April Breaks Global Temperature Record, Marking Seven Months Of New Highs

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Latest monthly figures add to string of recent temperature records and all but assure 2016 will be hottest year on record

Global land and sea temperature was 1.11C warmer in April 2016 than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980. Photograph: Stephane Mahe/Reuters

April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.
The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.
It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a "climate emergency".
Figures released by Nasa over the weekend show the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980.
It all but assures that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, and probably by the largest margin ever.

The new record broke the previous one by 0.24C, which was set in 2010, at 0.87C above the baseline average for April. That record itself broke one set three years earlier at 0.75C above the baseline average for April.

NASA records the warmest April on record.

The current blast of hot air around the globe is being spurred by a massive El Niño, which is a release of warm water across the Pacific Ocean. But it's not the biggest El Niño on record and that spike in temperatures is occurring over a background of rapid global warming, pushing temperatures to all-time highs.
"The interesting thing is the scale at which we're breaking records," said Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales in Australia. "It's clearly all heading in the wrong direction.
"Climate scientists have been warning about this since at least the 1980s. And it's been bloody obvious since the 2000s. So where's the surprise?" said Pitman.
Pitmans said the recent figures put the recent goal agreed in Paris of just 1.5C warming in doubt. "The 1.5C target, it's wishful thinking. I don't know if you'd get 1.5C if you stopped emissions today. There's inertia in the system. It's putting intense pressure on 2C," he said.
The record temperatures were wreaking havoc with ecosystems around the world. They've triggered the third recorded global coral bleaching, and in Australia 93% of the reefs have been affected by bleaching along the 2,300km Great Barrier Reef. In the northern parts of the reef, it's expected the majority of coral is dead, and on some reefs over 90% of the coral is dying.
A recent analysis showed the bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef was made 175 times more likely because of climate change, and the conditions that caused it would be average in fewer than 20 years.
The April figures come as the symbolic milestone of CO2 concentrations of 400 parts per million (ppm) have been broken at the important Cape Grim measuring station in Tasmania, Australia.
Reflecting on the CO2 concentrations, Pitman said: "The thing that's causing that warming, is going up and up and up. So the cool ocean temperatures we will get with a La Niña are warmer than we'd ever seen more than a few decades ago … This is a full-scale punching of the reef system on an ongoing basis with some occasionally really nasty kicks and it isn't going to recover."

Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016.

Links

• World's carbon dioxide concentration teetering on the point of no return
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching made 175 times likelier by human-caused climate change, say scientists
• Activists launch fresh court challenge over Carmichael coalmine
• Great Barrier Reef: Greens call for new tax on mining to pay for damage
• Great Barrier Reef: 93% of reefs hit by coral bleaching
• February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount
• Devastating global coral bleaching event could hit Great Barrier Reef next
• Climate change will lead to deformed and virus-hit coral reefs
• Paris climate talks: what difference will temperature rises really make?
• Climate change makes past five-year period the warmest on record: WMO

Direct Action Not Giving Us Bang For Our Buck On Climate Change

The Conversation - Paul Burke

Energy efficiency projects could receive more subsidies if Direct Action is continued. David González Romero/Flickr, CC BY

Direct Action is the centrepiece of Australia's current greenhouse gas reduction efforts. To date, A$1.7 billion in subsidies has been committed from the government's Emissions Reduction Fund to projects offering to reduce emissions.
The scheme replaced Australia's two-year-old carbon price in 2014 and is a key part of the government's plan to reduce emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020, and 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has called Direct Action a "stunning success" and "one of the most effective systems in the world for significantly reducing emissions".
In a new article in Economic Papers, I look into the economics of Direct Action and how it is working. I conclude that the scheme is exposed to funding projects that would have happened without government funding.
This issue has long been known as a threat to schemes of this type, and means that the scheme is likely to be less useful in reducing emissions than the government is claiming.
Commonwealth Procurement Rules require value for money in government purchases. It is not clear we are getting that with Direct Action.

Information problems
The key challenge for schemes like Direct Action is information. What exactly is the scheme buying, and would that have happened without it?
Direct Action works by inviting voluntary project proposals and then allocating funds to the lowest bidders in reverse auctions.
Unfortunately, projects that would have gone ahead even without a subsidy – call them "anyway projects" – have a cost advantage that makes them well placed to win the auctions. It is often difficult for the government to identify such projects. When projects of this type receive funding, taxpayers' money is being used ineffectively.
Economists call this adverse selection, or the "lemons problem".

All about that baseline
The government has developed a set of methods for defining projects and measuring the emission reductions provided by each project against estimated baselines. It is an economy-wide scheme, and there are methods covering everything from energy efficiency to aviation.
As is, the methods leave opportunities for anyway projects to qualify. The Emission Reduction Fund White Paper states that a "flexible approach" is being pursued so as to encourage participation.
One rule is that projects be new. But across the Australian economy, new projects are launched every year. Some happen to reduce emissions. These projects are being attracted into the Direct Action auctions.
Carry-overs from the former Carbon Farming Initiative have also been allowed to side-step the newness requirement.

The experience so far
Three Direct Action auctions have been held to date, with the most recent in late April 2016.
Some of the funded projects are likely to be providing genuine reductions in emissions. Unfortunately, however, some project categories are rather questionable.
Landfill operators have been awarded Direct Action subsidies in each of the auctions. Their projects are often already generating revenues from electricity sales and renewable energy certificates.
Other projects to win subsidies include upgrades to lighting in supermarkets and to the fuel efficiency of vehicles. These are activities that are supposed to happen anyway.
The biggest winner to date has been vegetation projects. Among these are projects to reduce tree clearing, including of invasive native species near Cobar and Bourke in New South Wales. The large payments for these projects are likely to have preserved some vegetation. But some farmers appear to have not actually been planning to clear. If so, funding is going to anyway projects.

This vegetation could be protected under the avoided deforestation category of Direct Action. But was it going to be cleared, and is a taxpayer-funded subsidy the best way to save it? Paul Burke, Author provided

Projects potentially in line for the next auction include boiler upgrades and modifications to aircraft. If Direct Action were to continue for years to come, the bill could become very big.
Journalists such as Lenore Taylor and Tristan Edis are among those who have raised concerns about the quality of Direct Action projects. The government has yet to properly engage with this issue.

This problem could be avoided
There are far better policy approaches than Direct Action subsidies.
A key advantage of either an emissions tax or an emissions trading scheme is that the government does not need to evaluate individual projects from covered enterprises.
These schemes instead introduce a price per unit of emissions and leave the private sector to decide which projects to implement. Large emitters are already required to report their emissions, so implementation is comparatively straightforward. Any revenue raised could be used to reduce other taxes or Australia's budget deficit.
Regulations could also be put to more use. Strengthened restrictions on vegetation clearing and on the release of coal mine gas are examples.
Eligibility to generate offset credits should be tightened to cover only credibly genuine emission reductions that are difficult to achieve using other policies. Some carbon farming activities can meet this criterion, and could generate revenue from private-sector buyers. Public expenditure on new offset projects could be ended.

Better off going back to what was working
There are many other downsides to Direct Action. These include its administrative complexity, the issue of emissions reappearing elsewhere in the economy, and the subsidy culture it inculcates.
The scheme is yet to induce emissions reductions in key sectors of the economy. Emissions from electricity generation are rising again.
Australia has a big challenge ahead in decarbonising our economy. There are many opportunities, but we need to get our policy settings right. It would be better to move on from Direct Action subsidies. An approach centred on pricing emissions makes more sense.

An open-access version of Paul's paper can be downloaded here.

Links

• Explainer: how does today's Direct Action reverse auction work?
• On these numbers, Australia's emissions auction won't get the job done
• Direct Action's here, but how will Australia cut carbon after 2020?
• Australia's climate targets still out of reach after second emissions auction

Election 2016: Climate Change Policy A Vote Winner For Majority Of Australians

Fairfax - Fergus Hunter

Strong climate change policy is a vote-changing matter for a majority of Australians, a new poll shows, establishing the issue as an important battleground one week into the election campaign.
According to the ReachTEL survey of 2400 people, conducted for a coalition of environmental groups, 64 per cent of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a party seeking 100 per cent renewable energy in 20 years and 48 per cent said they would be more likely to support a party reducing Australia's net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

A diver checking out the Barrier Reef coral bleaching at Heron Island in February.

56.4 per cent of people want the government to do more on climate change while 27.8 per cent think the current settings are right and 9.9 per cent want less action.
The figures contrast with the Turnbull government's avoidance of the topic. The Prime Minister did not mention climate change in his speech when kicking off the election campaign.
The Coalition's policy is a 26-28 per cent cut on 2005 emission levels by 2030 through its multi-billion dollar emissions reduction fund and 23 per cent clean energy production by 2020.
Recently unveiled is Labor's proposed 45 per cent cut on 2005 levels through emissions trading and restrictions on land clearing.
The Greens want a 63-82 per cent equivalent cut to emissions and 90 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
"The Prime Minister has spoken about the need to transition the economy from one dependent on mining. It is clear from this poll that an increasing number of Australians support that goal on climate change grounds," Lyndon Schneiders, national director of the Wilderness Society, said.
"It is also clear that the vast majority of Australians recognise that we need new and powerful laws to manage that transition and to protect the places we love from the impacts of climate change."
The poll also found:

• 56.1 per cent of people would be more likely to support a party phasing out coal-fired power, compared to 27.2 per cent unchanged and 16.6 per cent who would be less supportive.
• 66.9 per cent would be more likely to vote for a party that strengthens environmental laws protecting sites like the Great Barrier Reef, while 23.1 per cent are unaffected and 10 per cent would be less likely to support them.
• 61.9 per cent of people agree that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming and is destroying the Great Barrier Reef, while 23.2 per cent disagree and 14.9 per cent don't know.

A squad of environment groups, including the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, the Australian Conservation Foundation, GetUp! and Environment Victoria, are using the election to target 25 marginal seats with a doorknocking and publicity campaign on climate policy.
AYCC national director Kirsty Albion said the organisation is encouraging young people at universities and schools to enrol to vote "so that politicians start taking our future seriously and act on global warming".

Links

• Symbolic climate milestone passed