20/10/2016

Out In The Heat: Why Poorer Suburbs Are More At Risk In Warming Cities

The Conversation | 

Upper Coomera is one of those fast-growing fringe suburbs that are hotter because of tightly packed housing with less greenery. Daryl Jones/www.ozaerial.com.au/
Australian cities are getting hotter. The many reasons for this include urban densification policies, climate change and social trends such as bigger houses and apartment living, which leave less space for gardens and trees. But some areas and some residents of cities are more exposed to heat than others.
The concentration of poorer people in hotter places is known as “thermal inequity”. Our recently published research has found this is a real concern on the Gold Coast, one of Australia’s fastest-growing urban regions.
Urban heat is known to increase rates of injury, death and disease. This is why the federal government recently established an urban greening agenda.
The central city tends to be hotter than surrounding suburbs and rural areas – the urban heat island effect. Perhaps because of this, much of the research focus has been on the urban core. But what about heat effects in the suburbs?

What is thermal inequity?
Research from North America and Australia shows people who live in greener, leafier suburbs tend to be wealthier. We know that urban greening can cool ambient air temperatures.
Plentiful street trees, well-designed parks and other types of green space also tend to increase residents’ physical activities and social interactions. This makes greener neighbourhoods healthier and happier.
Unfortunately, the opposite often occurs in poorer suburbs, meaning residents suffer more heat stress. This is a consequence of fewer street trees, less green space and denser urban design. Our research found thermal inequity is a real concern in Upper Coomera, a suburb in the northern growth corridor of Gold Coast city.
The Gold Coast has been coping with explosive rates of growth. The population is expected to double to more than 1 million in the next two decades. Growth-management policies are increasing densities in many suburbs.
On the suburban fringe in places like Upper Coomera, land clearing for development typically removes much of the native vegetation. This in turn increases heat.
The trend in the Gold Coast, like many cities, is for comparatively disadvantaged people to seek more affordable housing in outer suburbs. Less affluent householders become concentrated in suburbs where housing is packed tightly with fewer trees and less greenery.
Hotter houses and neighbourhoods lead to residents paying more for electricity to keep cool. Excessive heat can also increase healthcare expenses and reduce productivity.

Research shows residents are struggling
As we explain in the video abstract for our article, we used a mail-back survey of 1,921 households to examine three questions:
1) Are residents aware of climate change?
2) Are residents concerned about climate change?
3) Do residents understand the potential of green infrastructure to help neighbourhoods adapt to climate change?


Video abstract for Environmental Research Letters article on thermal inequity.

We found more than 90% of residents were aware of climate change and almost 70% were concerned about it. Residents living in townhouses were particularly worried. Paradoxically, those living in dwellings with dark roofs were less worried, as were those with larger families.
We also found that more than 90% of respondents had air conditioning. Using statistical analysis, we determined that renters are especially vulnerable to associated energy costs, as are those with kids.
Interestingly, we found that people living in townhouses were less likely to consider buying energy-efficient devices to lower household energy expenses, as were those with more children. This could be because renters and those with larger families may be struggling financially.
In sum, we found that more disadvantaged households with less disposable income were living in dwellings that were more vulnerable to heat.
Next, we examined the attitudes of residents to urban greening to help combat heat in their neighbourhood. We found almost two-thirds favoured tree planting. More than half felt local streets lacked shade.
Few trees to be seen: residential landscapes in Upper Coomera. Jason Byrne
While 90% of surveyed residents saw that shade was a key benefit of trees, just over half understood that trees can lower air temperatures. Although most residents recognised maintenance costs of trees as a disadvantage, they still favoured more urban greening.

So what can be done?
Our findings have important repercussions for urban policy. As we have previously noted, urban greening has many advantages for climate change adaptation. It is comparatively inexpensive and is politically palatable.
However, higher-density neighbourhoods like Upper Coomera often have less land available for greening. Yards are smaller and verges are typically dominated by on-street parking.
We advocate for education campaigns about the benefits of urban greening and better urban design guidelines to make it easier for developers to increase neighbourhood greenery. Better knowledge about species selection is needed to reduce maintenance issues.
Urban greening initiatives should also use technologies like permeable paving to limit pavement uplift and capture rainfall on-site.
Thermal inequity exists but it can be reduced. After all, if urban greenery can benefit all residents, why should the poor miss out?

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Chloe Portanger, Information Analytics Specialist with Climate Planning, to the research on which this article is based.

Links

NASA Analysis Finds Warmest September on Record By Narrow Margin

Goddard Institute for Space Studies

September 2016 was the warmest September in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Monthly temperature anomalies with base 1980-2015, superimposed on a 1980-2015 mean seasonal cycle. (Credit: NASA/GISS/Schmidt) —  View larger image
September 2016's temperature was a razor-thin 0.004 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous warmest September in 2014.
The margin is so narrow those two months are in a statistical tie.
Last month was 0.91 degrees Celsius warmer than the mean September temperature from 1951-1980.
The record-warm September means 11 of the past 12 consecutive months dating back to October 2015 have set new monthly high-temperature records.
Updates to the input data have meant that June 2016, previously reported to have been the warmest June on record, is, in GISS's updated analysis, the third warmest June behind 2015 and 1998 after receiving additional temperature readings from Antarctica.
The late reports lowered the June 2016 anomaly by 0.05 degrees Celsius to 0.75.
"Monthly rankings are sensitive to updates in the record, and our latest update to mid-winter readings from the South Pole has changed the ranking for June," said GISS director Gavin Schmidt.
"We continue to stress that while monthly rankings are newsworthy, they are not nearly as important as long-term trends."
A map of the September 2016 LOTI (land-ocean temperature index) anomaly, showing that much of the warmer temperatures occurred in the northern hemisphere. (Credit: NASA/GISS) View larger image
The monthly analysis by the GISS team is assembled from publicly available data acquired by about 6,300 meteorological stations around the world, ship and buoy-based instruments measuring sea surface temperature, and Antarctic research stations.
The modern global temperature record begins around 1880 because previous observations didn't cover enough of the planet.
Monthly analyses are updated when additional data become available, and the results are subject to change. 

Links

Sorry, Shock Jocks, But The Public Isn't Buying Into A Renewable Energy Panic

The Guardian

Despite a concerted effort to create a panic about renewable energy following the South Australian storm, public support for ambitious renewable energy targets remains high
‘If renewables are popular with the public, have not been blamed for the blackout by any authoritative source and, by definition are better for the environment, where is all the vitriol coming from?’ Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The lights had not even come back on in South Australia after the freak storm that blacked out the state last month when the latest front in the climate wars was breaking out.
The pushback against the state’s 41% reliance on renewables, notably wind farms, has attracted a gumbo of opportunists seeking to push their particular carbon barrows.
There was the federal energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, attempting to justify his less-than ambitious renewable energy target, there was the king of South Australian populism, Nick Xenophon, jumping on the nearest bandwagon and there was the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, who just hates wind farms.
Close behind them and was the peak industry group, ACCI, calling for an independent review of the state’s energy mix while rightwing shock jocks across the nation took up the opportunity to move beyond the increasingly settled debate on climate science to find a new target for their vitriol.
And presiding over it all was a prime minister who appears to have ceased to even realise when he is trashing his own political integrity.
If it all looked like a pre-prepared and coordinated campaign by the Coal Club, that’s because it probably was.
Essential has been following the issue over recent weeks to monitor whether the SA blackouts have the capacity to spark another climate panic, not so much the Big New Tax On Everything, as much as the Big Black Out.
The short answer is that the public isn’t buying the renewable panic.

Some people have said the recent power black out in South Australia was a result of too much reliance on renewable energy. Others have said that the storm damage would have shut down the power grid regardless of how the electricity was produced. Which is closest to your view?
Yes, a quarter of Coalition voters reject the experts and see a causal relationship that even the prime minister and his energy minister didn’t really assert. But the 60% figure who don’t represents a significant rebuff.
And those findings are reflected in broader attitudes towards renewables – when asked to choose between threat or solution, the signals are clear if not unanimous.

Do you think renewable energy is the solution to our future energy needs or is renewable energy a threat to our future energy supply?
So  if renewables are popular with the public, have not been blamed for the blackout by any authoritative source and, by definition are better for the environment, where is all the vitriol coming from?
Early every year, the commonwealth publishes the Energy in Australia report giving a snapshot of the industry. The numbers provide a compelling context to this debate.
  • Energy occupies a central place in the Australian economy. It’s 6% of the economy or about $100bn value add, and responsible 155,000 jobs.
  • Nearly three-quarters of that value comes from coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and petroleum and coal product manufacturing, most of it for export.
  • Australia produces three times as much energy as we consume: we are number eight in the world for production versus number 20 in the world for consumption.
  • We have 100 years of coal reserves and 50 years of gas reserves.
  • And despite the emerging consensus on climate change, growth in Australian energy production in the decade to 2013-14 was twice as fast for black coal and gas as it was for renewables.
It’s hardly a surprise then that the owners and other beneficiaries of those future earnings – that’s the corporates and the government – are seeking to defend these future earnings.
Clean energy threatens their international markets for electricity fuel and production and also for transport where the substitution of clean electricity for liquid fuels is only constrained by fast-evolving battery technology.
Any serious view on de-carbonisation implies a massive downgrade in expectations of future earnings and thus market value for these players.
That’s where South Australia is one of the world’s biggest challenges to the market value of those bedrock Australian industries because it has moved fastest in shifting its energy mix.
But while it is an early adapter it is not an outlier. According to Navigant research for US industry association Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), global “advanced energy” revenues went from $1.08tn in 2011 to $1.35tn in 2015. That’s up 25% in four years.
Quoting the World Bank, Navigant says that from 2014 to 2015, advanced energy revenue grew at more than three times the rate of the world economy overall.
That’s a global market of $2tn by 2020 or soon after. Even if you discount for some debatable AEE inclusions such as nuclear, that’s a massive global market.
The size and speed of the national and state renewable energy targets are key drivers of Australia building its own “advanced energy” market, albeit at the cost of the existing Australian energy players.
The difference in ambition is becoming one of the fault lines of the major political parties, with Labor’s national 50% target more than double the current Coalition position.
Again our figures show the public is backing a fundamental energy transition.

The Labor Party is committed to a target of 50% renewable energy by 2030. An independent report has said this policy would require about $48 billion of new private sector (not Government) investment in large scale renewable energy production such as solar and wind farms. Do you approve or disapprove of this policy?

But there’s a caution to these numbers.
There was a time when support for a market response to climate change seemed almost as universal. Through the final term of the Howard government, the consensus developed until support for an emissions trading scheme was bi-partisan.
The rest is history. Rudd spends too long designing the mechanism, fails to steward a global deal. Turnbull loses his base and his job, Rudd drops the “great moral challenge of the time” and his job too. Then Gillard spills the drinks.
“The big new tax on everything” becomes political poison, the exaggerated price is too high and the consensus collapses along with faith in the science, leaving Tony Abbott to sup on the spoils.
The lesson of climate politics of the past decade has been never to under-estimate self interest.
While the mood may be right for Labor and Australia’s emerging clean energy industry, they would be foolish to under-estimate the fossil fuel industry’s capacity to slow down what seems inevitable.

Links