Lethal Heating: July 2016

31/07/2016

Josh Frydenberg's Rise May Be Best Hope For Climate Bipartisanship 'In A Decade'

Fairfax - Peter Hanna m

In this era of accelerated news cycles, one day apparently is a long time in climate change politics.
This past Wednesday, Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, began his morning warning delegates to his industry's annual summit to brace for more of the "trash" being hurled at them by opponents of renewable energy.

Climate change (and how to tackle it) is largely responsible for the highest turnover of Prime Ministers in Australia since 1945. Animation by Matt Davidson.

"As we become more successful, we become a bigger target, and we need to understand it's the price we pay for our success," he told the audience in Sydney.
By the day's end, however, the appearance of Josh Frydenberg, Australia's first federal minister for the environment and energy, had given Thornton cause to believe the battle may be about to turn.

Josh Frydenberg is Australia's first Federal Minister for the Environment and Energy. Photo: Jay Cronan

While the Abbott government's 2015 Energy White Paper all but ignored climate change and backed "a technology neutral policy" on energy sources, Frydenberg was happy to state that energy and climate policy were "effectively two sides of the same coin".
"We are not talking about the economy versus the environment," he told the summit's dinner that evening. "We have to get out of that mindset.
"Other mindsets may soon be cast aside. Mark Butler, Labor's climate change and energy spokesman, praised Frydenberg as a "very energetic, talented, driven minister" who might be capable of bridging one of Australia's widest political gaps.
"The scope for bipartisanship is there on climate change," Butler told Fairfax Media on the sidelines of the summit, adding later: "For the better part of a decade, we've had this toxic division."

Cooling towers and smokestacks at a LaTrobe Valley power plant in Victoria. Photo: Carla Gottgens

The positive vibes preceded election day, including a friendly campaign encounter in Melbourne's Box Hill, parts of which lie in Frydenberg's electorate.
Butler's office also describes as "brilliant" the coordination it received from the resources ministry – then held by Frydenberg – during the caretaker period. By contrast, the relationship with the office of then environment minister Greg Hunt remained one of "trench warfare", much as it had for years.

Solar panel prices have dropped 80 per cent in five years. Photo: Mark Metcalfe

Frydenberg has responded in kind, complimenting Butler with unusually warmth for Canberra: "I have a great deal of respect for him. He's very capable, he's a good advocate."
"There will have to be some handshaking across the aisle, and some deal making and some close consultation in many areas of my portfolio," Frydenberg told the Wednesday dinner.

Clean energy investors are hoping for some policy stability. Photo: Supplied

While the new minister's comments reflect the reality of an expanded senate cross bench – colourfully described as "yellow crazy ants" by Frydenberg – his statements made to the summit and elsewhere this week suggest a change of course is under way from the Abbott years.
Although dubbed "Mr Coal" during his previous role, Frydenberg said the fuel's role would shrink, nothing that recent investment in new electricity generation in Australia had all been in renewable energy. Wind power prices had dropped by half over the past five years and solar PV prices had dived 80 per cent, and battery prices would tumble too, he said.
The current renewable energy target – for annual generation of 33,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity by 2020 – was "set in stone", he added, sparking applause from the diners.
More acclaim, though, was given to comments about the problems in South Australia that had prompted a jump in short-term wholesale electricity prices and triggered one of Frydenberg's first acts in his new ministry – to call state and territory energy ministers for a meeting on August 19.
Defying urgings from some members in his own government and sections of the media to blame the price surge on SA's relatively high dependence on renewable energy, Frydenberg instead downplayed the sector's role in the "crisis".
An ill-timed upgrading of the main power link to Victoria in mid-winter was "the main reason" for the jump, Frydenberg told ABC's Lateline. While the intermittency of renewable energy compared with baseload supplies was a factor, so was a huge jump in gas prices and a cold snap that forced up demand.
Moreover, SA's problems preceded most of the clean energy investments. Yes, short-term prices had jumped three times above the $5000 per megawatt-hour mark this year but in the first quarter of 2008, they did so more than 50 times, Frydenberg told the dinner.
"People have to understand that this volatility is not a new thing … To say it's the fault of renewables is not an accurate assessment," he said.
Frank Jotzo, deputy director of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, said Frydenberg's comments about the energy transition and the decarbonising task "are the kinds of things that we have not really heard from the coalition previously".
However, while there may be convergence between the Coalition and Labor on the climate challenges ahead, there's still a gulf in how they would address them, Professor Jotzo said.
Labor, for instance, supports the re-introduction of a carbon price but the Coalition faces a political problem "because of the past rhetoric" opposed to such a move, he said.
Butler, too, cautioned that the next few weeks would be "critically important" for how Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull responded "to those trying to stymie any progress on establishing a more mature consensus".
The "real challenge" would be how to "strive for affordable, accessible, and reliable energy supply at the same time as we transition to a lower emissions future", Frydenberg said.
Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters said government policy rather than just the market would be needed to drive the necessary shifts.
"While we welcome the change in rhetoric on clean energy from warfare to acceptance, actual policy change is needed to deliver and expedite the transition our economy so needs from dirty fuels to clean, and with it the tens of thousands of jobs that we so desperately need," Senator Waters said.
For Thornton, of the Clean Energy Council, Frydenberg's comments had given his industry "real heart".
There's an emerging prospect of "a different approach and a new era of bipartisanship around clean energy and climate policy more broadly," Thornton enthused.
"It's pretty exciting, to be honest."

Links

Rockefeller Fund Takes First Green Stake in Pivot From Oil

Bloomberg - Jessica Shankleman

Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

Summary

Fund supports Mainstream's African wind and solar expansion

Investment comes after fund pledged fossil fuel divestment

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the foundation divesting from the fossil-fuel industry it helped create, took its first direct stake in a renewable energy company in a move meant to bolster the fight against climate change.
The New York City-based fund, founded in 1940 with the profits of Standard Oil Co., provided $10 million to Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd. to expand renewable energy in Africa. The investment was part of an $117.5 million funding round announced last month that included International Finance Corp. and other backers. The investment will help finance as much as $1.9 billion for green energy on the continent.
"The opportunity is huge and for us it's just absolutely in the sweet spot of what we're trying to do with our impact investing," Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said in a telephone interview from New York. "It's completely consistent and advances our philanthropic mission, but does so while supporting market-rate investment and business solutions to climate change."
The Rockefeller Fund joined a group of 800 people and institutions that pledged to divest from fossil fuel companies and boost investments in clean energy, a move intended to put pressure on companies contributing to climate change. Of the fund's $816 million under management, about $97.5 million have gone to so-called "Impact Investments" including its stake in Mainstream as well as positions in vehicles like the New Energy Capital Infrastructure Credit Fund.
The fund is looking to sell 100 percent of its investments in fossil fuel companies that contribute to global warming by at least the end of 2018, said Heintz. The portfolio's exposure to fossil fuel companies has already fallen to 3.3 percent, down from 6.6 percent in April 2014. Investments in the dirtiest sectors -- coal and tar sands -- has fallen to 0.1 percent of the portfolio, Rockefeller said this month.
The Rockefeller investment in the Lekela Power platform, a joint venture between Mainstream and Actis LLP founded in 2015, will help install more than 1.3 gigawatts of renewable electricity across Africa by 2018. Countries targeted by the initiative include South Africa, Ghana, Egypt and Senegal.
"The teaming up of the world's leading independent renewable power developer with a foundation started by members of the family that effectively founded the global oil industry is a significant moment in the world's transition to a new power system based on clean energy," said Mainstream Chief Executive Officer Eddie O'Connor in the statement.
Other investors include IFC African, Latin American and Caribbean Fund and the IFC Catalyst Fund, Ascension Investment Management and Sanlam Ltd. Simmons & Simmons LLP acted as legal counsel to Mainstream and Norton Rose Fulbright LLP to the investor group, according to the statement.
Heintz said the Rockefeller investment is in line with the family's history of pursuing new ideas. John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil more than a century ago, was also developing cutting edge fuels when he began investing in oil production at the end of the 19th century. He wanted to displace whale oil, Heintz said.
"I'm absolutely convinced that if he were alive today he would understand this dynamic and he would be on the cutting edge of investing in the clean energy economy because he knows that's where the world is going next," he said.

Future investments
The foundation is looking to expand its investments in renewable energy, with a particular focus on offshore wind farms in the U.K., and the U.S, said Heintz, who has just returned from a trip that included the Scottish Isles and Iceland.
The foundation is also looking at battery storage developments that could help provide stability for intermittent renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, and is considering investments in renewable energy in the Middle East, where solar auctions have generated record-low prices.
"We're really looking at all those opportunities but we're doing it as very prudent and serious investors. This is not concessional, we're not willing to sacrifice returns and any investment we make, we have to satisfy ourselves that the investment fits the same risk and returns criteria that we would use for any other investment," he said.
In the near-term, RBF is keen to limit risk by investing projects once they're constructed. This could change as the industry matures and it's considering early stage private equity investments.
"This venture capital opportunity is something that's on our radar screen and we're constantly thinking about there's some way for us to be more involved in very promising earlier stage investments," said Heintz.

Links

30/07/2016

Spiral-Tastic: Climate Change In Three Animations

Climate Home - Megan Darby

How do you follow a viral hit?
Climate scientist Ed Hawkins broke the internet in May with a gif that showed global temperatures spiralling since pre-industrial times.
On Facebook, it got 3 million views just through the page “I fucking love science”. Hawkins’ own blog Climate Lab Book temporarily crashed under the weight of hits, which totalled around 100,000.
He’s no Kim Kardashian, but as sci comms goes, this was a runaway success.
It has inspired scientists from Potsdam, Germany and Melbourne, Australia to animate the inexorable rise of carbon dioxide concentrations in the air…

…and how the growing pace of greenhouse gas emissions is eating up the carbon budget to hold global warming below 2C or 1.5C.

Put together with the temperature spiral, they paint a pretty compelling picture.

The genius of the original was to show how the long term warming trend stood out from the noise of natural variation.
Sceptics might put the recent string of 14 record hot months down to El Nino. That weather phenomenon was certainly a factor, but doesn’t explain why the previous decade was so clearly warmer than in the 1850s.
When it comes to carbon dioxide in the air, the increase is more linear, with some seasonal fluctuation as vegetation levels vary.
Finally, the carbon budget graphic joins the dots with human behaviour. It shows how smoke from factories and car exhaust pipes is building up.
In Paris last December, 195 countries agreed to try and limit temperature rise from pre-industrial levels “well below” 2C and to 1.5C if possible.
That implies a ceiling on the volume of greenhouse gases that can be pumped into the air – the “carbon budget”.
There is some uncertainty about how sensitive the climate is to emissions; the budgets shown give a two thirds chance of staying within the threshold.
It may already be too late for 1.5C, as there is a time lag between emissions and their effect on the climate – and coal plants built today have decades to run.
Still, it remains an important marker for communities on the front line of sea level rise and extreme weather.
The more we can eke out the carbon budget, the better their odds become.

Why ‘Sharknado 4’ Matters: Do Climate Disaster Movies Hurt The Climate Cause?

The Conversation - Lauren Griffin | Ann Christiano

Disaster movies can raise environmental concerns but also seed misinformation. Disaster via www.shutterstock.com

Given that 2016 is expected to be the hottest year on record, with several months that not only surpassed old heat records but did so by increasingly large margins, it stands to reason climate change should be an issue we as a nation are rushing to address. But we're not, exactly. Instead, climate scientists are subject to political attacks and lawsuits, and debate over whether climate change even exists roils the United States Senate. A reasonable person could be left wondering how the hell we got here.
Social scientists have made great strides in determining what factors influence climate denier attitudes and what kinds of messages have the potential to combat denial. Indeed, a burgeoning movement of academics and communicators are taking on the problem of climate denial with gusto, working nonstop to produce empirically based strategies for getting the message out to the public.
Despite these efforts, researchers have paid less attention to how we're talking about climate change in a larger cultural sense.
Enter "Sharknado." On July 31, the fourth installment of the "Sharknado" film series airs on SyFy. The low-budget films are a surprise smash hit, breaking records in 2013 with the original "Sharknado." It's led to a series of movies and a variety of media spin-offs, including a video game and companion book.

If you've missed this cultural phenomenon, worry not: The film's title tells you most of what you need to know. Major American cities are suddenly beset with waterspouts flinging man-eating sharks – sharknados – through the air at 300 miles per hour, while characters attempt to survive. The plots are predictably ridiculous and the special effects – particularly in the first "Sharknado" – are about what you would expect from a B-movie.
At their heart, however, the "Sharknado" films are stories about climate change, albeit in a way that is scientifically flawed to a comical degree. It's a genre – climate disaster films – we decided to explore as an emerging mode of communication in society.

Fiction helps us understand reality
It's explained in the original "Sharknado" that climate change has created an unusually strong tropical cyclone approaching Southern California. The sequels backed away from that explanation, whether out of a desire to avoid courting political controversy or simply because the creators felt that sharknados needed no explanation, we can't be sure. But casting climate change as a catalyst for extreme, globally threatening natural disasters is a move characteristic of a small but growing genre of climate disaster films.
With a few notable exceptions ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "Snowpiercer" come to mind), climate disaster films tend to be low-budget, made-for-television creatures. Silly as they may seem, they represent the first drops in what is sure to be a storm of fictional depictions of climate change as the issue gains more traction in the public consciousness. In a very real sense, these films are the product of a society attempting to grapple with a massive social threat unlike anything we've seen before.

The Twilight Zone TV series featured episodes about the dangers of nuclear war, including the episode 'Third from the Sun' in 1960, which was based on a science fiction short story. Bureau of Industrial Service

Climate fiction films are important for their potential impact on the public. Climate change itself is difficult to observe for those not trained in environmental sciences; typically people don't notice small changes that happen over time, and carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Meteorological and climatological records are regularly questioned by climate deniers, some of whom hold political office. Even personal experience may not sway opinions: Research suggests that a person's political leanings can even affect whether he or she perceives unusual weather patterns to be out of the ordinary.
Some scholars hypothesize that this is where fiction comes in. As researcher David Kirby puts it, fiction can serve as a "virtual witnessing tool" that lets us see the scientific process. Literary scholars tout science fiction's ability to show us futures that have not yet come to pass without having to live through them. Indeed, one of fiction's power is this ability to let us explore scenarios and situations in a safe way, without real risk to life or property.
Consider, for instance, the prevalence of fiction about nuclear war during the Cold War. These stories were widely credited with helping society envision the future after a nuclear exchange even as political leaders worked to prevent such an event. Books (and later film adaptations) like "Fail-Safe" and "On the Beach" shaped society's understanding of the consequences of nuclear war. Television shows like the "Twilight Zone" featured stories – and warnings – about nuclear weapons prominently in their plots. President Ronald Reagan even noted in his journal the television movie "The Day After Tomorrow" had a profound effect on him.

Medium for misinformation?
What does this mean for climate change? Like nuclear war, a future in which humanity has undertaken no effort to combat climate change is one we hope to never see. Can fiction play a role in shaping our attitudes and beliefs about climate change and encourage the public to take the threat seriously before it's too late?
A handful of studies were conducted around the release of "The Day After Tomorrow." Similar studies were also conducted on the docudrama "The Age of Stupid" and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." But these studies typically examine only blockbuster films and do not address disaster films as a whole.
The studies generally suggest that fictional depictions of climate change can have an effect on audiences – at least in the short term. Seeing clips of these films tends to raise levels of environmental concern and, in some cases, cause people to be more supportive of action to meet the climate threat.

'The Day After Tomorrow' depicts an out-of-control and damaging natural world.

To get a better sense of how fictional disaster films shape environmental attitudes, I (Lauren) conducted an in-depth analysis of 18 disaster films featuring climate change. The results of my research show that most of these films make only tenuous connections between climate change and natural disasters, which affects how people react to them.
Terminology related to climate change and extreme weather is often misused, and it's not uncommon to see films that use the term "climate change" or "global warming" to refer to completely different phenomena – some of which are physically impossible and could happen in no world. For example, one film uses climate change to discuss a buildup of methane gas in the atmosphere that is predicted to ignite, incinerating all life on Earth.
The results from focus groups I held with participants who watched one of three representative disaster films confirm that these scientifically dubious depictions of climate change dilute any perceived environmental message in climate disaster films. Most participants were unconvinced – often with good reason – that anything shown in the films could happen in the real world and did not see much of an environmental message.
More worrisome is the possibility for climate fiction films to distribute misinformation. Because many films draw on real terminology used by climatologists and atmospheric scientists to add a sense of realism to their films, audiences may find themselves confused where fiction ends and facts begin.

Here to stay
There is some precedence for these concerns. Research on historical fiction films suggests that people often remember misinformation presented in fictional narratives and then attribute these "facts" to authoritative sources like textbooks. This has been observed even when participants are warned ahead of time that they will be seeing a dramatization of a historical event that contains inaccuracies.
As society struggles to envision a future shaped by climate change, we will continue to produce works of fiction that depict these futures. Climate disaster films are only one facet of this phenomenon, and more are sure to come.
Follow-up studies examining the effects of "The Day After Tomorrow" on public attitudes toward climate change hint at possible changes.
In the short term, audiences were more concerned about climate change after viewing the film and were more willing to take some political action to combat the threat. Long term, the film seemed to clue audiences in to the problems of climate change, and provided something of a cultural script with which to discuss it.
It's worth noting, however, that "The Day After Tomorrow" was an exception within the larger climate disaster film genre, both in terms of its production value and its (relatively) detailed discussion of climate change. Low-budget films like "Sharknado," which stray very far afield from climate science, likely pose different possibilities for both misinformation and engagement with climate change. The question, then, is how to best tap into this potential while avoiding the pitfalls.

Links

Report Highlights Cosy Relationship Between Mining Industry And Political Parties

NEWS.com.au - Charis Chang

THE cosy and often secretive relationship between political parties and their donors in the mining industry has been highlighted in a report that looks at six controversial projects in Queensland including Adani's Carmichael mine. "All of these projects received extraordinary outcomes including policy changes, project approvals and even legislative changes," a statement from The Australia Institute says.
The Greasing the Wheels report, which was co-authored by the Australian Conservation Foundation, found there were "systematic" issues with how governments were dealing with mining approvals in Queensland.
Dr Belinda Edwards of the University of NSW, said the study demonstrated how political donations, specifically cash-for-access fundraising by political parties, corroded democracy.
"It demonstrates that money doesn't just buy access, it buys outcomes," Dr Edwards said in the report.
The report found mining companies seeking approval for six controversial mining projects in Queensland, gave more than $2 million in political donations to the Liberal and National parties at both state and federal levels.
"These mining projects all gained extraordinary access to government ministers and extraordinary outcomes," the report states.
They included Beach Energy's plans for unconventional gas in the Cooper Basin, Sibelco's sand mine on North Stradbroke Island, Karreman Quarries, the Acland Stage 3 coal mine, Adani's Carmichael mine and underground coal gasification trial projects in Chinchilla and Bloodwood Creek.
"These outcomes included legislative changes to remove environmental protections, federal and state government approval of projects despite serious environmental concerns, and even retrospective approval of illegal mining activities," the report stated.
But political donations are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Sibelco sand mine on Stradbroke Island. Source: Supplied Source:News Corp Australia

Freebies and gifts as mundane as chocolates and bottles of wine, to tickets to the ballet, opera or networking conferences, and access to a corporate box at the footy were also distributed.
There's no restriction on accepting gifts in Queensland, as long as those costing more than $150 are recorded.
But the report noted that the gifts created a "personal dimension" to working relationships and a potential feeling of obligation. The intimacy created at dinners or a football match may make it difficult to make impartial decisions.
"It is unrealistic to claim that such familiarity is not accompanied by a degree of confidence, support and favour," the report said.
In contrast to community groups, mining companies got access to all levels of government through sometimes "secret" meetings, informal events and political fundraisers.
It's hard to know the full extent of these meetings because in-house lobbyists and industry associations are not covered by Queensland's regulations on lobbyists, which means their meetings with public servants (except for ministers) are not made publicly available.
It's also unclear whether subscriptions to political fundraising forums where people can get access to government ministers are made public.
Another cause for concern was how many mining industry employees regularly job-swapped with others in government departments, without having to take a break between working for a mining company and working for government.
The report was critical of the "special treatment" the Newman Government gave to mining companies.

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman with Indian businessman Gautam Adani and Federal Minister for Trade Martin Ferguson on a visit to Mundra Port in Gujurat owned and operated by the Adani family. Picture: Graham Crouch Source:News Corp Australia

Of particular concern was the scale of the donations during the Newman era, including $1 million in 2010/11 from in-kind support, subscriptions and direct cash donations.
A further $3 million was donated to the Liberal Party of Australia.
These donations were received from companies that were pursuing highly controversial projects.
While the Labor Party in Queensland also accepted donations, it got much less — just $94,410 between 2011 and 2015, while its federal counterpart got $1.2 million.
But it also found there had been little change to the way most of the projects were being handled by the Palaszczuk Government.
The report noted that about $9 billion in Queensland taxpayers' money was spent on subsidies for the mining industry in the six years to 2014.
It said the six projects it examined would lead to poor outcomes for Queenslanders including drawdown in important groundwater aquifers, clearing of strategic cropping land, air pollution with fine particle pollution and negative impacts on other industries such as agriculture and tourism.

Beach Energy
Beach Energy has plans for unconventional gas in the Cooper Basin and contributed $193,300 in political donations over four years. It also enjoyed several high level meetings with ministers and the Queensland Premier.
After it was elected the Newman Government revoked Wild River Declarations in the Cooper Creek, Diamantina and Georgina Rivers basins, which would have limited unconventional gas mining in these areas.
This decision, along with the release of extra petroleum exploration areas will increase the risk of negative impacts on the Lake Eyre Basin and sustainable beef cattle industry.

Beach Energy's Cooper Basin oil and gas fields. Residue oil is separated from water in ponds, an initial separation after coming up through an oil well at Butlers. Source:News Limited

Sibelco
This company operates a large sand mine on North Stradbroke Island and is estimated to have spent more than $1 million on influencing political decision making, running a campaign to gain support for continuing its activities. Its official political donations in Queensland were $93,840 over two years.
Its lobbyist met with ministerial advisers and other government departments, and there was also a campaign of TV ads, cinema, print and online advertising and letterbox drop.
Sand mining on the island was due to be phased out by 2019 but the Newman Government extended this to 2035 and also increased the area available for mining by 300 per cent. The cut-off date was restored to 2019 by the Palaszczuk Government.

Karreman Quarries
Before 2014, Karreman had been extracting sand and gravel illegally from the Upper Brisbane River for many years, which caused erosion of properties upstream.
It donated $75,000 over two years up to 2011/12.
It was reportedly facing legal action from a state government department in 2014 but was saved at the "eleventh hour" by amendments to the laws that effectively approved its mining activities retrospectively. The founder of the company met with then Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney in December 2013 to discuss the Mining Act.

Then-Opposition leader Tony Abbott visiting Karreman Quarries at Mt Cotton in 2010. Picture: Tim Marsden Source:News Limited

New Hope
Three companies hold a potential interest in coal mines Acland Stage 3 and Colton Coal. They donated $1.3 million over four years, and had at least seven meetings with Newman Government ministers.
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, the LNP made strong commitments that the Acland Stage 3 coal mine would not proceed because of the impact it would have on farming land on the Darling Downs, but later approved a revised mine plan in 2014. This plan will destroy some 1300ha of Strategic Cropping Land, cause groundwater to drop by up to 50m and may impact 350 water bores.
The government also changed legislation in 2014 that removed the rights of community groups to challenge the project in the Queensland Land Court. Labor restored these rights but also approved an environmental amendment to the project in 2015.
New Hope also overturned a previously stalled approval process for Colton Coal mine near Aldershot.

New Hope's mine near the former town of Acland, near Oakey on the Darling Downs of Queensland. It has been cleared of most of its houses, due to the establishment of the Acland coal mine, an open-cut coalmine less than 2km from the town centre. Picture: Tran Jack Source:News Limited

Adani Mining
It donated $70,300 over three years and obtained 12 meetings with Newman Government ministers.
Despite the appalling environmental track record Adani has overseas, and the impacts its proposed Carmichael mine could have including damaging the Great Barrier Reef, the project moved easily through the assessment process.
There also appears to be inconsistencies over the ownership of the company Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd, that creates confusion over who would ultimately be responsible for ensuring environmental conditions are met.

Qld mines minister Anthony Lynham (left), Qld Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Adani CEO Jeyakumar Janakara to announce the go ahead of the Carmichael Mine. Picture: Tim Marsden Source:News Corp Australia

Linc Energy and Carbon Energy
They contributed $337,999 since 2010/11. Lobbyists have met with key department staff five times.
Linc Energy runs an underground coal gasification trial project known as the Chinchilla Demonstration Facility. The public raised serious concerns about the plant as early as 2011 but no action was taken. The Newman Government commissioned a report in 2013 that found no environmental issues in Chinchilla or at another Bloodwood Creek site. But UCG was banned this year in recognition of the environmental harm these trials caused.
A Supreme Court hearing found there had been ongoing toxic gas leaks into the air and groundwater since 2008.
Linc Energy entered into voluntary administration in April this year, leaving at least $29 million in clean-up costs unpaid.

Recommendations
The report has made five recommendations to prevent further erosion of public trust due to the undue influence of the mining industry on the Queensland Government.

A Special Commission of Inquiry to investigate the influence of the mining industry on public decision-making in the state.
Improve the regulation of lobbyists to include in-house lobbyists and industry associations, and to ensure that agendas, minutes and notes from meetings are placed on the public record.
Stricter controls on post-separation employment and on the provision of gifts and benefits.
Real time disclosure of political donations and contributions (which the Queensland Government announced this month it would introduce in 2017), a ban on donations from the mining industry, an end to 'cash for access' schemes, and a strict cap on all other donations.
Expand the powers of the Crime and Corruption Commission to include official misconduct, the provision of advice on corruption prevention, and for public hearings.

Links

29/07/2016

Climate Models Are Accurately Predicting Ocean And Global Warming

The Guardian - John Abraham

A new study from my colleagues and I vindicates climate models, which are accurately predicting the rate of ocean heat accumulation

Scenic sunset over the ocean. Photograph: Horizon International Images Lim/Alamy

For those of us who are concerned about global warming, two of the most critical questions we ask are, "how fast is the Earth warming?" and "how much will it warm in the future?".
The first question can be answered in a number of ways. For instance, we can actually measure the rate of energy increase in the Earth's system (primarily through measuring changing ocean temperatures). Alternatively, we can measure changes in the net inflow of heat at the top of the atmosphere using satellites. We can also measure the rate of sea-level rise to get an estimate of the warming rate.
Since much of sea-level rise is caused by thermal expansion of water, knowledge of the water-level rise allows us to deduce the warming rate. We can also use climate models (which are sophisticated computer calculations of the Earth's climate) or our knowledge from Earth's past (paleoclimatology).
Many studies use combinations of these study methods to attain estimates and typically the estimates are that the planet is warming at a rate of perhaps 0.5 to 1 Watt per square meter of Earth's surface area. However, there is some discrepancy among the actual numbers.
So assuming we know how much heat is being accumulated by the Earth, how can we predict what the future climate will be? The main tool for this is climate models (although there are other independent ways we can study the future). With climate models, we can play "what-if scenarios" and input either current conditions or hypothetical conditions and watch the Earth's climate evolve within the simulation.
Two incorrect but nevertheless consistent denial arguments are that the Earth isn't warming and that climate models are inaccurate. A new study, published by Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, and others (I was also an author) answers these questions.
The study was just published in the journal Ocean Sciences; a draft of it is available here. In this study, we did a few new things. First, we presented a new estimate of ocean heating throughout its full depth (most studies only consider the top portion of the ocean). Second, we used a new technique to learn about ocean temperature changes in areas where there are very few measurements. Finally, we used a large group of computer models to predict warming rates, and we found excellent agreement between the predictions and the measurements.
According to the measurements, the Earth has gained 0.46 Watts per square meter between 1970 and 2005. Since, 1992 the rate is higher (0.75 Watts per square meter) and therefore shows an acceleration of the warming. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of 5,400,000,000,000 (or 5,400 billion) 60-watt light bulbs running continuously day and night. In my view, these numbers are the most accurate measurements of the rate at which the Earth is warming.
What about the next question – how did the models do? Amazingly well. From 1970 through 2005, the models on average showed a warming of 0.41 Watts per square meter and from 1992-2005 the models gave 0.77 Watts per meter squared. This means that since 1992, the models have been within 3 % of the measurements. In my mind, this agreement is the strongest vindication of the models ever found, and in fact, in our study we suggest that matches between climate models and ocean warming should be a major test of the models.
Despite these excellent results, scientists want to do better. During a conversation with Dr. Trenberth, he told me:

Progress is being made on understanding the energy flows through the climate system as datasets are improved and methods of analyzing the data are being revised and rigorously tested. We can never go back and make observations that were missed, but we can still improve knowledge of how the climate has evolved, even in recent (post-2005) data-rich (Argo) times.

My other colleague, Dr. Lijing Cheng says:

Ocean heat content is a vital climate indicator and is a key metric for global warming. How well ocean heating can be assessed by observations and can be simulated by climate models are a cornerstone of climate studies. By collecting the state-of-the-art observational ocean warming estimates and climate model results, this study gives the current status of our warming world and its future heating. We will continue to work hard to improve both measurements and models to better understand the climate change.

Readers should also know that our study isn't the only one of its kind to make these findings. A paper published before ours by a world-class group of scientists came to similar conclusions. So too does another study found here. When multiple and independent studies come to similar conclusions, it suggests that the conclusions are robust.Our current warming and future predictions are so very important to understanding this very important topic. Fortunately, this new study advances our knowledge in these areas.

Links

James Cameron Wants to Make Climate Change an Election Year Issue

Time - Justin Worland

The Titanic director called Trump a "madman"

Filmmaker and climate change activist James Cameron described Donald Trump’s campaign as a unique opportunity to put climate change on the map for voters hours before a mini-documentary on the issue was set to air at the Democratic National Convention (DNC).
“If Trump is a declared denier, and he is, it’s unequivocal, now you’ve got some leverage for a swing voter,” said Cameron on a conference call for journalists. “I think you’ve got an angle of attack.”
Cameron’s short documentary—entitled Not Reality TV—aimed to do just that. The five-and-a-half minute film presents visuals of climate-related devastation along with voices calling attention to the issue from the likes of Pope Francis, George H.W. Bush and scientists. And, like much of the DNC, the video is filled with celebrities—from narration by Sigourney Weaver to an appearance by Jack Black.
The video also takes aim at Trump calling his position on the issue “dangerous” and showing some of his more outrageous remarks on the topic. On the call, Cameron described Trump as “incredibly reckless” and a “madman.”
Cameron has worked to bring attention to the issue as an executive producer on the show Years of Living Dangerously, which highlights different places affected by climate change—as well as possible climate change solutions—each episode.

Links

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why Climate Denial Should Be A Criminal Offence

New Zealand Herald - Dr Jarrod Gilbert*

The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool. Photo / Getty Images

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change.
The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud.
Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested.
The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.
Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth's atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found "no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible". Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.
For decades, arguments denying the harms caused by smoking were made. A tobacco executive once said: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Such doubts can be highly effective, particularly if they allow people to support agendas that are politically or economically useful to them.
One person who has managed to successfully merge expert and popular opinions is English physicist Professor Brian Cox, whose books and television programmes explain complex scientific phenomena in highly accessible ways. He recently said that ignoring best evidence and turning against experts is "the road back to the cave".
Modern civilisation, he says, has grown not because of gut instinct and guesswork but because of scientific understanding and thinking. "Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest; it means you spend your life studying something. You're not necessarily right - but you're more likely to be right than someone who's not spent their life studying it."
If 100 of the best-qualified engineers were asked to assess the structural integrity of a house and 97 of them said it was unsafe, who would listen to the other three engineers and buy the house? Yet that is the foolishness of climate change denial. Furthermore, the basis for these decisions is often arbitrary and variable.
We all believe in the expertise at Nasa when it launches a rocket into earth's orbit then flicks it into space and lands it on a rock, but so many people conveniently ignore the organisation's knowledge and expertise when it confirms humans created climate change.
All of this might be a strange curiosity if the ramifications weren't so serious. Whether it is the erosion of coastal properties, an influx of climate refugees from the Pacific, or the economic impacts on our primary industries from severe weather events, New Zealand must prepare for some significant realities.
The worst of these problems will impact more greatly on generations to come, but to ignore them now is as unconscionable as it is selfish. It ought be seen as a crime.
One way in which everyday crime can be discouraged is to ensure that "capable guardians" are around to deter criminal activity. When it comes to climate change, the capable guardians are educated members of the public who counteract the deniers.
There may be differing opinions on what policies to pursue, but those who deny that climate change exists ought be shouted down like the charlatans that they are. Or better yet, looked upon with pitiful contempt and completely ignored.
There is no room to sit on the fence and say, "I don't know if it's true". Ignorance of the law excuses no one - and so it is with the laws of science.

*Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist at the University of Canterbury and the lead researcher at Independent Research Solutions. He is an award-winning writer who specialises in research with practical applications.

Links

28/07/2016

Airbus E-Fan Electric Aircraft Makes U.S. Debut With Hybrid Engine

Intelligent Aerospace - Courtney E. Howard

"Hybrid electric flight represents one of the biggest industrial challenges of our time, and our goal is to create aircraft designs that generate zero emissions," explains Andy Anderson, chief operating officer for the Corporate Technology Office at Airbus Group in San Jose, California.
Airbus Group officials debuted the E-Fan 1.2 experimental electric aircraft during EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with a new hybrid electric/gas engine.

Airbus executives are on a mission to one day replace fossil fuels in aviation, including with the help of E-Fan technology. As part of Airbus Group's commitment to pioneering the future of energy-efficient aviation, the company developed the E-Fan 1.1, an experimental aircraft to validate the concept of electric-powered flight. Last year, the plane made aviation history as the first electric-powered aircraft to cross the English Channel.
"With the E-Fan 1.2, we're continuing to explore innovative approaches to more environmentally friendly technologies as possible alternatives to fossil fuels. Using insights gained from the E-Fan program, we hope to reduce – and possibly eliminate – the use of fossil fuels in aviation design within the next 30 to 40 years," Anderson says. The E-Fan 1.2 operates on a hybrid engine to reduce noise, vibration, and weight of the plane while increasing battery capacity and extending range. With this hybrid engine, the E-Fan has significantly reduced its noise level and operates on an electric taxiing system, officials say. The U.S. debut provided aviation experts and enthusiasts the opportunity to view the hybrid engine for the first time publicly and learn more about Airbus Group's vision for the future of green aviation.
Since its founding in 2011, the Airbus E-Fan project has worked to develop more energy efficient aircraft. The project is aligned with the European Commission's "Flightpath 2050" goals, which call for significant reductions in aircraft carbon dioxide emissions and noise to ensure the sustainable development of the aviation industry. As a flying technology test bed, the Airbus E-Fan is promoting research in electric propulsion and the certification of electrical flight concepts.

Airbus Group Inc. is the U.S.-based operation of Airbus Group, a provider of aeronautics, space, and related services. Airbus Group contributes more than $16.5 billion to the U.S. economy annually and supports over 250,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers.

Links

Turnbull Government's Green Shift To Back Renewables

Fairfax - Mark Kenny

Malcolm Turnbull's new Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, has welcomed a declining role for coal in Australia's future energy mix, talked up reliable green energy, and locked in the current 23.5 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, in a marked change from the avowedly pro-coal rhetoric of the Abbott government.
And he has stated that recent price spikes in South Australia – where energies such as wind and solar power make up 40 per cent plus of supply, and Tasmania where the figure is above to 90 per cent - were not solely the fault of high renewable energy dependencies but to a "complex of factors" including the failure of other energy distribution infrastructure such as Basslink, as well as the effects of drought, a cold snap, and high gas prices arising from inadequate supplies and suppliers.
This, he said, could be addressed in part by lifting "blanket moratoria" on new gas extraction as applied currently in Victoria and "parts of" New South Wales, and through technological advances in battery storage, which were coming onstream.
"Now people have pointed the finger at the increased emphasis on renewables as the reason for what's happened in South Australia, it's a lot more complex than that," he said nominating the upgrade of the Heywood interconnecter as a significant factor.
He said the "intermittency" of renewable energy had been a factor in price peaks but not necessarily the main one, as many fossil fuel energy advocates had concluded, although these events would necessitate some deep policy assessment.
Mr Frydenberg has also moved to burnish his own green credentials by rejecting criticism of his dual portfolio responsibilities, which he defended as, "two sides of the same coin", while reinforcing the message that he has never personally doubted the science of anthropogenic climate change, nor that the economy is transitioning away from coal.
"It's been speculated for many years that energy policy and climate change policy are two sides of the same coin, and as a result, policy thinking should be better aligned and coordinated," he said.
"There's massive changes taking place," he said.

Incoming Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has flagged a marked change in direction away from fossil fuels. Photo: Philip Gostelow

"Eight out of the 12 emissions-intensive, coal-fire power stations in Australia, have closed in the last five years, and so I see part of my job is to explain the changing face of energy production in Australia and at the same time ensuring that we can move smoothly ahead."
Newly ensconced in his Parliament House ministerial office ahead of Thursday's first full cabinet meeting since the post-election reshuffle, Mr Frydenberg told Fairfax Media it was obvious that the economy was in transition from a high-carbon output to a low one, which was "no bad thing".
Critical to this is investment certainty, such as the retention of the national renewable energy target.
"With our RET, which is 23.5 per cent by 2020, that's set in stone, I want to make that very clear, the RET is set in stone and the goal must be affordable, accessible, and reliable energy supply as we transition to a lower-emissions future, that is what I see as my template for action," he said.
"One of the big swing factors in Australia's ability to reduce its carbon footprint is going to be technology and while renewables now does introduce elements of intermittent supply at certain levels, the improvements in battery storage give us great confidence in the future, that renewables, which should be taken up in greater and greater amounts, can provide a reliable steady source of energy supply".

Links

World's Largest Carbon Producers Face Landmark Human Rights Case

The Guardian - John Vidal

Filipino government body gives 47 'carbon majors' 45 days to respond to allegations of human rights violations resulting from climate change

Typhoon Haiyan, known locally as Yolanda, struck in 2013 and was one of the most powerful storms ever recorded. Photograph: Erik de Castro / Reuters/REUTERS

The world's largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillippines.
In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 "carbon majors" including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people's fundamental rights to "life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self determination".
The move is the first step in what is expected to be an official investigation of the companies by the CHR, and the first of its kind in the world to be launched by a government body.
The complaint argues that the 47 companies should be held accountable for the effects of their greenhouse gas emissions in the Philippines and demands that they explain how human rights violations resulting from climate change will be "eliminated, remedied and prevented".
It calls for an official investigation into the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and whether the investor-owned "carbon majors" are in breach of their responsibilities.
The Philippines, an archipelago of more than 7,000 islands, is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change.
Four of its most devastating super-cyclones have occurred in the last decade, and the country has recorded increasingly severe floods and heatwaves that have been linked to man-made global warming.
Typhoon Haiyan, known locally as Yolanda, was one of the most powerful storms ever recorded, killing more than 6,000 people and displacing 650,000 others in 2013.
The legal complaint has been brought by typhoon survivors and non-governmental organisations and is supported by more than 31,000 Filipinos.
"We demand justice. Climate change has taken our homes and our loved ones. These powerful corporations must be called to account for the impact of their business activities," said Elma Reyes from Alabat Island in Quezon, who survived super typhoon Rammasun in 2008 and is part of the group submitting the complaint to the CHR.
The full legal investigation is now expected to start in October after the 47 companies have responded. Although all 47 will be ordered to attend public hearings, the CHR can only force those 10 with offices in the Philippines to appear.
These include Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Lafarge, Holcim, and Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. The CHR has the power to seek the assistance of the UN to encourage any which do not attend to co-operate.
"The commission's actions are unprecedented. For the first time, a national human rights body is officially taking steps to address the impacts of climate change on human rights and the responsibility of private actors," said Zelda Soriano, legal and political adviser for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, one of the groups which has brought the complaint to the CHR.
"This is an important building block in establishing the moral and legal 'precedent' that big polluters can be held responsible for current and threatened human rights infringements resulting from fossil fuel products. From the Netherlands to the US, people are using legal systems to hold their governments to account and demand climate action," she said.
The list of the 47 "carbon majors" being asked to respond to the CHR is based on research by Richard Heede, director of the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado. In 2013 he calculated that just 90 global companies had produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the start of the industrial revolution.

A Filipino nun joins the Climate Solidarity prayer march in Manila, Philippines, November 2015. Photograph: Aaron Favila/AP

Together these companies emitted around 315 gigatons of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere, or nearly 22% of estimated global industry greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2013, said Heede.
"We pray that the CHR heed the demand to recommend to policymakers and legislators to develop and adopt effective accountability mechanisms that victims of climate change can easily access," said Father Edwin Gariguez, executive secretary of Caritas Philippines and a recipient of the Goldman environmental prize.
The CHR is not a court and would have no power to force companies to reduce emissions or fine them. However, it can make recommendations to government and would add to the worldwide pressure to persuade shareholders to divest from heavy carbon emitters.
The investigation is the latest in a growing tide of climate liability cases being brought against governments and corporations. In June, the Netherlands' high court ruled on the world's first climate liability suit, ordering the Dutch government to take stronger action against climate change to better protect its citizens.
However, several court cases launched in the US urging the US government to take more action against climate change have been dismissed.

Links