18/12/2016

Our Bright Future Can't Have Black Heart Of Coal

Fairfax - Elizabeth Farrelly

So we're driving from Jaipur to Agra – slowly, because northern India's December fogs are earlier than usual, and chewier. They're also smellier because – let's be frank – this is more smog than fog; weeks-long pea-soupers that seem like a hangover from industrial revolution London. Perhaps, indeed, they are – and perhaps if I'd seen it this way, more Hogarthian satire than sci-fi future, it wouldn't have scared the tripe outta me quite as it did.
Along the road, for hundreds of kilometres, people burn rubbish and crouch for warmth around small roadside fires. In stacks and house-sized mounds, on hayricks, rooftops and median strips, millions of cow-dung patties are drying for burning. In the fields, tall-chimneyed brick kilns belch black smoke into air already viscous with particulates. And then there are the vehicles, in their teeming, honking millions.

Adani mine project moves forward
Jobs, regional investement, and the battle against climate change... all will benefit, say Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Adani CEO Jeyakumar Janakaraj at an announcement in Townsville. Vision courtesy ABC News 24

As we cross from majestic Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh, our driver, the stoic, blue-turbaned Mr Singh, welcomes us to the crime capital of India. If there's irony here it doesn't translate, but the shift is palpable. Suddenly, after Rajasthan's straight-backed, saried elegance, there are beggars, everywhere. Rag-clad people scrabble in the dust with pigs, monkeys, mangy dogs. Nature, what there is, looks beleaguered. The fog writhes with sirens, and massive black SUVs emblazoned with UP Police insignia swarm the streets like predatory megafauna. I have the impression we've driven onto some post-apocalypse movie set.
The previous day, India time, news hit that this week's Australia India Leadership Dialogue in Brisbane would see Malcolm Turnbull meet Gautam Adani to discuss a $1 billion subsidy for Adani's immense Carmichael coal mine. Subsidy, mind you, on top of the already controversial approvals, despite the already parlous state of the Great Barrier Reef and notwithstanding Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg's election promise that the project would need to "stand on its own two feet".
Illustration: Simon Bosch 
In  my mind, as we drive, the subsidy, the scrabble for existence and the hellish fog coagulate into the thought that scares me witless: is this the future? Is this the world's Lorax moment come to life, or at least to living death? Is this the extreme end of income disparity, where the unconscionably rich take all, leaving the inconceivably poor to squat in the dirt at their gates, unable to drink the water or breathe the air: unable even to cook food without making their own plight worse?
I'm reflecting that India is way ahead of us in this. We Australians get to behave like the world's irresponsible schoolboys because we have the gift (or theft) of a big clean continent that takes a lot of screwing up. But India has been at it for aeons. Throughout most of that time – arguably still – the rich have created vast and indescribable beauty by creating clearings in the forest of the ubiquitous poor. Using the poor to build the massive walls – the forts and palaces, villas and compounds – designed to keep their own filth and sound and stink at bay, the rich then shut the gates.
Now, although the clearing mentality persists still, it can no longer work. "This winter," declares an aircon ad in the Hindustan Times, "no matter how high the pollution is, the healthiest air is in your room". Do they not see that the "me-now" solution only makes everything worse for us-later? That even the grandest sultan can no longer wall his oasis. Eventually even Adani, even Turnbull, and their children and grandchildren, must breathe the air and drink the water.
This is the future that whacks me. I feel poisoned by it, infiltrated, sickened, as though a grime of death had covered the world, blocking all sunlight. Later that evening I discover that I have, in fact, been poisoned, not by smog or dystopia (although probably neither helped) but by a much more treatable gastritis, that earns me a stern talking-to from a handsome Brahmin doctor.
Australian coal is exported to India. Photo: Glenn Hunt
But the fog, and the dystopia, signal a real malaise, one for which there's no miracle antibiotic. Indeed, climate change is the world's superbug, bred from a billion unthinking me-now cures; just make it OK for me, for now, for here.
Australia, even in selling coal to countries like India, is acting like the worst kind of irresponsible patient, pretending – as Frydenberg has for years – that "most importantly" our purpose is to "help lift millions out of energy poverty" when it can only worsen their plight, and ours, while making the mega-rich richer. That's bad enough. Then to subsidise that racket, using public money to PAY the rich to destroy our reef, and our climate, is plain bonkers. What are they thinking?
It's especially bizarre given Adani Group's track record at a project in Gujarat which, according to a 2013 Indian Ministry of Environment report, has involved persistent and flagrant breaches of permit conditions, large-scale destruction of mangrove forests and creek systems, groundwater salination and unapproved reclamations.
Queensland law now requires mining licensees to be a "suitable person". Adani's licence was bought from another company before the suitable person test was in place, so it has never had to face scrutiny in this regard.
But regardless of fouling Australia's environment, there's the fouling of India, and the world, as all that coal is burned. And, yes, there are alternatives. Consider, for example, Pollinate Energy in Bangalore, co-founded by young Sydney law graduate Emma Colenbrander. In four years, Pollinate has quietly shifted more than 80,000 of India's 300 million without access to electricity onto solar LEDs.
Think what $1 billion could do in such a forum. Surely, if we really wanted to lift India's poor from the dust without worsening the grey scrabble of their lives, that would be the way to go?

Links

United States Of Denial: Forces Behind Trump Have Run Australia's Climate Policy For Years

The Guardian

For more than a decade, Australia has been held back by climate science denial and an antipathy towards environmentalism
Climate capitulators: The former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott listens to the current prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AFP/Getty Images
If  you can hear what sounds like a faint drumroll coming from across the Pacific then it’s the sound of millions of jaws dropping on hard surfaces.
President-elect Donald Trump is a phrase journalists are regularly typing into their keyboards. That was jaw dropping enough, even for some Republicans.
But, adding to that drumroll has been the climate science community, the renewable energy industry, the conservation movement, federal environment regulators and climate change campaigners.
Trump has been nominating positions to the Environmental Protection Agency and other key government agencies and departments. To a man (because they’re almost all men), Trump’s picks are climate science deniers. His choice for secretary of state and lead diplomat is ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson.
Jaws have been dropping all over the place.
In the US, there is a large and well-funded network of so called “free market” thinktanks that pumps out manufactured doubt on climate change science with the help of funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Trump has been picking many his advisers from these groups, sending in climate science deniers to key agencies to prepare the ground for his administration.
Many, such as Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, the Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, have launched multiple lawsuits against the agency they’re going to soon be working for.
Trump also refuses to accept the thousands and thousands of scientific papers going back decades showing how burning fossil fuels is changing the climate.
He recently said he had an “open mind” on the issue – a position that’s about as intellectually redundant as having an open mind on heliocentrism. Sometimes minds are so open that the brain is in danger of falling out.
Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, ran the hyper-partisan Breitbart website that runs stories claiming climate change is a hoax and the “biggest scam in the history of the world” while denouncing people who accept the science as “pure scum”.
Trump has also appointed a team to prepare the ground in the EPA for the incoming administration.
Leading that group is Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Agency, alongside lawyers such as David Schnare and Christopher Horner – two individuals who have used the courts and FOIA laws to try and get access to the inboxes of climate scientists and, yes, administrators at the EPA.
Viewing this part-reality show, part-Shakespearean tragedy from Australia, some might think our own climate debate looks relatively sane. It’s not and it hasn’t been for a long time.
For well over a decade now, Australia’s climate policy has been battered, torn and held back by climate science denial and a broader antipathy towards environmentalism. The same interests and ideologies that have worked for decades to reach the current crescendo in the US have been doing the same thing here.
Neatly connecting Australia and the US is the One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts, who earlier this week met with a who’s who of the climate science denial industry in Washington DC, including Ebell.
Think we’re immune to the Trump denialism? You haven’t been paying attention.
When Malcolm Turnbull lost the Liberal party leadership to Tony Abbott in 2009, it was Turnbull’s then refusal to back away from pricing greenhouse gas emissions that turned the party room against him. From that point onward, pricing carbon became a no-go zone for the Liberal party.
A chief architect of that leadership coup was the then South Australian senator Nick Minchin, who, a month earlier, told ABC’s Four Corners he didn’t accept that humans caused climate change. Rather, Minchin considered the issue a plot by the “extreme left” to “deindustrialise the world”.
After the ABC program aired, the journalist Sarah Ferguson said Turnbull had refused interview requests because he “didn’t want to face the sceptics”.
You might think Turnbull would have learned his lesson. But, from his latest meek surrender to the deniers in his party, it seems not. He still won’t take them on.
Earlier this month, the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, said a review of Australia’s climate change policy would include a look at an emissions trading scheme for the electricity sector – the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the Australia.
Within 24 hours, Frydenberg backed down and, soon after, Turnbull said carbon pricing was not party policy and this would not be considered – even though all the expert advice tells him that it would be the cheapest way to cut emissions and would likely deliver billions of dollars in savings on power prices in coming years.
That capitulation was another example of Turnbull giving in to the deniers in the right of the party – in particular, another South Australian senator in the form of Cory Bernardi.
Bernardi, too, refuses to accept the mountains of evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change.
The recently appointed chairman of the Coalition’s backbench environment committee is the Liberal MP Craig Kelly – another climate science denier.
Going further back, Abbott’s position on climate science was heavily influenced by the mining industry figure and geologist Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth – a tome packed with contradictory arguments, dodgy citations and errors too numerous to count (actually, celebrated mathematical physicist Dr Ian Enting did count them and found at least 126).
Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most senior Roman Catholic, also took his lead from Plimer’s book.
And who can forget Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman and his claims that climate science is fraudulent and acting as cover for the UN to install a one-world government – the exact same position taken by Roberts and other fake freedom fighters.
Another Coalition MP seen as influential is the Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen.
Like Roberts and Bernardi before him, Christensen has attended US conferences of anti-climate science activists hosted by the Heartland Institute (that group has been heavily funded by the family foundation of Robert Mercer, the ultrarich conservative hedge fund manager whose millions helped get Trump elected and whose daughter Rebekah is a pivotal member of Trump’s transition team).
Just like the US, Australia too has its own “free market” conservative groups pushing climate science denial. Look no further than Melbourne’s Institute of Public Affairs (which only last year was called in to “balance” a climate science briefing to Kelly’s committee).
How about the media? Rupert Murdoch’s outlets the Wall Street Journal and Fox News help to push themes that climate scientists are frauds, that action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will wreck the economy and that renewable energy can’t keep the lights on.
The stable of flagship commentators working on Murdoch’s News Corp Australia, led by the likes of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Chris Kenny and Terry McCrann, are all happy to repeat and embellish those same talking points.
On the radio, the US has popular conservatives such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh pushing climate science denial. In Australia, we have Alan Jones and his stable of shouty Macquarie Radio colleagues.
At this point, some will argue Australia and the rest of the world is investing heavily in renewables. The US, like Australia, is seeing strong growth in the renewable energy sector. That’s all true.
Also true is the progress made through the international agreements made in Paris, even though the climate pledges that make up the deal still fall well short of averting dangerous climate change.
But there’s little doubt that climate science denial is on the march, backed by a conspiracy culture that’s rapidly gaining audiences online.
Trump is climate science denial’s greatest propaganda victory so far. Australia is not immune.

Links

Earth On The Docket: Why Obama Can’t Ignore This Climate Lawsuit By America’s Youth

The Conversation - Mary Wood | Charles W. Woodward | Michael C. Blumm

A group of youths are suing the federal government for action on climate change using a novel legal approach. AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, Photo by Robin Loznak, courtesy of Our Children's Trust
At  a time when humanity must reverse course before plunging over a climate cliff, the American public has elected a president who seems to have both feet on the fossil fuel accelerator. If there is a mechanism to force the Trump administration to put the brakes on dirty energy policy, a lawsuit brought by 21 young people against the Obama administration may hold the key.
Two days after the presidential election, on Nov. 10, a federal district court in Oregon issued a path-breaking decision in Juliana v. U.S. declaring that youth – indeed, all citizens – hold constitutional rights to a stable climate system.
The youth, aged nine to 20 years old, seek a court-supervised plan to lower carbon dioxide emissions at a rate set by a science-based prescription. The judicial role is analogous to court-supervised remedies protecting equal opportunity for students after Brown v. Board of Education.
The Juliana v. U.S. decision could be a legal game-changer, as it challenges the entire fossil-fuel policy of the United States.

Cruel irony
Environmental lawsuits typically rely on statutes or regulations. But Juliana is a human rights case that bores down to legal bedrock by asserting constitutional rights to inherit a stable climate system.
The court, which ruled the suit can proceed to trial, rightly described the case as a “civil rights action” – an action “of a different order than the typical environmental case” – because it alleges that government actions “have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life and liberty.” The litigation, variously called “a ”ray of hope,“ a legal ”long shot“ and a ”Hail Mary pass,“ yielded its groundbreaking decision not a moment too soon.
At a rally for action on climate in 2014. The decisions made by adults will have broad implications for the planet today’s youth will live on as adults. Joe Brusky/flickr, CC BY-NC
The year 2016 is the hottest year on record, and Arctic sea ice has hit its lowest recorded level. Heated ocean waters threaten coral reefs and marine ecosystems.
To have any hope of reversing or stalling these effects of climate change, the world must restrict fossil fuel production and ultimately switch to safe renewable energy. Even continued production solely from currently operating oil and gas fields will push the planet to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures, beyond the aspirational limit set by the global Paris Agreement on climate change.
President-elect Trump, who notoriously claimed that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, has said he plans to immediately approve the highly contentious Keystone Pipeline, open public land to drilling, rescind Obama’s Clean Power Plan, eliminate NASA’s climate research, and withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. He intends to spur production of US$50 trillion worth of shale, oil, coal and natural gas.
The 70-year-old president-elect will not live long enough to witness the worst consequences of rapidly expanding fossil fuel development. The cruel irony for young people is that actions taken during Trump’s time in office will lock in a future of severe disruptions within their projected lifetimes – and sea level rise that could make coastal cities uninhabitable. James Hansen, formerly the nation’s chief climate scientist at NASA, has warned, "Failure to act with all deliberate speed…functionally becomes a decision to eliminate the option of preserving a habitable climate system.”
Sea levels are projected to rise at least three feet, and perhaps much more, in the lifetime of children today, inundating some locations and making storm surges more dangerous. The Juliana lawsuit and others like it argue that citizens have a right to a stable climate. NOAA

Constitutional argument
For decades, the political branches have promoted fossil fuel consumption despite longstanding knowledge about the climate danger. President Obama ignored warnings when he charted a disastrous course of increased fossil fuel production early in office. In a last moment of opportunity to avert climate tipping points, Americans should recall an elementary school civics lesson: The United States has three, not two, branches of government. The founders wisely vested an independent judiciary with the responsibility of upholding the fundamental liberties of citizens against infringement by the other branches.
As the president-elect promises to ramp up fossil fuel production and dismantle Obama’s recent climate measures, and with no obvious statutory law to prevent him from doing so, only a fundamental rights approach carries any hope of trumping Trump.
The principle of public trust law, dating to the time of Roman Emperor Justinian, holds that natural resources, including the sea, the shores of the sea, the air and running water, are common to everyone. It has since become part of U.S. jurisprudence. Petar Milošević/wikipedia, CC BY
In Juliana, the youth asserted their fundamental rights under the Constitution’s substantive due process clause and the public trust doctrine. This is an ancient principle requiring government to hold and protect essential resources as a sustaining endowment for citizens. They contended that government infringed on their rights to life, liberty, and property by promoting fossil fuel policies that threaten runaway planetary heating – thereby jeopardizing human life, private property and civilization itself.
Judge Ann Aiken’s Juliana decision in November upheld both public trust and substantive due process rights under the Constitution and allowed the case to go forward. “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” she wrote, explaining that public trust rights, which “both predated the Constitution and are secured by it,” cannot be “legislated away.”
The opinion is bound to have a rippling effect. The case is actually part of a wave of atmospheric trust litigation (ATL) cases and petitions across the U.S. and in other countries. Launched by the group Our Children’s Trust in 2011, the legal campaign asserts youths’ rights to a stable climate system and seeks court-supervised climate recovery plans.
Recent victories in Massachusetts, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Washington state indicate widespread judicial concern over the political branches’ failure to confront the climate emergency. The youth plaintiffs hope that the dominoes continue to fall in their favor in time to thwart climate catastrophe.
As ATL moves forward globally, the Juliana case will proceed to trial as early as next summer or fall. The plaintiffs’ attorneys aim to show the government’s deliberate indifference to mounting climate danger.
Already dubbed “the trial of the century,” this is the first time that U.S. fossil fuel policy will confront climate science in court. Any government denial of climate change will have to confront the scrutiny of a fact-finding judge.

Consent degree from Obama?
The case also offers President Obama a fleeting opportunity.
Five days after the election, Secretary of State Kerry proclaimed that President Obama would use his last days in office to “do everything possible to meet our responsibility to future generations to be able to address this threat to life itself on the planet.”
If so, the most viable way might be to offer a partial settlement of the Juliana case before going to trial. One form of settlement could be an enforceable consent decree consisting of interim steps to halt further fossil-fuel mining and infrastructure development. Such a settlement would help secure Obama’s measures to close the Arctic to drilling and halt coal leasing on federal lands.
Young Americans could use a down payment on the colossal climate mortgage hanging over their future. And President Obama could use a climate legacy. It may be worth his time now to sit down with the “plucky millennials” who sued him to save the planet – before his time in office runs out.

Links