The Marshalltown - Helen Clark
As the largest international gathering of coral reef experts comes to
a close, scientists have sent a letter to Australian officials calling
for action to save the world’s reefs, which are being rapidly damaged.
The letter was sent Saturday to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull imploring his government to do more to conserve the nation’s
reefs and curb fossil fuel consumption.
The letter, signed by past and present presidents of the
International Society for Reef Studies on behalf of the 2,000 attendees
of the International Coral Reef Symposium that was held in Honolulu this
week, urged the Australian government to prioritize its Great Barrier
Reef.
“This year has seen the worst mass bleaching in history, threatening
many coral reefs around the world including the whole of the northern
Great Barrier Reef, the biggest and best-known of all reefs,” the letter
said. “The damage to this Australian icon has already been devastating.
In addition to damage from greenhouse gasses, port dredging and
shipping of fossil fuels across the Great Barrier Reef contravene
Australia’s responsibilities for stewardship of the Reef under the World
Heritage Convention.”
Leaders from the scientific community at the convention in Honolulu
said Friday that the “unprecedented” letter was critical to the
conservation of the fragile reef habitat.
Scientists are not known for their political activism, said James
Cook University professor Terry Hughes, but they felt this crisis
warranted such action.
“We are not ready to write the obituary for coral reefs,” said
Hughes, who is also the president of the ARC Centre of Excellence for
Coral Reef Studies in Australia.
A call to action from three Pacific island nations whose reefs are in
the crosshairs of the largest and longest-lasting coral bleaching event
in recorded history was presented Friday at the conclusion of the
International Coral Reef Symposium in Honolulu. The Associated Press was
given advance access to the call for action and the scientific
community’s response.
The heads of state from Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands
attended the conference and will provide a plan to help save their
ailing coral reefs, which are major contributors to their local
economies and the daily sustenance of their people. The call to action,
signed by the three presidents, asked for better collaboration between
the scientific community and local governments, saying there needs to be
more funding and a strengthened commitment to protecting the reefs.
“If our coral reefs are further degraded, then our reef-dependent
communities will suffer and be displaced,” the letter said. They also
called for more integration of “traditional knowledge, customary
practices and scientific research” in building a comprehensive coral
reef policy.
In response to the letter, the scientific community at the conference
said: “We pledge to take up the 13th ICRS Leaders’ Call to Action, and
will work together with national leaders of the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
and the world to curb the continued loss of coral reefs.”
Bleaching is a process where corals, stressed by hot ocean waters and
other environmental changes, lose their colour as the symbiotic algae
that lives within them is released. Severe or concurrent years of
bleaching can kill coral reefs, as has been documented over the past two
years in oceans around the world. Scientists expect a third year of
bleaching to last through the end of 2016.
In the northern third of the Great Barrier Reef, close to half of the
corals have died in the past three months, said Hughes, who focuses his
research there. The area of the reef that suffered most is extremely
remote, he said, with no pollution, very little fishing pressure and no
coastal development.
“That’s an absolute catastrophe,” Hughes said. “There’s nowhere to hide from climate change.”
But the panel of scientists emphasized the progress they have made
over the past 30 years and stressed that good research and management
programs for coral reefs are available. The scientists said they just
need the proper funding and political will to enact them.
The researchers focused on the economic and social benefits coral
reefs contribute to communities across the globe, saying the critical
habitats generate trillions of dollars annually but conservation efforts
are not proportionately or adequately funded.
In the United States, the budget for the federal coral reef
conservation program is set at about $27 million a year, said Bob
Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii’s Kewalo Marine
Laboratory and convener of this year’s International Coral Reef
Symposium.
In Hawaii, he said, the reefs are valued at $34 billion, and the
return to the state’s economy is about $360 million annually — meaning
the entire nation’s budget for coral reef conservation is less than 10
per cent of the annual return in that one state alone.
Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa
and the Northern Mariana Islands also have ailing reefs under the
budget.
The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, which aimed to protect coral
reefs and create programs to manage their conservation, has been
plagued by political resistance and a severe lack of funding, said
Robert Richmond, former president of the International Society for Reef
Studies.
Links
26/06/2016
Ducking The Climate Challenge
Asia & the Pacific Policy Society - John Hewson
Both major parties are ignoring the electorate’s mood for a greater focus on climate change, writes John Hewson.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this very long election
campaign is that climate change hasn’t been a more significant issue.
As the 2016 Lowy Survey revealed recently, concern about global warming continues to trend upwards: 53 per cent of Australians say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’ (up 17 points since 2012).
Further, 88 per cent agree that ‘the use of fossil fuels is in decline and Australia should invest more in alternative energy sources’, and most say ‘we should reduce our reliance on them to help combat climate change’ (79 per cent).
Given this degree of electoral support, and the election mantra of “Jobs and growth”, and given that the renewable energy sector is the most “shovel ready” sector to provide very significant, new businesses, new investment, and new jobs, it is staggering that these opportunities have not been grabbed and emphasized more by the two major parties.
The Lowy Survey also provides some explanation, by noting the somewhat schizophrenic nature of the electorate on the climate issue, in the sense that a majority also express support for continuing coal exports to ‘developing countries, to help them grow and reduce poverty’ (66 per cent) and ‘to keep our economy strong’ (53 per cent).
So, while both sides emphasise their support for emissions reduction targets – the base being our national commitments made in Paris to cut emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 (although the ALP has set a higher target) – both also support new coal mines and neither have been prepared to formally rule out new coal-fired power stations.
Obviously, and cynically, both sides see advantage in running these mixed messages, directed to different constituencies, in different seats. Equally, they also see some advantage in minimizing climate, overall, as an issue, to avoid having to debate and defend the detail of the inconsistencies in their positions.
Interestingly, the ALP had a very real opportunity to wedge the Government on the climate issue, given their higher emissions reduction targets, their commitment to more CEFC/ARENA type funding, and having set a renewable energy target (RET) of 50 per cent for 2030.
Yet, given their union base and the extent of union influence, they couldn’t afford to offend key mining unions by taking a hard-line rejection of new coal mines, and they still fear something of another carbon tax scare campaign, given their longer-term commitment to an emissions trading scheme.
When they are finally released, I am also sure that the campaign funding reports will identify some sizeable donations to both sides from mining and energy interests, and there are many “personal” links with several significant ex-politicians and staffers being employed by such interests.
So, with the exception of the Windsor campaign that is focused, to a significant extent, on wedging Joyce in their battle for the seat of New England, climate change has been the “elephant in the room” in this campaign.
Yet, globally, coal is in terminal decline. Some 75 per cent of known coal reserves can never be mined if the world is to have any hope of containing global warming to the Paris objectives, let alone net zero emissions by 2050.
It has been estimated that the coal from the proposed mines in Queensland’s Galilee Basin (where Adani has one of the largest deposits, and its proposed mine has the support by both major parties), if exported for burning in power generation, would alone use up about 30 per cent of the essential 2050 carbon budget.
Arguments that the export of this “higher grade” coal to India, would work to achieve lower emissions than would be the case if India were to have to burn its “lower grade”, dirtier, coal, and that this would lead to a significant reduction in Indian poverty, are without foundation, as there are viable cost effective renewable alternatives.
The bottom line is that both major parties are simply ignoring the mounting electoral mood, for perceived short-term electoral advantage. They are working to kick the climate challenge further down the road, as, indeed, they have also both done with the challenge of budget repair.
Links
Both major parties are ignoring the electorate’s mood for a greater focus on climate change, writes John Hewson.
Australia's 'elephant in the room' PHOTO: UniversityBlogSpot |
As the 2016 Lowy Survey revealed recently, concern about global warming continues to trend upwards: 53 per cent of Australians say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’ (up 17 points since 2012).
Further, 88 per cent agree that ‘the use of fossil fuels is in decline and Australia should invest more in alternative energy sources’, and most say ‘we should reduce our reliance on them to help combat climate change’ (79 per cent).
Given this degree of electoral support, and the election mantra of “Jobs and growth”, and given that the renewable energy sector is the most “shovel ready” sector to provide very significant, new businesses, new investment, and new jobs, it is staggering that these opportunities have not been grabbed and emphasized more by the two major parties.
The Lowy Survey also provides some explanation, by noting the somewhat schizophrenic nature of the electorate on the climate issue, in the sense that a majority also express support for continuing coal exports to ‘developing countries, to help them grow and reduce poverty’ (66 per cent) and ‘to keep our economy strong’ (53 per cent).
So, while both sides emphasise their support for emissions reduction targets – the base being our national commitments made in Paris to cut emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 (although the ALP has set a higher target) – both also support new coal mines and neither have been prepared to formally rule out new coal-fired power stations.
Obviously, and cynically, both sides see advantage in running these mixed messages, directed to different constituencies, in different seats. Equally, they also see some advantage in minimizing climate, overall, as an issue, to avoid having to debate and defend the detail of the inconsistencies in their positions.
Interestingly, the ALP had a very real opportunity to wedge the Government on the climate issue, given their higher emissions reduction targets, their commitment to more CEFC/ARENA type funding, and having set a renewable energy target (RET) of 50 per cent for 2030.
Yet, given their union base and the extent of union influence, they couldn’t afford to offend key mining unions by taking a hard-line rejection of new coal mines, and they still fear something of another carbon tax scare campaign, given their longer-term commitment to an emissions trading scheme.
When they are finally released, I am also sure that the campaign funding reports will identify some sizeable donations to both sides from mining and energy interests, and there are many “personal” links with several significant ex-politicians and staffers being employed by such interests.
So, with the exception of the Windsor campaign that is focused, to a significant extent, on wedging Joyce in their battle for the seat of New England, climate change has been the “elephant in the room” in this campaign.
Yet, globally, coal is in terminal decline. Some 75 per cent of known coal reserves can never be mined if the world is to have any hope of containing global warming to the Paris objectives, let alone net zero emissions by 2050.
It has been estimated that the coal from the proposed mines in Queensland’s Galilee Basin (where Adani has one of the largest deposits, and its proposed mine has the support by both major parties), if exported for burning in power generation, would alone use up about 30 per cent of the essential 2050 carbon budget.
Arguments that the export of this “higher grade” coal to India, would work to achieve lower emissions than would be the case if India were to have to burn its “lower grade”, dirtier, coal, and that this would lead to a significant reduction in Indian poverty, are without foundation, as there are viable cost effective renewable alternatives.
The bottom line is that both major parties are simply ignoring the mounting electoral mood, for perceived short-term electoral advantage. They are working to kick the climate challenge further down the road, as, indeed, they have also both done with the challenge of budget repair.
Links