Lethal Heating: 07/03/16

03/07/2016

Politics For The Planet: Why Nature And Wildlife Need Their Own Seats At The UN

The Conversation - Anthony Burke | Stefanie Fishel

Should killing too many fish be dealt with in the same way as war crimes? Bob Williams/Wikimedia Commons

Whether we consider wild weather, unprecedented Arctic melting and global temperatures, or the Great Barrier Reef, the global environment is generating alarming news. Predictions of multi-metre sea level rises, the collapse of marine biodiversity and food chains, and global warming far beyond 2℃ are equally concerning. Is our system of global environmental law and governance adequate to this crisis?
Our short answer is "no", but what should be done? We believe new international institutions and laws are needed, with one fundamental purpose: to give a voice to ecosystems and non-human forms of life.
We say this knowing that the current global system is inadequate to respond to many human crises, but with the conviction that environmental justice often overlaps with social justice.
It is tempting to believe that we can muddle through with the existing system, centred on the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity. But these are not integrated with each other, and are also kept separate from global economic and trade institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the G20 and the World Bank, and from global security institutions like the UN Security Council. The latter has never passed a resolution about the environment, despite growing warnings from military strategists of the potential for climate-catalysed conflict.
Global trade and security are each governed by global agencies. But there is no comparable global authority to protect the environment.
The climate agreement negotiated at last year's Paris summit was a great diplomatic achievement, but the euphoria was premature. Current national pledges to cut emissions will fail to keep global warming below 2℃, let alone the 1.5℃ that climate scientists and many nations in Paris have argued is the safer limit.
The Paris deal's predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, actually saw global emissions rise by 60% to 2014.
Three months before Paris, the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and its mission to "heal and secure our planet". The gap between ambition and ability could scarcely be greater.

A new manifesto
We and our colleagues have published a "Planet Politics" manifesto, which argues that the current architecture of international society is failing to see and address the global ecological crisis. Our global governance is too focused on interstate bargaining and human interests, and sees the environment as an inert backdrop and resource for human societies. Yet the reality is that the fates of society and nature are inextricably bound together – and the planet is letting us know that.
In response, we propose three key international reforms: a coal convention, an Earth system council, and a new category of "crimes against biodiversity".

A coal convention
Every year toxic air pollution from coal burning causes death and disease. Coal is responsible for 43% of global greenhouse emissions and 80% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since 1870.
We already have UN treaties banning the use of chemical and biological weapons, on the basis of their threats to human health and security. Based on the same principles, we suggest a similar international convention to outlaw the mining and burning of coal.
This would create a common legal framework in which states can transform their energy economies without fear of "free riders". It would also add to the pressure already being felt by the coal and energy industries to curb their damaging pollution.

An Earth system council
An Earth system council would function much like the UN Security Council – it would, in effect, be an "ecological security council".
Its mandate would be to preserve, protect and repair global ecosystems. It would respond to immediate crises while also stimulating action on systemic environmental degradation and ecosystem repair. Its resolutions would be binding on all UN member states, although we do not envisage that it would have the same coercive powers (such as sanctions). The council would be able to refer issues to the International Court of Justice, or create ad hoc international criminal tribunals relating to major environmental crimes.

Street artwork in Sydney reminds us to think about how much we depend on the planet. Stefanie Fishel, Author provided

This is significant reform that would require the revision of the UN Charter, but our proposals for membership go even further. Every meeting would be briefed by the head of the UN Environment Program and by Earth system scientists or ecologists.
We suggest it could have 25 voting seats, 13 of which would go to state representatives elected for fixed terms, allocated among the major world regions. The other 12 would be permanent seats held by "eco-regions": major ecosystems that bind together large human and non-human communities and are crucial to the planetary biosphere, such as the Arctic and Antarctic, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the Amazon Basin, tropical Africa, or major river systems like the Mekong and Congo. Alternatively, following WWF's Global 200, eco-regions could be based on major habitat types.
Each eco-region would be represented by a democratic assembly and have a constitution focused solely on the preservation and repair of its ecology. It would appoint a representative to the Earth system council and have the power to make recommendations for ecosystem protection to regional governments. Each state with territory that overlaps that eco-region would have one seat. Other seats would be elected democratically from communities (especially indigenous peoples) within those regions.

Crimes against biodiversity
A "crimes against biodiversity" law would act like a Rome Statute for the environment. It could add much-needed teeth to efforts to preserve global biodiversity and prevent large-scale environmental harms. Ecological damage should be criminalised, not just penalised with fines or lawsuits.
We envisage that this law would outlaw and punish three kinds of activity:

actions that contribute to the extinction of endangered species, such as poaching, illegal whaling or destruction of habitat;
actions that involve the unnecessary large-scale killing or death of species groups, as happened in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster;
activities that destroy ecosystems, such as the dumping of mine tailings or toxic waste into rivers.

It would not criminalise the farming of animals or the catching of fish, but could apply if these practices involve the mistreatment of animals or large-scale collateral damage to biodiversity – for instance, by overly extractive fishing methods. Such global-level regulation will augment enforcement at local levels.
Unlike international laws that punish genocide, our suggested law would not require proof of intent to commit the crime, but merely a strong link between the activity and the destruction of biodiversity or industrial and systemic harm to animals. There are potential legal precedents in the US legal doctrine of "depraved heart murder" in which individuals are liable for deaths caused by wilful indifference, rather than an express desire to harm.
It is easy to see how this kind of legal reasoning could be used to help deter dangerous industrial, mining or agricultural activities.
Readers might ask how the destruction of biodiversity is as morally appalling as genocide or other crimes against humanity. The philosopher Hannah Arendt has argued that the distinct evil of crimes against humanity lies not simply in mass murder but in the destruction of human diversity; an attack on humanity's peaceful coexistence on our planet.
Now, as we become ever more aware of the complex enmeshment of human and non-human life in the planetary biosphere, the human-caused extinction of species is likewise an attack on our common ecological existence. It is time for this truth to be recognised in international law.
We are aware that these are radical ideas that raise significant political and legal complexities, but the time to start debating them is now. Planet Earth needs unprecedented politics for these unprecedented times.

Links

Stop Spreading Misinformation On Coal Demand

The Guardian - Ian Dunlop

Politicians are misrepresenting International Energy Agency's projections in their election campaigns. Fossil fuels aren't benign, they will wreck the planet

Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Above, coal operations at the Port of Newcastle. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images

In their book Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations, published prior to the Paris climate change meeting last December, Chris Wright and Daniel Nyberg highlighted how the dominance of neoliberalism in recent decades has locked the global economy on to a path of "creative self-destruction", built around the oxymoron of "green capitalism". Events since Paris have confirmed their thesis.
Just before Paris, the New York state attorney general, via the US Securities and Exchange Commission, secured undertakings from the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy, for violating state laws prohibiting false and misleading conduct in regard to Peabody's public statements on risks posed by climate change. In part by misrepresenting the projections of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
For the past two decades, major companies, industry bodies, media and governments have been guilty of similar disinformation in Australia, a practice which is again evident in this election campaign.
Long ago, the IEA recognised the risks posed by human-induced climate change. It accepted that climate and energy were inextricably linked and dangerous climate change could only be avoided with fundamental change to the global energy system. Specifically by rapidly weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and transitioning to low-carbon energy supply.
The IEA has become a leading authority exploring this transition, regularly quoted by governments and business alike. It is subjected to great pressure by them to lean in suitably accommodating directions.
It handles this pressure by publishing, in its annual World Energy Outlooks (WEOs), its perspectives on the energy sector over the next 25 years. These explore the implications of taking alternative climate and energy pathways. Key scenarios are: current policies (CP) which assumes business-as-usual, new policies (NP) which extends CP with policy governments have committed to but not yet implemented, and the 450 scenario which is the pathway to keep global average temperature increase below 2C.
These scenarios are highly influential in justifying investment decisions. For Australia, global coal demand is one of the factors of greatest interest. In the WEO 2015 released last November, under CP assumptions demand would increase by 43% by 2040 compared to current levels, under NP by 12%, but under 450 scenario it declines by 36%.
The IEA takes NP as their central scenario as this is where we are headed if governments implement their commitments. However the IEA make it clear that NP is not a sustainable future. In its report (pdf), executive director Fatih Birol says: "We look to the negotiators in Paris to destroy our projections in our central scenario, which we show to be unsustainable, in order to create a new world in which energy needs are met without dangerously overheating the planet." The Paris meeting agreed to keep global average temperature below 2C and pursue efforts to limit to 1.5C.
Warming would see global population and economic growth in steep decline or stalled. Poverty would massively increase as poorer countries are disproportionately hit by climate extremes. This is already happening.
As with Peabody, Australian organisations, through the Minerals Council, regularly misrepresent the IEA's position. Typically they publicise the CP or NP outcomes and ignore the 450 scenario despite the fact that they publicly support the 2C limit. These inflated coal demand figures are then claimed to be IEA "forecasts", justifying further coal investment and government support.
These organisations participate in IEA advisory committees and should be aware that scenarios are not forecasts. Scenarios demonstrate the outcome of certain choices and the IEA make it clear that CP and NP are choices we must not make. To suggest otherwise is blatant disinformation of the worst kind given the potentially catastrophic implications of distorting the IEA's advice.
The Minerals Council of Australia has been one of the worst offenders, even in the current election campaign inconsistently using NP outcomes while claiming to support the 2C limit. The Minerals Council represents companies like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, who vehemently proclaim leadership on climate change and the urgent need to follow a 2C path, yet this disinformation is allowed to continue from the Minerals Council.
This propaganda is parroted by ill-informed politicians, such as energy minister Josh Frydenberg, claiming that,"The IEA tells us that 40% of today's electricity demand is met by coal and by 2040 it will still be 30%", and trade minister Steve Ciobo: "Global demand for coal is still going through the roof". NP figures again, which imply an absolute increase in coal use of 23%. However the 450 scenario, to which the government supposedly committed to in Paris, shows coal's share of electricity demand falling from 40% to 12% by 2040, an absolute reduction in coal use of 57%, which certainly requires no new coal mines.
Parts of media also to be blamed. The Australian has been an offenderbut even the more balanced Fairfax press falls into the same trap. Not surprisingly, it still features prominently on coal company websites.
The government and opposition, who accept donations from fossil fuel interests which Wright and Nyberg refer to, both sing the praises of the Adani Carmichael mine in the Galilee Basin, Shenhua's Watermark Mine on the Liverpool Plains, Kepco's Bylong Valley adventure and Hume Coal in the Southern Highlands. All based on ill-informed premises and substantially contributing to increasing global temperatures well above 2C.
The cost to Australia, if this irresponsible misallocation of resources proceeds, would be enormous. Among other things, stranded assets as these mines are forced to shut down as climate impact intensifies; the lost opportunity of not investing in low-carbon future; the loss of agricultural productivity as mining disrupts prime farming land and water supply; and the social disruption caused to regional communities from abandoned operations. Plus, the full impact of potentially catastrophic climate change in a country more at risk than any other.
In the national interest, Australian regulators, including federal and state attorney generals, ASIC, the ASX and the Press Council urgently need to stamp out this misinformation as their overseas counterparts are doing. Particularly if we are serious about promoting "innovation, jobs and growth".

Links

Climate Change, Not Humans, Killed Off Megafauna

Fairfax - Bridie Smith

Tom Rich, curator for palaeontology at Museum Victoria. Photo: Jason South

It's a contentious question. Why did the giant kangaroos and rhino-sized wombats that once roamed Australia die out?
Scientists agree there are two contenders: climate change and humans. But they are fiercely divided over which caused the continent's megafauna to go extinct.
Now, fresh results of a study at a renowned Victorian fossil site in the Macedon Ranges town of Lancefield 73 kilometres north of Melbourne has provided an answer.

The diprotodon was a rhino-sized wombat that weighed about 2.8 tonnes. Photo: Peter Trusler

Lead author of the research Joe Dortch from the University of Western Australia said climate change appeared to be the culprit in the mass deaths of megafauna living in the Lancefield region 50,000 years ago. "Drought was very severe around Lancefield at that time and we are starting to see more evidence of massive climatic changes in this period in south-eastern Australia," he said.
Dr Dortch conceded the study's findings would be considered a piece of the puzzle that would add to, rather than settle the debate.

Scientist Peter White and student Jon Lushey with an excavator at the site. Photo: Joe Dortch

He said even among the six study authors, opinion was divided about the cause of megafauna extinction globally.
There was agreement that the Lancefield Swamp site represented "a drying environment" and that climate change was the major factor in the death of the megafauna that once called the area home.
Scientists say the evidence of this is that among the fossilised remains of giant kangaroos there were no juveniles or elderly animals found at the swamp, the area's last surviving waterhole.

A student working at one of the excavated bone beds at Lancefield. Photo: Joe Dortch

"That tells us that the most vulnerable members of the mob have perished somewhere else already ... and these were the healthiest and the last of the group," Dr Dortch said. "If it was a site where humans had been hunting, you would see a range of animals there."
Thousands of fossils recovered from Lancefield are housed at Museum Victoria. The museum's curator of palaeontology Tom Rich said the site was valuable to researchers internationally because it contained evidence of humans and megafauna co-existing. Key to this was the discovery of a stone artefact in 1974.
"It's a very extensive, rich site," he said. "It has drawn scientists back for decades, hoping to answer this contentious question."
Deakin University's Sanja van Huet didn't participate in the study, though she specialises in what happens to an organism between death and when it is discovered as a fossil.
Dr van Huet argues evidence of abrasions and weathering have been found on the fossilised bones – evidence that they were exposed to the elements at another site before being moved.
"I don't think that the animals died in the swamp, I think they died in the surrounding area," Dr van Huet said. "Heavy rainfall later washed bones into the swamp."
Overall Dr van Huet believes a combination of climate change and disease led to the extinction of Australia's megafauna. She said she was open-minded that humans could have "tipped them over the edge".
"I don't agree with 100 per cent of it but I think it's a great paper," she said.
The Lancefield Swamp fossil deposits are between 80,000 and 50,000 years old – the latter date coinciding with humans' arrival in Australia and with an extremely severe drought.
"There would have been a series of massive droughts lasting decades – perhaps over millennia," Dr Dortch said.
Discovered in 1843 by well-digger James Mayne who was searching for water, the Lancefield Swamp site has been studied by archaeologists since the 1970s.
"A carpet of fossils covers the site, which is spread over a few hectares," Dr Dortch said. The layer of bones is 10-20 centimetres deep.
The dominant animal found at the site is a giant kangaroo that would have stood up to two meters tall and weighed in at an impressive 200 kilograms. Fossilised remains of a diprotodon, a rhino-sized wombat which would have weighed about 2.8 tonnes, have also been found.
Fieldwork during the drought years of 2004-2005 uncovered a 70-centimetre-long jawbone of a diprotodon.
The findings will be published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews in August.

Links