mention of why the pledge is “fair” or equitable. Even Oxfam has been in on the action releasing a Fair Shares equity review of national climate pledges.
But this concept of a fair share is a large reason why Paris is at risk of failing to deliver a worthwhile deal. We will not solve climate change until we stop seeing emissions reductions as a burden to be equally shared.

The burden of climate action?
The way we talk about issues creates a frame in our minds. It bundles up different ideas to create a shared perspective.
For climate change, talk of equity has inevitably framed emissions reductions as a burden which needs to be “fairly distributed”, or as a penalty to atone for past sins.
Nations also talk of “capacity”, or the ability to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. This of course depends on the state’s economy and politics. But it implies that reducing emissions comes at a high cost and is only worth undertaking if the right capacity is in place.
If there is one way to ensure that countries don’t act it is to frame mitigation as a burden. Luckily this just simply isn’t true. Reducing emissions, and mitigating climate change, is not a burden; it is one of our greatest opportunities.

The benefits of climate action
The economics of climate change has been slowly moving away from emphasising the costs towards recognising the benefits. This is not surprising given the history of environmental regulation.
Decreasing ozone-depleting substances was originally forecast by industry to have catastrophic economic costs. It ended up being extremely cheap.
Industry initially complained of the potential costs of the Clean Air Act in the United States. But the US Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the act saved the US economy US$2 trillion in avoided health and productivity losses by 2020. The estimated costs were just US$65 billion. The benefits were 30 times larger than the expected costs.
The same kinds of benefits are on offer when switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. One US study calculated the health costs of coal-powered electricity to be 0.8-5.6 times greater than the value added to the US economy. Earlier this year the IMF estimated that when accounting for wider costs such as health, fossil fuels are subsidised globally by more than US$5 trillion per year. So even without accounting for climate change, in most cases fossil fuels cost more than they’re worth.
Renewable energy and climate mitigation has the edge over fossil fuels in most wider analyses.
The New Climate Economy Report provides an overview of compelling studies and examples showing why mitigating climate change would be good for economic growth and general human well-being.
Importantly mitigation is already cheap and getting cheaper every year. A report by Frank Jotzo and myself earlier this year showed how the different estimates of the cost of large emissions reductions in Australia range from 0.1-0.21% of annual GDP growth. Not exactly a big hit to the economy. And these are all still narrow analyses that don’t consider all of the co-benefits of mitigation.
Emissions reductions are not a burden to be handed out equally between countries. It is an opportunity that countries should be pursuing with or without an international deal. Talk of avoiding catastrophic climate change just strengthens an energy transformation which already makes economic and social sense.

Breaking out of the prisoner’s dilemma
Climate change has typically been seen as a prisoner’s dilemma: a game where two rationally behaving actors will avoid cooperation and produce an outcome which is not in their collective interests.
Climate change has been viewed as a prisoner’s dilemma because each country thinks that climate action benefits everyone, but costs the individual country. So countries push for everyone to participate in negotiations to share this cost. It is particularly clear in Paris where there have been repeated calls for an agreement that is “applicable to all” and excludes no-one.
But this is not true, and many countries are beginning to realise this.
Looking around the world, the greatest action being taken against climate change is not about altruism or in the name of equity. They are being done for economic gain and to create better lives for the public.
China is installing vast renewable energy capacity and moving towards limiting coal consumption due to concerns over air pollution, energy security benefits and to secure a head-start in the booming renewable energy market. Germany is undertaking its famed “Energiewende” in order to secure a market advantage in renewable energy and kick-start its economy.
Countries are taking action not for equity or morality, but for their own national interest.
Realising the benefits of mitigation changes the game of negotiations. No longer would we focus on getting everyone on board and distributing “fair-shares”. Instead the aim would be to find ways to maximise collective benefits and opportunities.
Of course least developed countries should receive financial and technological aid. But that is because assistance should be given for any kind of development, not because a low carbon transformation is prohibitively expensive. Fairness does become a bigger issue when talking about other issues such as adapting to climate change impacts, but it shouldn’t be the main focus for reducing emissions.
Climate change is not a prisoner’s dilemma. It is not about equitably sharing a burden. That is a myth. There really is no dilemma when climate action has so many benefits.

Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Funds Worth $1 Trillion Divest From Fossil Fuels

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1°C above the pre-industrial era.

More than 100 institutions controlling $US800 billion ($1.09 trillion) in funds worldwide have opted to make new divestments of at least some of their fossil fuel assets in the 10 weeks running up to the Paris climate summit, according to campaign groups 350.org and Divest-Invest.
The tally brings to $US3.4 trillion the amount of funds under management by firms that support at least a partial sell-off of their holdings of coal, oil or other fossil fuels. The latest to sign up range from the City of Melbourne to the parliament of the summit hosts, France.
"People are voting with their wallets," Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, told Fairfax Media. "The divestment movement worldwide has grown at breakneck speed illustrating the appetite for action on climate change from citizens, cities, businesses and institutions."

More of the world's big owners of assets are shifting away from fossil fuels as global warming takes a higher priority.

The groups launched a "Divest for Paris" plan in September when the tally of institutions agreeing to cut exposure to the fossil fuel sector totalled about 400 firms with $US2.6 trillion in assets. The huge figures do not represent the size of the investments actually sold off, only the scale of funds that they manage.
"This the greatest challenge of our time," Stephen Heintz, President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said. "The momentum of this campaign is accelerating day by day."
"There is a moral imperative to save the planet, and to do so, we need to end the fossil fuel era now," Mr Heintz said.

Hard times for coal and other fossil fuel investments. Photo: Bloomberg

The economics were also stacking up against fossil fuel investments as nations prepare to curb carbon emissions, with 60-80 per cent of remaining reserves of such fuels had to remain in the ground if global warming is to remain with 2 degrees, he said.

Melbourne moves
According to the groups, Australian institutions involved in the divestment have funds under management of $5.5 billion, or less than 2 per cent of the total. Melbourne City Council is one of 14 councils that are reducing their fossil fuel investments.
Among the big movers in the run-up to Paris was Allianz, Europe's largest insurance company. It divested €630 million ($915 million) of their holdings in coal while announcing plans to channel €4 billion into wind energy projects over the next six months.
"Divestment represents a simple equation, moving money away from the problem to the solution," Ms McKenzie said.
Commodity prices have been hammered, particularly in the past year. The divestment campaign has helped to undermine investors' appetite for coal and other fossil fuels by turning a spotlight on the likely future constraints on industries producing greenhouse gases resulting from such global events as the Paris summit.
The dramatic plunge in commodity prices, though, is viewed by analysts as more a response to weaker-than-expected demand, particularly in China, which is by far the largest consumer of raw materials such as coal and iron ore.
Earlier this week, the Reserve Bank of Australia released its latest gauge of commodity prices, showing the plunge had accelerated in November.
Preliminary figures show export prices for Australia's three biggest commodities – iron ore, coking coal and thermal coal – dived 4.3 per cent last month alone to be down 23.4 per cent over the past year.
As the chart below shows, the gauge is now well below the lowest level during the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, and a fresh indication that state and federal budgets can expect further squeezes on their revenues from mining.

The divestment campaign, meanwhile, has cheered this week's announcement in Paris that 38 nations had signed a communique planning to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel.
Australia, though, opted not to sign up, with the Turnbull government saying the definition of a subsidy used by the organisers – led by New Zealand – was too broad and would have unfairly disadvantaged farmers and miners.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull later said the document contained a "rather gratuitous reference to an IMF report which goes much much further than inefficient fuel subsidies".

Links

• Australia rejects fossil fuel pledge
• Australia's coasts to mapped for sea-level rise
• 5 things we learnt today
• Paris climate conference: full coverage

Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: The Australian Politics Climate Change

Fairfax - Jennifer Hewett

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, left, with John Key: Australia will not follow New Zealand's fossil fuels lead. AP

Malcolm Turnbull describes Bill Shorten's promise to reduce Australia's carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 as a political statement rather than an environmental one. Well, of course it is. No details necessary, thank you. That is all to come after further "consultation" with industry. That makes it similar to Labor's plan for a 50 per cent renewables target by 2030. How this is supposed to happen will, conveniently, all be worked out later.
Why it's necessary to talk about this right now is much more obvious. Labor wants to make as much noise as it can about its differences with the Turnbull government in one area where it might have a political edge, at least among some sections of the public. The catch is that, so far, Labor's promise is more likely to attract voters from potential Green supporters than Liberal supporters. As the polls consistently demonstrate, most Australians are still ready to give Turnbull a lot of room to manoeuvre.
Labor is desperately waiting for that sentiment to turn but it's clearly much harder to fight Turnbull on this than Tony "Denier" Abbott.
So every ALP frontbencher tries to emphasise Turnbull was really just taking Abbott's baggage on targets to Paris with him. Every government minister is just as determined to point out that, once again, Labor is willing to risk the economy with ill-considered, radical gestures that will achieve nothing for the climate except national self-harm.
That makes the argument over the economic cost a modest variation of the carbon tax fight – though with much more rounded edges under Turnbull than under the Abbott full-scale attack mode.
The difference is partly personal style and partly the altered nature of the argument. Climate change is now back to being a hot topic in mainstream politics despite the tough competition, especially in Europe, from terrorism to refugees to lack of economic growth.
Underneath all the figures and pledges and commitments, it is still clear the international tone is very different to the last attempt to forge a global agreement faltered in Copenhagen six years ago. China is not the only country to have reassessed what it needs to do – and what it is willing to sign up to – for its own domestic purposes. Pollution levels in Beijing alone ensure the Chinese authorities have little choice but to confirm the economy will become less dependent on fossil fuels over time and "peak" emissions by 2030.
But China is also now playing a leading role in building momentum among developing countries rather than leading the opposition. India remains more recalcitrant given the hundreds of millions of its population with no access to electricity. The pollution and health effects of relying on dung patties for fuel tend to make political leaders less concerned about the impact of coal.

Who should pay and how much?
So there will still be plenty of arguments about who should pay more – and how much. And despite the emotive rhetoric and campaigns against investment in the coal industry, coal is nowhere near the end of its life as a crucial and substantial source of global power. But the direction towards much greater carbon emissions reductions and energy efficiency overall – even given growing demand for power – is clearly an unstoppable trend.
Kevin Rudd, who naturally just happens to be in Paris this time around too, may always regret the implosion in Copenhagen and the subsequent impact on his prime ministership, Mark I.
Yet that same period has also given the formerly battered Turnbull far more time to finesse his own position after he lost the opposition leadership to Abbott over his support for an emissions trading scheme. There will be no more fights to the political death with the Nationals or his own Liberal colleagues over such issues despite the simmering conservative angst.
He has returned as a moderate prime minister in line with the times and as a true believer in the power of technology and innovation (what else?) to help find the solution. Turnbull's faith in research and technology is very much part of the international zeitgeist too, reflected in the new multi billion research fund with contribution by billionaires like Bill Gates.
Not that this avoids Australia spending billions more on subsidies for renewables and on a direct action scheme designed to curb emissions over the next several years at least. Even under Abbott, the Coalition and Labor did a deal on the renewable energy target which should mean renewables will account for around 23.5 per cent of energy sources by 2020.
What happens over the following decade will depend more on what happens internationally over that period, along with developments in technology such as battery storage or, perhaps, carbon capture and storage despite disappointing results thus far. No one can really predict this in 2015 – no matter what pledges are made now. That is also precisely what makes so much of the talk in Paris so political – and why Bill Shorten can happily afford to talk up Labor's promises, given the national bill can be put on hold way past the next election.
Like every other leader, Turnbull had only three minutes for his statement of good intent before leaving it to the officials to nut out the terms of a likely agreement over the next ten days.
This will not be legally binding given the impossibility of having major powers agree. It's more the climate change version of show and tell, with regular updates on how each country is going. The key will remain moral suasion and transparency on results, kept afloat by an unfathomable sea of subsidies for renewables, transitional assistance and, yes, technology. Paris is just one more stop along the way.

UN Climate Conference 2015: Australian Coast Mapped Under Plan Released In Paris

Fairfax - Tom Arup & Peter Hannam

The entire Australian coastline will be mapped to prepare for projected flooding from rising seas under a government project to be launched at the Paris climate summit that could lead to national standards for how close homes should be built to shorelines.
It is part of a new climate change adaptation plan to be unveiled by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Wednesday, amid debates at the talks over how the world will deal in a global agreement with locked in climate change. Environment Minister Greg Hunt is in Paris for the talks.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt is in Paris for the talks. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Mr Hunt told Fairfax Media he hoped that the coastal data - due to be completed and made public in late 2017 - would be picked up by state governments to guide planning laws about how close homes and other property should be allowed to be built to the coast given expected future flooding and erosion from rising seas and storm surges.
Coastal planning laws have been controversial in a number of states, sparking bitter disputes between local councils, states governments and business. Regulations currently differ between jurisdictions.
Mr Hunt conceded the Commonwealth would not be able to force the states to adopt national standards on the basis of the new mapping data.

Majuro atoll, the Marshall Islands - one of the countries most affected by rising sea levels. Photo: Rob Griffith

"They are not bound, but it should be the definitive guide for everybody to benchmark their long-term planning," he said.
The Australian delegation believes launching the strategy in Paris, at a side event to the talks, sends a signal to developing countries that put strong emphasis on adaptation that Australia takes the issue seriously.
It contains few new concrete measures and is largely an articulation of what is already being done to address the climate change risk to coasts, cities, water resources and other key areas.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in Parliament. She will attend the second week of the talks. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

It follows Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Tuesday mocking claims by her opposition counterpart, Tanya Plibersek, that an island in the Marshall Islands had disappeared into the sea. It turns out Ms Plibersek's transcript named the wrong island. She named Eneko, the island that disappeared is Anebok.
The debates on adaptation in Paris centres on whether all countries will be asked to deliver plans of how they will they adapt as well as emissions targets.
Many developing countries want a dedicated proportion of climate funding - say, half - to be dedicated to adaptation. Currently, it is just one-sixth.
Australia is unlikely to back the latter push. Mr Hunt said: "We are more relaxed, but I don't think it will get there because there is some countries that have strong views, for example the United States."
Tuesday in Paris was the first full day of negotiations on the text of a new agreement. Negotiators are being asked to have a final draft ready by Saturday, though many doubt this is possible.
Many of the groups that met in the morning were reporting slow progress. In some session more brackets - representing areas of dispute - were being inserted into the text than taken out. But afternoon sessions were said to be going better.
US President Barack Obama announced one potential compromise, saying his country would push for parts of the agreement to be legally binding - partly meeting a demand of European nations and some developing states. The legally binding elements would include regular reviews of targets, but not the targets themselves.
India is regarded as the country to watch - it is consistently holding a tough line in the negotiations. It is big enough, as the third-largest emitter, to bring down an agreement if it walks away.
Other countries named as roadblocks by several delegates were Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Tony La Vina, a member of the Philippines negotiation team, said Australian officials had changed their stance at the negotiations since Malcolm Turnbull had replaced Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.
"It's the language used, and certainly they are more appreciative of the science and less dismissive of the process," Mr La Vina said. "There's more willingness to engage."
The Philippines lead the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of 30 nations – many in the Pacific – that are anxious for a pact to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. Most countries, including Australia, agree to a 2-degree target.
This week the forum unveiled a demand for the world to have "net zero" emissions and 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050.
The debate over the long-term ambition in the text is one of the elements at play in the negotiations.
It is understood Australia would be comfortable using language such as zero net emissions by the second half of century, but many other nations, especially oil rich ones, want more ambiguous wording.
Mr La Vina predicted the climate funding issue for developing nations would be one of the last features to be resolved at Paris.
Chinese negotiators were not considered very active in the talks on Monday, but behind the scenes many countries are confident that the Chinese - accounting for almost one-quarter of global emissions - will be working to achieve an agreement.

Links

• How sea level rise could one day swamp cities
• 5 things we learnt today
• Australia rejects fossil fuel pledge
• Paris: 10 Things You Need to Know
• Paris climate conference: full coverage