21/02/2017

Climate Change, Migration And Human Health

ABC Ockham's Razor - Robyn Williams

Residents from the small coastal village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji have relocated to higher land because of the impacts of climate change. (Supplied: Dr Celia McMichael)
Globally, the impacts of climate change are going to contribute to human migration. While estimated numbers of climate migrants are widely debated, it has been projected that hundreds of millions of people could migrate by the middle of this century due to climate-related hazards such as flooding, sea-level rise, erosion and drought.
While a 'last resort option', migration can be an adaptive response to climate change impacts, says Dr Celia McMichael.
And where it occurs, it should be supported so as to protect people's communities, livelihoods, rights, and health.
The lecturer in geography says that as people begin to move from sites of climatic vulnerability, it's critical that the international community takes decisive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a low-carbon world and support climate adaptation.



Transcript
Dr Celia McMichael is Lecturer in Health Geography, School of Geography, University of Melbourne
Robyn Williams: Could it be that climate change is already causing the migration of people and even conflict? An article headed 'Climate Change Helped Spark the Syrian War' appeared in March 2015 in National Geographic magazine, and told how droughts drove Syrian farmers to "abandon their crops and flock to the cities", triggering unrest and then civil war. Well now closer to our region, Dr Celia McMichael finds that other movements of people have also been happening. She's at the Department of Geography, University of Melbourne, and here she reflects on the work of her famous father, Tony McMichael, who wrote on climate and the health of nations.

Celia McMichael: In 2014, residents from the small coastal village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji relocated to higher land. Their village of 26 houses was previously located a few meters from the foreshore, but over recent years they experienced increasing coastal erosion and flooding. When I was there last year on a research visit, villagers told me that the community had relocated, ultimately, because of the impacts of climate change. Higher tides and flooding were damaging their homes and crops, and coastal erosion was washing away the land upon which their village was built. As one man said to me:
"Well it all started about ten years ago when we noticed the sea water coming into the village. At first we used to have spring tide that used to come up, but then it was almost a daily occurrence. The bread fruit trees weren't fruiting well because of the salt water. Some parts of the houses were washed away."
With the support of government, international agencies and, of course, community involvement, they designed and built a new village located about two kilometres inland. So while people still walk down to the remains of their old village — to fish and to swim — their new village has fish ponds, pineapple plantations, a coconut copra drier and better access to roads. Some infrastructure work still needs to be completed, but residents agree that moving the village uphill has provided a way for them to adapt to climate change and to protect their livelihoods, community, health and wellbeing, and indeed their future.
My own interest in conducting research in this area stems from concern with the urgent and inequitable realities of climate change impacts; but on a more personal note, it has been developed through talking and co-authoring with my late father, Professor Tony McMichael, who was an eminent epidemiologist. We wrote together about potential health outcomes for climate migrants, such as infectious disease risks among people who are displaced by environmental disaster, or the opportunities for improved health via well-supported migration and relocation planning.
When my dad died unexpectedly in 2014, he was putting the finishing touches to his forthcoming book, Climate Change and the Health of Nations. The book examines historical records and finds that human health is very sensitive to changes in climate. And drawing on history, he warns that the impacts of climatic change — such as environmental disaster, increasing temperatures, and food insecurity — will amplify infectious diseases, under-nutrition, and heat-related deaths, especially among vulnerable populations, such as children and forcibly displaced people.
Globally, the impacts of climate change are going to contribute to human migration. While estimated numbers of climate migrants are widely debated, it has been projected that hundreds of millions of people could migrate by the middle of this century due to climate-related hazards such as flooding, sea-level rise, erosion and drought.
So sea-level rise, for example, is expected to displace people living in low-lying communities in many small islands and coastal areas. Somewhere between 70 to 190 million people could be affected by coastal flooding and land loss by the end of this century, assuming an average sea-level rise of somewhere between half a meter and two meters. In some places, adaptation to sea-level rise will entail relocation of people and communities to areas of lower environmental risk. Now this is a really complex phenomenon; particularly as climate change will rarely act alone, but will intersect with other social, economic and environmental factors that shape migration patterns.
Many governments, policy makers and researchers now regard climate-related migration not as a crisis, but in fact, a potential adaptive response to climate change. More than a dozen low-income countries have submitted national adaptation plans to the United Nations that include relocation of affected communities. And in 2010, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change officially recognized the need for community relocation.
So coming back to the Pacific region, where I started, low-lying atolls and island nations — such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Carteret Islands — have drawn attention to the potentially devastating impacts of sea-level rise. Among policy makers, researchers, governments and affected communities, there's been a lot of discussion about the need for people to migrate. Kiribati, for example, is initiating a state-led attempt to develop migration opportunities in a warming world, which the government refers to as 'Migration with Dignity'. But low-lying coastal villages in Fiji are among the first in the region, and indeed the world, to actively begin relocation of communities in response to environmental changes.
Over the last few years, I've been visiting villages in Fiji, along with local colleagues from the Fijian Government Climate Change Division, a development donor agency, and Provincial Councils, and we conducted research that aims to understand and document experiences of relocation. It is clear that people are very concerned about their environmental futures. They describe local flooding and coastal erosion, and they're worried about the impacts of sea-level rise for their villages in coming years and decades.
So as one older man explained: "We understand climate change because we live climate change, we experience it, it's our daily lives, we walk through this."
As I first mentioned, Vunidogoloa relocated to higher land about three years ago. Another low-lying village, Narikoso, has 27 households and a population of around 90 to 100 people. Over the past few decades, the shoreline has receded by about 15 metres; homes closest to the waterfront are now inundated during high tide and storm surges. The government and international agencies have supported planning and earthworks for the new village site; and community members have funded and constructed a water source for the new village. During a recent visit, people spoke of their concerns about how and when the relocation will occur, and who will move. They're quite unhappy that the village might be moved in phases, rather than as a whole. In other low-lying villages, relocation and retreat is considered an impending likelihood, particularly as they hear about relocation initiatives elsewhere in the country.
But importantly, relocation is possible in Fiji as people are able to move to higher land, and many villages can move quite small distances within their customary land. Nonetheless, relocation is expensive, disruptive, and represents a last-resort option.
During my time in Fiji, I heard from a lot of people about the global inequities of climate change, and how their immediate environments, lives and futures are compromised by greenhouse gas emissions produced by higher-income countries. It's clear that most people regard global climate change as the primary or even sole driver of local environmental changes and coastal erosion.
As one man explained: "Other big countries caused the problem. And the small countries suffer".
My dad's last book challenges us to learn from the past, understand the present, imagine a better and more sustainable future — and act on it. This is a call to action that resonates with the realities of people living in low-lying coastal areas and other sites of climate vulnerability, such as people I've spoken about in Vunidogoloa and Narikoso in Fiji.
While a 'last resort option', migration can be an adaptive response to climate change impacts. Where it occurs, it should be supported so as to protect people's communities, livelihoods, rights, and health. As people begin to move from sites of climatic vulnerability, it's critical that the international community take decisive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a low-carbon world and support climate adaptation.

Robyn Williams: There's a challenge.

Dr Celia McMichael from the Department of Geography, University of Melbourne.
She mentioned her late father's book: Climate Change and the Health of Nations. It's by Tony McMichael and published by Oxford University Press. He was at the Australian National University.

Links

Images Of New Bleaching On Great Barrier Reef Heighten Fears Of Coral Death

The Guardian - Elle Hunt

Exclusive: Coral bleaching found near Palm Island as unusually warm waters are expected off eastern Australia, with areas hit in last year’s event in mortal danger
Newly bleached corals discovered near Palm Island on the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Australian Marine Conservation Society
The embattled Great Barrier Reef could face yet more severe coral bleaching in the coming month, with areas badly hit by last year’s event at risk of death.
Images taken by local divers last week and shared exclusively with the Guardian by the Australian Marine Conservation Society show newly bleached corals discovered near Palm Island.
Most of the Great Barrier Reef has been placed on red alert for coral bleaching for the coming month by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its satellite thermal maps have projected unusually warm waters off eastern Australia after an extreme heatwave just over a week ago saw land temperatures reach above 47C in parts of the country.
According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, sea surface temperatures from Cape Tribulation to Townsville have been up to 2C higher than normal for the time of year for more than a month.
Newly bleached coral. Most of the reef has been placed on red alert for coral bleaching for the coming month by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Photograph: Australian Marine Conservation Society
The NOAA Coral Reef Watch’s forecast for the next four weeks has placed an even higher level alert on parts of the far northern, northern and central reef, indicating mortality is likely.
Corals south of Cairns, in the Whitsundays and parts of the far northern reef that were badly hit by last year’s mass bleaching event are at fatal risk.
Imogen Zethoven, the Great Barrier Reef’s campaign director for the AMCS, said the projections for the next four weeks, plus evidence of new coral bleaching, were “extremely concerning”.
The bleaching that occurred over eight to nine months of last year was the worst-ever on record for the Great Barrier Reef, with as much as 85% of coral between Cape York and Lizard Island dying. Twenty-two per cent of corals over the entire reef are dead.
Zethoven pointed to projections by NOAA that severe bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef would occur annually by 2043 if nothing was done to reduce emissions.
“The reef will be gone before annual severe bleaching,” she said. “It won’t survive even biennial bleaching.”
The $1bn reef fund announced by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in June last year was a “cynical rebadging exercise” undercut by its support for fossil fuel initiatives such as Adani’s Carmicheal coalmine “that will spell catastrophe for the reef”, Zethoven said.
“There’s no doubt about that anymore,” she said. “They know what they are doing and they should come clean with the Australian public that they have no interest in the long-term survival of the Great Barrier Reef.
“To the average person on the street, that’s what it looks like. And if the government thinks that’s not the case, they’re out of touch.”
In December last year the government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund granted Adani “conditional approval” to $1bn loan for its Carmicheal coalmine and rail project in central Queensland, which could produce 60m tons of coal annually for 60 years.
Warmer ocean temperatures brought about by climate change is a key factor in coral bleaching. Polling suggests that more than two-thirds of Australians believe the reef’s condition should be declared a national emergency.
Zethoven said the government had made “a very deliberate decision to go down the coal road”, despite it jeopardising the reef’s future prospects as well as the 70,000 jobs in regional Queensland that depend on it.
John Rumney, a diving operator based in Port Douglas, said the “commercial advantage” to saving the reef went beyond jobs. Much of coastal Queensland was “majorly invested” in reef tourism, he said.
According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, sea surface temperatures from Cape Tribulation to Townsville have been up to 2C higher than normal for the time of year. Photograph: Australian Marine Conservation Society
The federal government’s measures to save the reef were hypocrisy and lip service, he said, when it was simultaneously “actively supporting the cause of the cancer – the worst cause”.
“It’s immoral that those of us who are making our living from a healthy environment are paying taxes to subsidise infrastructure that’s going to cause climate change in a major way for the next 50 years,” he said. “If this all goes ahead, we’re basically dooming our tourism industry.”
Rumney said he had seen new and extensive bleaching of corals from Cairns to Townsville.
“There are definite large areas of mortality. It’s just the next depressing moment. Before, the reef has bleached and recovered but now we’re talking about how often is it bleaching and what percentage is left.”
Areas that suffered in last year’s event were now less resilient and there seemed to be less coral strong enough to spawn.
Climate change-induced mass bleaching increasingly resembled a catastrophe the reef would be unable to recover from, he said.
“It’s weaker, just like humans,” Rumney said. “If you’re already down and out with a cold or cancer, you’re less resilient – the next thing that comes along is going to knock you back more.
“It’s the continual onslaught that will eventually kill the reef.”

Links

Green Bank Could Fund Coal Under Malcolm Turnbull Rule Changes

Fairfax

Coal-fired power stations could be eligible for funding from Australia's $10 billion green bank under changes being considered by the Turnbull government.
In what would represent a significant weakening of the country's environmental financing rules, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg confirmed the government is considering issuing a new ministerial directive to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to put investment in so-called "clean coal" on the table.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, pictured with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Andrew Meares
"That is certainly one of the options we are looking at because we have recognised that we have an obligation after what we've seen in South Australia to ensure this does not happen across the country," he told the ABC.
"It's called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not the renewable energy corporation."

'Clean coal' makes a comeback
New technology means coal will play a role in electricity generation long into the future, says Malcolm Turnbull. Courtesy ABC News 24.

Mr Frydenberg's comments drew immediate criticism from South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, who says recent blackouts in his state are due to market failures rather than problems with renewables.
"When 'clean' has its meaning expanded to include 'coal' you realise how busted national electricity policy truly is," he said.
The government can ask the CEFC to broaden its investment mandate provided the project is still considered a low-emissions technology – defined as having 50 per cent less emissions than existing benchmark generation.
But under the government's plans the 50 per cent figure could be relaxed to allow high-efficiency, low-emissions – also known as "super-critical – coal-powered plants. By law, the only technologies the CEFC is precluded from investing in are nuclear power and carbon capture and storage.
Minister for the Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
"If you can lower emissions and stabilise the system with baseload power, that's a pretty good outcome for Australian households," Mr Frydenberg said. "The key here is about stabilising the system. We don't have the storage technology today to ensure that intermittent wind and solar can be up to 50 per cent of the market. So we actually need that coal and that gas."
The federal opposition has categorically ruled out supporting any legislative changes to relax the CEFC rules.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation CEO Oliver Yates. Photo: Supplied
If the government were to change the CEFC's mandate it would still be unlikely to fund any new coal-powered stations, not least of all because high-efficiency, low-emissions plants would be extremely expensive.
Outgoing CEFC chief Oliver Yates said this month even if a coal proposal met the corporation's rules it may not be viable.
Chief scientist Alan Finkel. Photo: Rohan Thomson
"To be honest in a market of such volatility it would be very difficult to find a private operator or commercial investor investing in coal-fired power stations in the Australian market today," he told a parliamentary committee.
"We, like a commercial investor, are very unlikely to find circumstances in which that would be an appropriate investment to expose taxpayers to."
Chief scientist Alan Finkel has also declined to back taxpayer subsidies for high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power stations but has said some carbon capture and storage projects could be viable. Mr Finkel is currently conducting a review of Australia's energy market, due to report in June.
Mr Frydenberg on Sunday maintained his attack on Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target, saying Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has fallen "under the spell of the deep Green left-wing of his party".
However the Australian Greens are concerned Labor is wavering in its commitment to renewables, under pressure from the government. Environment spokesman Adam Bandt says his party will force Labor to declare whether it will legislate its target if it wins government, by moving a Senate motion.
"The Liberals have declared war on renewables and it is time for Labor to decide which side it is on," Mr Bandt said. "The Liberals are backing coal, the Greens are backing renewables and we desperately hope Labor joins us so that the clean energy industry has confidence to invest in Australia."
Senate crossbencher Nick Xenophon said he wants the Coalition to consider an emissions intensity scheme to reduce power prices and ensure security – but that is something already ruled out by Mr Frydenberg.
He was forced to dump the option after his own backbench criticised its similarity to Labor's carbon price.
The Coalition under Tony Abbott tried to scrap the CEFC – even though it is profitable – but was blocked by a hostile Senate.
The Turnbull government subsequently announced it would keep the CEFC, which primarily invests in wind, solar and energy efficiency projects.

Links