Heatwaves are becoming hotter, lasting longer and
occurring more often, the Climate Council's latest report card on
climate change says.
The Cranking Up The Intensity: Climate Change
and Extreme Weather Events report has found 2016 was the hottest year
on record globally.
Climate scientist Professor Will Steffen
warned extreme weather events were projected to worsen across Australia
as the climate warmed further.
He said the extreme heat had to be "taken really seriously, first and foremost".
"It
is a risk for human health, particularly for the most vulnerable — the
elderly, very young people, and exposed outdoor workers," he said.
"It is obviously a risk for the agricultural industry, it is a risk for natural ecosystems.
"We saw an underwater heatwave about a year ago wipe out a large part of the Great Barrier Reef.
"A lot of these impacts we are seeing occurring now are occurring earlier than we had projected a few years ago.
"It is giving us some cause for concern that the climate system may be shifting a bit faster than we originally thought."
Impact varies for each state
The
report found the impact of extreme weather events in all states was
likely to become much worse unless global greenhouse gas emissions were
reduced rapidly and deeply.
In Brisbane, heatwaves are starting eight days earlier than in previous years.
The number of hot days above 35C per year is expected to increase from 12 per cent to 18 per cent by 2030.
Maximum one-day rainfall is forecast to rise by up to 18 per cent by the end of the century.
Severe thunderstorms are expected to rise by 14 per cent for Brisbane by the end of the century.
Professor Steffen said tropical cyclones were also likely to increase in intensity, although there would not be more of them.
"They may even travel further southwards," he said.
"There will be an increase in coastal flooding as well as sea levels.
"There
is a projected net warming of sea surface temperature off the
Australian coastline of 2 [degrees Celsius] to 4 [degrees Celsius] by
2090.
"In south-east Queensland over the next decade or two there is an increasing bushfire risk where there are forested areas."
Climate Council Professor Hilary Bambrick, an epidemiologist and an
expert on the health impacts of climate change, said more extreme
weather events would put Australia's most vulnerable at risk.
"While
we can make our health services more resilient to coping with extreme
weather events, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of a cure," she
said.
"Ultimately to protect Australians from worsening extreme
weather events, and to do our fair share in the global effort to tackle
climate change, we have to cut our emissions quickly and deeply.
"Australia's pollution is continuing to rise while global emissions flat line."
Australian Government not doing enough: expert
The
Climate Council is calling for the orderly closure of Australia's
ageing coal-fired power stations to make way for modern, clean and
efficient renewables.
It argued the Australian Government was not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Not even close," Professor Steffen said.
"To
reach the Paris target which we signed up too, we would need to have a
target in 2030 of 40 per cent to 60 per cent emission reduction on 2005
levels.
"We've only got 26
per cent to 28 per cent — it is far, far short of what is actually
needed according to the science. On present projections we are not even
likely to meet that weak target that we have."
We must shift away from a culture of politically motivated climate
change denialism to an acceptance of the truly existential threat now
facing humanity
‘The recent attacks on climate action by the Trump presidency and the
Turnbull government’s embrace of the discourse of “clean coal” reflect
the toxic, partisan political war that has engulfed US and Australian
climate policy.’
Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images
It’s
been a bad couple of weeks for the world’s climate and environment. The
inauguration of billionaire property developer and reality TV star Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States has presaged a new Dark Age of climate politics.
In an opening fortnight of controversial executive orders, President
Trump has decreed the expansion of major fossil fuel developments
including the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, and the neutering of long-standing environmental protections.
In addition, he and his leadership team have made it plain they intend
to dismantle many of the Obama administration’s climate initiatives and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. All this runs in direct counterpoint to the rapid decarbonisation required to avoid dangerous climate change.
For Australian fossil fuel interests, President Trump’s war on
climate appears particularly opportune. Just last week, Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull and his senior ministers floated the idea of government backing for new coal-fired power stations as part of the government’s response to Australia’s “energy security” and expressed reticence over the country’s Renewable Energy Target.
For a country that has nurtured world-leading innovations in solar
photovoltaic and other renewable energy technologies and that is
particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change – be it in the
form of record heat, devastating floods, more widespread drought,
coastal inundation from sea level rise combined with stronger tropical
storms, or the demise of the Great Barrier Reef – doubling down on the
traditional fossil fuel energy path is particularly short-sighted.
Of
course this hostility to climate action and the decarbonisation of our
economies is not new. The attacks on climate action by the Trump
presidency and the Turnbull government’s embrace of the discourse of
“clean coal” reflect the toxic, partisan political war that has engulfed
US and Australian climate policy over several decades. Sound policy has
been held hostage by the same vested interests of a large and powerful
fossil fuel sector and a traditional vision that jobs and economic
growth can only come from the “extractivism” that has defined 19th and
20th century economics.
Indeed, since the widespread scientific acknowledgement of
human-caused climate change in the late 1980s and early 90s, we have
witnessed the development of a highly sophisticated and influential
climate change denial industry. Consisting of major fossil fuel
corporations, industry groups, lobbyists, “free-enterprise” think-tanks
and conservative politicians, this counter-movement has proven
remarkably successful in delaying the political actions necessary to
curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
Like big tobacco before them, fossil fuel advocates have attacked
mainstream climate science to confuse the public and policymakers about
the reality and threat of human-caused climate change. As a result, we
have seen a full-scale assault on a century and half of established
science. For many climate scientists this has involved attacks from
conservative politicians and rightwing lobby groups, orchestrated
campaigns of harassment via mainstream and social media, challenges to
job security and careers, and in some cases, death threats. Indeed, as
recounted in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, one of us (Michael Mann) has been subject to all of those things.
Beyond destroying our politics and corroding public trust in science,
climate change denial also threatens the future of a habitable planet
and a viable global economy. As a growing body of research has revealed,
the maintenance of a “fossil fuels forever” mentality has real
implications for the future of global food production, biodiversity,
social functioning and geopolitical security. Leading economies around
the world have recognised that the decarbonisation of energy and
transport systems are key to the future prosperity of human
civilisation.
The dramatic fall in the cost of renewable energies and commitment to
large-scale investment in solar and wind energy highlight a pathway
away from coal, oil and gas. But government leadership is badly needed
to take the threat of climate change seriously and ramp up the scale of
economic transformation on a par with the political and economic
mobilisation we have applied to other existential threats in the past.
The good news is that there is still time to prevent the worst
climate changes from occurring. The Paris climate agreement was a step
forward in that the nations of the world committed to reductions that
get us half way from where we would otherwise be headed (more than 5C
warming of the planet relative to pre-industrial temperatures by the end
of the century) and to where we need to be (stabilisation of warming
below 2C or so). The Paris agreement moved us on to a pathway where,
with additional ratcheting up of commitments, we can limit warming below
truly dangerous levels. That doesn’t mean it will be easy, but there is
still a path forward.
In the US and Australia, we must shift away from a culture of
politically motivated climate change denialism to an acceptance of the
truly existential threat now facing humanity. We are in grave need of
courageous political leadership and a rejection of vested interests
engaged in bad faith efforts to delay the needed transition away from
fossil fuels toward renewable energy. To do otherwise, ensures an
increasingly grim future for our children, humanity and the planet.
Donald Trump's phone call with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made
front pages and news bulletins around Australia and the US, but it led
news bulletins in Germany, too, where leading European
climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is based.
"We are all very worried
here," Rahmstorf, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research, says. "We should assume our worst fears will be
realised."
The world is moving closer to catastrophic peril, scientists say Scientists have moved the hands of their metaphorical 'Doomsday' clock closer to midnight, warning of the increasing threats of nuclear weapons and climate change.
Such undiplomatic outbursts were standard for Trump before he became
US President, but they now carry a manifest menace for the scientific
community given his well-chronicled doubts about climate change being
real. Among the climate-change deniers he relies on for advice are Scott
Pruitt, Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and
Rick Perry, his choice as energy secretary.
Some of the possible
outcomes scientists fear include the US exiting the Paris global climate
agreement that came into force just days before Trump's election win in
November and demolishing former president Barack Obama's climate action
plan that sought to curb new coal-fired power plants and accelerate the
closure of existing ones.
Pruitt has signalled he wants to roll back regulations, including
California's strict auto emissions standards that eventually become
global norms. Perry has said "calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is doing a disservice to the country, and I believe a disservice to the world".
A bill tabled before Congress last week by four Republicans
also demands a ban on US contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Green Climate Fund.
Obama transferred a second instalment of $US500 million ($653
million) to the fund in his final days as leader, leaving $US2 billion
owing from his original pledge.
The rest of world, including
Australia, needs to be prepared to fill any void resulting from any
"short-sighted" US pullback, Rahmstorf says. "We have enough information
to know we have a serious crisis," he says. "On-going climate change is
threatening civilisation."
Scientists fear that under President Donald Trump, the US may exit the Paris global climate agreement. Photo: Getty Images
Nor would Trump be turning against his base if he stymied climate action. Research by the University of New Hampshire found
just one in four of Trump voters polled "agree with the scientific
consensus that human activities are changing Earth's climate", far less
than the wider population and the 90 per cent support from Hillary
Clinton voters.
Extreme weather
Climate extremes, particularly at the hot end, are already becoming more common. Photo: Nick Moir
Among the many instances of extreme weather in the past year – 2016, the
hottest year on record, had many – the remarkable temperatures
monitored over the Arctic have been standouts. This coming week,
temperatures over the far north are projected to be as much as 20
degrees above normal.
In Australia, Trump's anti-climate tilt has been echoed with relish
by right-wing politicians, such as One Nation and South Australian
Liberal senator Cory Bernardi. They have called on the Turnbull
government to abandon the Paris agreement in which Australia has pledged
to cut 2005-level emissions by as much as 28 per cent by 2030.
Australia should also scrap the 2020 Renewable Energy Target in favour
of subsidies for new coal-fired power stations, they say.
Signs Turnbull is willing to be swayed include comments at last week's National Press Club in favour of so-called "clean coal", and his reported appointment of Minerals Council veteran Sid Marris to be his climate and energy policy advisor.
Beyond the bluster
But experts at home and abroad caution against anticipating that all
of Trump's blustering – such as declaring on Twitter that climate change
is a hoax concocted by China – will actually become policy.
Andrew
Light, who served as senior adviser to Todd Stern, Obama's special
envoy on climate change who led America's Paris negotiations, says it's
too early to know Trump's intentions. He points to new US Secretary of
State, Rex Tillerson, who has said it's important that the "US
maintains its seat" at the Paris table.
Trump's political appointees also continue to hear advice on why it's in America's interests to stay in the agreement.
"The
bulk of the people in Paris … will remain in their positions," says
Light, who is now a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute. "All
of these people know how important it is for US power to stay in."
Those
interests include many developing nations who have signed up to Paris
because of promises of assistance – such as through the Green Climate
Fund – and won't take kindly to reneged offers of help to adapt to a
changing climate and investment in renewable energy, Light says.
Also
leaning against a radical shift will be the Pentagon, which, over the
past decade, has increasingly come to view climate change as a
"threat-multiplier" that may tip fragile nations into chaos and pose
humanitarian and economic risks.
"The Pentagon as an institution
has always been a very moderating influence," Light says. "They can't
mess around and look at issues ideologically, or leave it to a guess."
He
says climate change, for instance, is widely seen to have played a role
in igniting the Syrian civil war that has led to millions of refugees
and the emergence of the so-called Islamic State.
Trump will also
have no choice but to deal with major nations, such as India and China,
who expect the US to keep its emissions promises.
China's
President Xi Jinping has spoken out strongly in support of the Paris
agreement, which aims to keep global warming to well below 2 degrees
compared to pre-industrial times. "The Paris agreement is a milestone in
the history of climate governance," Xi told a UN gathering in Geneva
last month. "We must ensure this endeavour is not derailed."
The
G20 gathering in Germany's Hamburg in July will be one event to
watch, assuming Trump hasn't derailed the Paris pact by then. "That's
the place where we'll potentially see countries express to President
Trump how important climate change is as an area of global diplomacy,"
Light says.
Nor are critics at home likely to remain idle, with
states such as California planning legal action to stall Trump reversals
on climate.
"In no way did the elections give Donald Trump a
mandate to run roughshod over bedrock environmental laws or all the
recent progress made by the Obama administration," said
Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president with the League of
Conservation Voters.
"We will go to the mat with our champions in
Congress to fight the Trump administration's attacks on our environment
and public health, and we are confident that other countries, states,
cities, and businesses will continue to act on climate and transition to
a clean energy economy."
Money talks
Chris Field, a Stanford scientist who led the IPCC's special report
on managing risks of extreme events and disasters, also cautions about
assuming the worst case scenario.
"There's clear evidence that
the US and all countries benefit from the work of the IPCC, but it is
possible that the US will cut its funding," says Field, who is director
of Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
The US now
provides about a third of the global scientific climate panel's funding –
for a "few million dollars a year" – and it would be important for
other nations to make up any shortfall, Fields says. Scientists
volunteering their time make up the biggest contribution.
"The
strongest motivation for scientific research on climate change and for
assessments to pull that science together is to save lives and save
money," Field says. "We're using that knowledge to figure out how to
protect economies, communities and eco-systems.
"The essential
feature of climate change is to make smart decisions about the future.
If you're concerned about protecting [and] keeping this nation safe,
climate change is one of the things you need to work on."
US
citizens and companies will also suffer "profound disadvantages" if the
world becomes less safe. "For a wide range of businesses that are
involved in everything from renewable energy to building efficiency, to
adaptation solutions, leadership is really going to be key to be growing
enterprises in the 21st century," Field says. "Disengagement from the
US now forecloses on lots of those opportunities."
Legal hurdles
A threat of a different kind for US businesses may await if Trump
pulls up stumps on its global climate obligations, says Tim Stephens, a
professor of international law at Sydney University.
Paris is a
more robust agreement than the Kyoto protocol that preceded it, and
businesses around the world are already moving to cut emissions and
refocus investments, he says.
A bigger issue, though, may occur if
Trump tries to pull out of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which came into force in 1994 and aims to stabilise
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and prevent dangerous
interruption of the climate.
Exiting the UNFCCC can happen with
fewer delays than the Paris accord, but to do so will expose the US "to
potential legal liability", Stephens says.
"Under pretty basic
principles of international law, they could be held responsible for
trans-boundary harm, and there are plenty of precedents to support
that," he says."I imagine there'd be pretty clear advice within the
State Department that it would be against the US's legal interests to
withdraw and denounce the Paris agreement and the UN framework
convention."
Stephens says that, while erratic decisions can't be
ruled out, much of what is being seen in Washington is political
posturing to a domestic audience.
"Diplomatically, the blow-back
around the world will be extraordinary were they to do some of these
things," he says. "The US name would be mud in so many places where they
require co-operation."
Australia has also hit diplomatic blocks
"because of our intransigence on climate", including votes in the UN
that it has lost because it is viewed as a "pariah", Stephens says.
Those diplomatic blocks will become more evident, particularly from
at-risk South Pacific nations, should Canberra follow the US on any
climate climbdown, he says.
However, Rahmstorf is not
convinced. He worries a US president who is belligerent even to close
allies risks creating "an atmosphere of conflict" that won't foster the
international co-operation needed to avoid calamitous global warming.
"We
can't have everyone fighting for themselves," he says. "We are
altogether in one boat and this boat is leaking, and here we are, even
starting to quarrel among friends.
