05/04/2016

Climate Change Threat To Public Health Worse Than Polio, White House Warns

The Guardian

Obama administration report details the diversity of risks and claims global warming is a far more challenging danger than polio virus in some cases
Vivek Murthy,​ the surgeon general
The US surgeon general, Vivek Murthy: 'By the end of the century we are looking at increase of tens of thousands of illnesses and death episodes because of climate change,' Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

Climate change poses a serious danger to public health – worse than polio in some respects – and will strike especially hard at pregnant women, children, low-income people and communities of color, an authoritative US government report warned on Monday.
The report, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, formally unveiled at the White House, warned of sweeping risks to public health from rising temperatures in the coming decades – with increased deaths and illnesses from heat stroke, respiratory failure and diseases such as West Nile virus.
"Every American is vulnerable to the health impacts associated with climate change," John Holdren, the White House science adviser, told reporters on Monday. "Some are more vulnerable than others," he went on.
These included pregnant women, children, the elderly, outdoor workers, low-income people, immigrants, communities of color and those with disabilities or pre-existing medical conditions.
The diversity of risks – and vulnerable populations – made climate change a far more challenging threat to public health than even the polio epidemics in the past in some regards, said Vivek Murthy, the surgeon general.
"I don't think we have seen something like this before where we have a force that has such a multitude of impacts," Murthy said.
Polio was eradicated with a specific vaccine, but there was no such quick fix for climate change, he said. "Climate change is not like that. There is not one single source that we can target," he went on. "As far as history is concerned this is a new kind of threat that we are facing."
The grim, climate-inflected scenarios in the report – including projections of an additional 11,000 heat-related deaths by 2030 – intensify the efforts by the White House to rally public support for the Paris climate agreement and the clean power plant rules, which face a legal challenge on 2 June.
Governments will gather in New York on 22 April to formally sign on to the agreement reached in Paris. The Obama administration is leading a push by the United Nations to get the agreement signed and into force by the end of this year – a process that requires the support of 55 countries representing 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House, Democrats in Congress and campaign groups are also working to gin up public support for the clean power plant rules ahead of the 2 June hearing into a legal challenge brought by a coalition of states and industries.
The findings in the report were broadly in line with a draft released by the White House in April last year.
The research – conducted by 100 scientists working across eight government agencies – represents the most exhaustive look to date at the health impacts of climate change within the US, officials claimed on Monday.
Earlier researchers have called attention to the risks of heatwaves, air pollution and illnesses borne by insects such as mosquitoes under climate change as well as the declining nutritional value of food staples such as wheat and rice. Last year, scientists warned that extreme heat could make outdoor work perilous and parts of the Middle East uninhabitable.
The officials made it clear they hoped the findings would broaden public support for cutting the carbon emissions that cause climate change.
"Climate change is already under way and no matter what we do it can't be stopped overnight," Holdren told reporters. "But there is a huge difference in magnitude of impacts if we fail to act and the much smaller magnitude we expect if we take aggressive action set out in the president's climate action plan."
The urgency of the warning reflects growing understanding among scientists of the widespread impacts of climate change.
It also lays to rest the false claim by those obstructing efforts to cut emissions that there are more positives than negatives in warmer temperature conditions.
Hot, sunny days cook more smog which makes breathing conditions worse for sufferers of asthma, emphysema and other respiratory conditions. Warming temperatures also extend the allergy season and fuel the risk of wildfires – whose smoke also worsens air quality.
"By the end of the century we are looking at an increase of tens of thousands of illnesses and death episodes because of climate change," the surgeon general told reporters.
Higher temperatures were also encouraging the spread of illnesses carried by ticks and mosquitoes such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus, Murthy went on. The report did not look at Zika.
The public health threats laid out in the report were on the cards for future generations of Americans even with the emissions commitments contained in the Paris climate agreement, the officials said.
Governments have been clear from the outset that the agreement reached in Paris last December was only a preliminary step towards limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels.
Under the agreement, governments committed to make even deeper cuts in emissions in the coming decades.
"We will need a big encore after 2030 in terms of further deep cuts in order to avoid the bulk of the deeper impacts described in this report," Holdren said.

Links

Giant Queensland Coal Mine Will Carry Hidden Cost, US Investor Predicts

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The approval of a giant new coal mine for Queensland is likely to deliver only short-term economic benefits and may carry a hidden cost if its demise triggers a bailout for miners needing new jobs, a leading US investor says.
The Palaszczuk Labor government on Sunday announced the approval of three mining licences for the $20 billion-plus Carmichael coal mine and rail project planned for the Galilee Basin. Its supporters, including India-based owner Adani, say the mine will generate thousands of new mining jobs.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund president Stephen Heintz says investors are increasingly focused on a low-carbon future.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund president Stephen Heintz says investors are increasingly focused on a low-carbon future. Photo: Ben Rushton
But Stephen Heintz, president of the $US860 million ($1.1 billion) Rockefeller Brothers Fund, predicts the world will move rapidly away from fossil fuels to avoid dangerous climate change. Approval of a mine that may produce 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide - eight times Australia's annual output - is not going to help.
"Some 60-80 per cent of known fossil fuels in the world are going to have to stay in the ground if we are to have any chance to keep to less than 2 degrees" of warming, Mr Heintz said. "In the short term, [Carmichael] may look like a good idea."
The cost of the needed shift to renewable energy will be hefty enough. Approving big new mines means governments, such as Queensland's, will need to find additional funds to pay for the transition of those coal miners out of the industry when it's inevitably curbed, he said.
Adani's Carmichael mine aims to export as much as 60 million tonnes of coal a year, mostly to India.
Adani's Carmichael mine aims to export as much as 60 million tonnes of coal a year, mostly to India. Photo: NYT
Mr Heintz is in Australia as a guest of the United States Studies Centre and will speak at the Divest Invest Conference in Sydney on Tuesday about the opportunities and risks following last year's Paris climate summit at which almost 200 nations agreed to step up efforts to curb global warming.
The falling price of fossil fuels over the past year or so has hindered the development of alternatives, such as solar energy, by making competition "more acute". On the other hand, it has also made investments in coal and oil less valuable, he said.
While some investors would move faster than others to exit carbon-based fuels, the shift would come even if government policies were subject to change.
"The direction of travel has now been set," Mr Heintz said. "As a long-term investor, that's what you're looking at."
By coincidence, Mr Heintz arrived in Sydney after a short holiday on Lizard Island, one of the sites on the Great Barrier Reef hit by one of the worst coral bleaching episodes in history.
"You can see the world's most specular maritime life, whether the corals or the fishes, and you can also see the effects of the bleaching," he said. "It's heart-breaking."
Marine scientists, such as Professor Terry Hughes of James Cook University, had blamed climate change for the bleaching, noting that waters off northern Australia - and many other reef locations - are at record levels. They have also been critical of the Adani approval.

Links

No 'Science For Science Sake': Emails Show CSIRO Plans To Cut Climate Research

Fairfax - Adam Morton, Peter Hannam

Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth, according to internal emails between CSIRO senior managers.
The emails contradict claims that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has remained committed to research that does not bring in revenue, and illustrate the scale of the restructure planned under new chief executive Larry Marshall.
Under Dr Marshall, CSIRO has shifted its focus to making money to pay for its work. The vision sees the iconic Australian science organisation as an "innovation catalyst".
Climate research, including Antarctic programs, were ear-marked for some of the deepest cuts.
Climate research, including Antarctic programs, were ear-marked for some of the deepest cuts. Photo: Pete Harmsen
The emails confirm the century-old organisation was particularly focused on – in the words used in an exchange between managers in CSIRO's oceans and atmosphere division – "eliminating all capability" of its climate change research programs.
An email from Andreas Schiller, science and deputy director of oceans and atmosphere, on January 18 suggested CSIRO aim to make a "clean cut" to get rid of "public good/government-funded climate research".
Sent two weeks before the cuts were announced, it suggested axing 120 climate science staff.
Larry Marshall, chief executive of CSIRO, at a recent AFR business summit in Melbourne.
Larry Marshall, chief executive of CSIRO, at a recent AFR business summit in Melbourne. Photo: Pat Scala
"If we aim for less we will inevitably face the problem of keeping some of the climate scientists (who will no longer be aligned with the new CSIRO strategy)," Dr Schiller wrote.
A full draft plan for the oceans and atmosphere division from February, when the cuts without announced with few details, shows the proposed changes included:
  • Abolishing research on global greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Abolishing research on sea level rise.
  • Abolishing research in Antarctica.
  • Abolishing multi-year, multi-decadal climate modelling and analysis.
  • Reducing collection and analysis of ocean carbon levels, due to "insufficient demand".
  • Reducing research into the management of the impact on biodiversity, due to reduced demand.
  • Reducing research in Australia's tropical north, and northern Australian fisheries.
  • Continuing research on "fugitive emissions" – greenhouse gases unintentionally released during industrial activity.
CSIRO scientists working on optics – another sector of public-good research that has been hit by large cuts.
CSIRO scientists working on optics – another sector of public-good research that has been hit by large cuts. Photo: CSIRO
Where the draft plan refers to insufficient or reduced demand, it is understood it means that research area does not bring in enough money from government or private sources. CSIRO's public-good research spans many of its disciplines, including agriculture, energy and astronomy.

Email dump
The emails are among nearly 700 pages of internal CSIRO documents released in response to a request by a Greens-Labor convened Senate inquiry into the plan to cut as many as 350 CSIRO jobs. More emails between senior CSIRO managers are yet to be released.
Dr Marshall, a physicist and former Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has said sacked staff were expected to be replaced over the next two years by a similar number in different areas. They would include 35 new climate jobs looking at how to tackle the problem, rather than measure what is happening.
The cuts to monitoring, measuring and analysing climate data have been condemned by scientists in Australia and internationally, including criticism by the head of the World Meteorological Organisation's climate research program and an editorial in the New York Times.
Managers at science agencies that partner with and rely on CSIRO – including the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Antarctic Division and the University of Tasmania's Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies – were surprised by the cuts and unclear what it would mean for joint research projects.
Within CSIRO, the reaction has at times been hostile. Scientists from the land and water division in Canberra walked out of a meeting session with Dr Marshall two weeks ago over cuts to their numbers, and the staff union is challenging the cuts in the Fair Work Commission.
It is understood the external pressure is likely to have helped save dozens of jobs, with one climate-related unit now expected to lose about 35 staff, down from an initial plan to cut 65 jobs.

'Deep dive'
The union may cite documents released to the Senate inquiry, including an email from Dr Schiller to other managers sent in November ahead of "deep dive" discussions about redistributing funding within CSIRO.
It says a group of senior managers had discussed that CSIRO's focus would be to "maximise the impact on the nation", and that it should not "do science for science sake" – that having your research published in the prestigious journal Nature alone was not enough to "cut it".
"Public good is not enough, needs to be linked to jobs and growth, but science that leads to SLO [social licence to operate] is ok," Dr Schiller summarised. He said the CSIRO executive wanted "investible propositions" and "growth cases".
In the January 18 email two months later, Dr Schiller suggested to division director Ken Lee and a fellow manager that the oceans and atmosphere division should aim to sack about 120 staff – considered the "high" option by CSIRO management – to get rid of all "public good/government-funded climate research".
Dr Lee replied: "I agree – let's overshoot first."
(To put this into context: the Senate inquiry has heard that Dr Lee and his team initially proposed that 35 climate related jobs be cut. They were told by Dr Marshall and his executive that they needed to sack 100.)
CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said on Monday the comments in the emails were options considered during an early stage of planning. "They didn't meet our criteria once we looked at the external contract obligations, changes in and impacts on other oceans and atmosphere programs or across CSIRO business units and so those options weren't progressed," he said.

Only by half
Dr Marshall has denied all climate researchers would be cut. Giving evidence at Senate estimates in February – after the above email exchange – he said the organisation would cut climate monitoring and measuring staff in half and try "to be smarter about how we do things" by collaborating better with other organisations.
In evidence to the Senate inquiry in early March, CSIRO environment, energy and resources executive director Alex Wonhas – Dr Lee's boss, and a member of Dr Marshall's executive – denied public-good research would be abolished. He said it had been the foundation of what CSIRO had done and would remain on its agenda.
"I think, in this debate, it can appear that CSIRO is pulling out of public-good research. I really want to categorically say, 'This is not our intent'," he said.
"I, and I would say several thousand of our employees, are committed to continuing to do public-good research. It is probably a fair criticism that we maybe have not articulated that position sufficiently well, especially in the last couple of weeks. But I can assure you that that is something that we are working on and that we endeavour to rectify."
Dr Marshall is due to give evidence to the Senate inquiry into the cuts on Thursday. CSIRO staff are expected to be told details of the cuts later this month.

'Barbarism'
Greens Senator Janet Rice said the released documents showed the organisation had no justification for cutting so many climate research jobs.
Senator Rice, whose partner Penny Whetton is an honorary CSIRO research fellow, called on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to intervene.
"It is vandalism and barbarism," she said.
"It is particularly galling because it is our premier research organisation, and our only research organisation that has guaranteed long-term funding."Labor has previously called on the government to halt the cuts until after the election. The government says CSIRO operates as an independent statutory agency.

Links

Science Says Climate Change Will Cost Investors Up To $30 Trillion

Chris Pash

Kiama, NSW, last year. Mark Nolan/Getty Images
Scientists have for the first time estimated the potential costs of climate change for global financial assets including stocks and bonds.
Continuing to pump out CO2 at current rates would wipe out at least $3 trillion from the market. But the situation could be much worse with the upper estimate for losses at $30 trillion.
The study published in the journal Nature Climate Change says that policies to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels substantially would reduce the risk.
Previous research has shown that policies to limit emissions and pollution may strand some assets such as oil, coal and gas reserves. These will lose value.
However, climate change can directly destroy capital assets through damage from extreme weather events or reduce productivity.
Simon Dietz of the London School of Economics and colleagues modelled the impact of climate change on global economic growth and the value of global financial assets.
They estimate that a business-as-usual emissions path will put 1.8% of the present market value of financial assets at risk.
That is equivalent to $US2.5 trillion ($3 trillion) or about half of the estimated current total stock market value of fossil-fuel companies.
However, up to $US25 trillion ($30 trillion) of assets could be at risk if climate change is worse than expected.

Links