01/12/2016

Mark Ruffalo, Noam Chomsky and Sir David Attenborough Join Forces for Climate Change Documentary

1 Million Women - Shea Hogarth

A new climate change documentary by Liberatum called ‘In This Climate’ will be released in January 2017, and intends to set the record straight on climate change.

This has been a film 15 years in the making, but there has never been a more important time to release it. This world is a hotbed for denial (excuse the pun), the President of the free world believes anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, people out there don't deviate from their single-minded media outlets and not nearly enough people changing their lifestyles, thus there has never been a greater need for poignant motivation. Video is a powerful course of action to raise awareness.
The film uses notable visionaries, thinkers, scientists and some of the most celebrated creative minds of our time in order to express the urgency of this issue. From David Attenborough, Noam Chomsky and Christiana Figuerez to Cher, Mark Ruffalo and Ian McEwan, the documentary is not short of ranging audiences.

Just from the trailer you are taken through a whirlwind of emotions in order to arrive at the one emotion we need… hope.
The facts are daunting, "By 2050 we are going to have more plastic in the ocean than fish" and "The next war is going to be a mortal war." But as long as after we learn all this and go through the stages and we arrive at hope, then there can be real action to create change.
As Christiana Figuerez mentions in the trailer "Any transition is messy by definition" and when Ian McEwan says "We are paralysing ourselves with pessimism."
Utilising notable figures in society is a key method to spread the message. There cannot be a cultural shift if so many of us are still left in the dark or are yet to truly understand the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Combining creative forces, various reputable figures from all over the world and a strong message is a powerful way to raise awareness and empower change.
The important concept to remember is that this is the awareness stage; one must never think they can't make a difference because they are not scientists, activists, world leaders or celebrities. These people are great motivators because their audiences are vast and diverse. However, this is only one stage of the process to engage the conversation and once you get the grip on climate change, then you can create change.
One can create change in their daily lives through the way we live. Cutting CO2 through practical changes in your lifestyle is a sure way to make a difference. Our Carbon Challenge has more that 50 activites to cut pollution. Make a personal goal to cut a minimum of 1 tonne of CO2 pollution from your daily life within a year.

Links

Will The Latest Electricity Review Bring Climate And Energy Policy Together At Last?

The Conversation | 

The Australian government is reviewing our electricity market to make sure it can provide secure and reliable power in a rapidly changing world. Faced with the rise of renewable energy and limits on carbon pollution, The Conversation has asked experts what kind of future awaits the grid.
Australia's National Electricity Market brings power to millions of people. Power image from www.shutterstock.com
Australia's National Electricity Market (NEM) is under review following the state-wide blackout that hit South Australia in September.
The review, led by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, will "develop a national reform blueprint to maintain energy security and reliability".
Importantly, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) specifically agreed that the review would consider Australia's commitment under the Paris climate agreement, and how climate and energy policy can be integrated.
Before we consider how the NEM might need to change, it is important to understand how it came about.

State responsibility
Electricity supply began as a state responsibility. Originally, state-based utilities owned and operated the entire supply chain, from generation to transmission, distribution and retail. With the exception of the Snowy Hydro Scheme, there were no interstate transmission lines.Accessibility and affordability were (and still are) key concerns for the states. As such, electricity prices were equal for all citizens, irrespective of their location or the actual cost of bringing electricity to them. This is still partly reflected in network tariffs today.
In the late 1980s, concerns about rising costs to government, but also a worldwide ideological move towards privatisation of public services, drove a shift away from publicly owned utilities. This began with a New South Wales inquiry, which found that NSW could avoid billions of dollars in new investment by connecting its network with Victoria.
This set the scene for the development of a more interconnected grid and more general reform. In particular, this was followed by a report from the former Industry Commission in 1991 and the Hilmer Review on National Competition Policy in 1993. These reports were dominated by market logic. They argued that competition would make the system more efficient.
Governments specifically agreed to reforms that would lead to a fully competitive national electricity market. This involved breaking up and selling the three layers of the electricity sector: generation, networks and retail.
The network businesses were seen as natural monopolies, and were to be regulated as such. Generators and retailers were to compete within their own layer, increasing efficiency and keeping prices down.

The national system

Following these preparatory measures, the state and federal governments agreed to pass the National Electricity Law (NEL) under a cooperative national arrangement. This provided the legal basis to create the National Electricity Market (NEM). The NEM is the national electricity market governed by the NEL and includes the wholesale markets as well as network regulation.
In 2001, the state and federal governments established the Ministerial Council on Energy with the broad aim of overseeing and coordinating national energy policy. In 2002, the council commissioned an independent review of energy markets, which highlighted many deficiencies, including governance and regulation.
The review found that the state-based regulators' responsibilities overlapped with those of the national regulators and led to costly inconsistencies. It also found that greenhouse policy responses were "ad hoc and poorly targeted".
The ministerial council subsequently proposed a package of reforms. This led to the formation of the Australian Energy Market Commission for developing market rules, and the Australian Energy Regulator for enforcing them, which governments endorsed through the Australian Energy Market Agreement.
This agreement contains a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this remained outside the National Electricity Objective, which was introduced in 2005 and is the highest point of reference for policy setting. The National Electricity Objective is to:
…promote efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long-term interests of consumers of electricity with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of electricity; and the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system.
Parallel to these regulatory developments, the states participating in the market became increasingly intertwined. Five new interconnectors were added between 1990 and 2006.
The competitive layers of the industry also began a period of consolidation, leading to the emergence of the so-called "gentailers". The wholesale market is now dominated by three gentailers (Origin, AGL and Energy Australia), which collectively supply 71% of all retail customers.

The new review

Shortly after the blackout in South Australia, Federal Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg called for harmonisation of state renewable energy policies, and announced the latest review.
The Finkel Review is a review into the "security and reliability" of the NEM. However, its scope is wide enough to allow for a fundamental rethink of the role of the electricity sector in addressing climate change.
The blackout provides a great example of the kind of challenge the NEM will face in the future. On one hand, climate policies, especially the RET and state-based renewable energy goals, put pressure on the networks and influence the wholesale electricity market.
On the other hand, climate change is expected lead to more frequent and increasingly severe storm events, such as the one that destroyed transmission towers in South Australia. Networks, markets and their governance framework under the NEM aren't necessarily prepared for these changing conditions.
As shown by the 2002 review, the overlap of state energy policies and ad hoc climate policies is not a particularly new phenomenon. But market governance frameworks have so far kept climate policies separate from the narrow efficiency concerns of the electricity market and network regulation.
Clearly, in the age of climate change, the NEM and its regulatory and institutional frameworks will need to take account of these new and increasing climate mitigation and adaptation pressures.
Recently, South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis called for the federal government to "get serious about bringing climate policy and energy policy together".
With the energy and environment portfolios combined in some governments (including now the federal one), perhaps the Finkel Review can support a convergence of climate and energy policy on a national level.

For more details on the history of reforms in the electricity market see Environmental norms and electricity supply: an analysis of normative change and household solar PV in Australia and A Barrier for Australia's Climate Commitments? Law, the Electricity Market and Transitioning the Stationary Electricity Sector.

Why Land Rights For Indigenous Peoples Could Be The Answer To Climate Change

The Guardian

Preventing deforestation is central to curbing carbon emissions – and a case study on the Amazon shows the most cost-effective way of doing it
Munduruku Indians demonstrate in front of the offices of the Brazilian ministry of mines and energy in Brasilia. Photograph: Lunae Parracho/REUTERS
I've spent a lot of time with indigenous peoples in remote places. So when I argue that the best way – or at least the cheapest way – to stop climate change is to grant land rights to indigenous communities, you might suspect I'm not coming from an entirely objective viewpoint. You've probably also heard various industry spokespeople saying the best and cheapest way to stop climate change is through windfarms, solar panels, electric cars and cavity wall insulation. But while I may be biased, and may even have "gone native" now and then, I'm not trying to sell you anything.
On a global scale, one of the main causes of climate change is land-use change, and particularly changing land from forest to agriculture. Stopping deforestation is the most economically efficient way of preventing carbon emissions because, in simple terms, all it amounts to is not flooding forests for dams or cutting down and burning them for agriculture.
The efficiency of not cutting down trees as a climate change mitigation strategy is fairly well-established. The UN is pushing the international community to cooperate on an agreed plan to stop deforestation and its associated emissions, which add up to about the same level as road transport and haulage emissions.
But this is where a beautifully simple idea becomes complicated. How exactly do you stop deforestation? How do you compensate industries reliant on the agriculture that entails deforestation? And how do you compensate them in a way that doesn't create perverse incentives and unforeseen consequences?
What is the value of a forest and the land it stands on? There's the value of the timber it can produce, and after that, the crops that could be grown. Or the value of an Amazonian valley flooded for a hydroelectric dam.
Then there's the forest's value if we don't chop it down. Its value as a carbon sink, its value as a biodiversity reservoir, its value as a weather maker and regulator, its value as a source of oxygen and air purifier. All the things that are invisible to accountants but vital to humans.
And forests also have a value that even environmental scientists can miss, but is very, very real to forest peoples. As the environmentalist David Suzuki says: "The way we see the world shapes the way we treat it. If a mountain is a deity, not a pile of ore; if a river is one of the veins of the land, not potential irrigation water; if a forest is a sacred grove, not timber; if other species are biological kin, not resources; or if the planet is our mother, not an opportunity – then we will treat each other with greater respect."
This is why indigenous peoples are the forests' greatest conservationists. They can cut through the Gordian knot of the UN's interminable processes. They see and understand the value that enlightened, developed cultures are blind to, and which modern science is only beginning to rediscover.
Translating that value into the hard currency we value is difficult. The World Resources Institute has taken a step in that direction, with a study of the environmental and economic costs and benefits of governments granting indigenous land rights in Brazil, Bolivia and Colombia. It reports that giving indigenous people land rights leads to the preservation of forests as carbon sinks. And, as a means of storing carbon, it is between five and 42 times more cost-efficient than fitting carbon capture and storage systems to fossil-fuel power stations.
If we are unwilling to spend money on protecting rainforests, their spectacular biodiversity, indigenous cultures, their ecosystems and their ineffable beauty and meaning, then we'll have to spend a lot more sucking from the atmosphere what was once a rainforest, and burying it in the ground.
There is a test case going on right now in Brazil, home of the world's biggest rainforest. The country's official body for looking at indigenous people's land rights, FUNAI, is due to decide this month on whether to grant them to the Munduruku people. They live in the Tapajos basin, an area in the heart of the Amazon being eyed up for the construction of more than 40 hugely destructive mega-dams.
The Munduruku can protect their bit of the Amazon for us, as they have done for centuries, preserving its amazingly varied flora and fauna and saving us the money we'd have to spend on taking carbon out of the atmosphere if industry is allowed turn it into carbon emissions.
The Munduruku have been campaigning for their rights for decades. The Brazilian constitution says they should be given them. A cold, hard, financial cost/benefit analysis says they should be given them. And if the Munduruku don't get their land rights, there's an industrial-scale queue of people waiting to trash their beautiful home. While many of us have yet to fully understand this, the truth is, their home is also our home.

Links