07/04/2017

‘Disaster Alley’: Australia Could Be Set To Receive New Wave Of Climate Refugees

The Guardian - 

US defence expert warns people fleeing low-lying Pacific islands a precursor to ‘climate-exacerbated water insecurities’ that could trigger wider conflict
A king tide crashes through the sea wall, flooding Pita Meanke’s family home on the low-lying South Pacific island of Kiribati. Photograph: jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Alamy
Australia could be on the frontline of a new wave of “climate refugees” displaced by extreme weather events, droughts and rising seas, a US expert on the national security impacts of climate change has warned.
Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defence, argues the impact of climate change – rising seas, extreme weather, prolonged droughts – will be a “threat multiplier” for security challenges, and could be the spark that ignites conflict and drives new waves of mass forced migration.
The Asia-Pacific region was acutely vulnerable, she said.
“You may be on the frontlines here in Australia for climate refugees,” she told the Guardian in Sydney. “The first wave will be those who have to flee the low-lying Pacific islands, because many of them will be uninhabitable, even in our lifetimes.”
“But you’re also in ‘disaster alley’ here in the Asia-Pacific region and while there have begun to be efforts to reduce risks of disasters, I’m concerned that we’re not acting as quickly as we should to protect our societies from those risks, which is going to mean more migration.”
Goodman cited the example of the ongoing civil war in Syria, which has produced more than five million refugees over six years of fighting.
But the political conflict in Syria was exacerbated by a long-running drought which drove people into food insecurity, poverty and rapid, unsustainable urbanisation.
“From 2006 to 2010, 60% of Syria had its worst long-term drought and crop failures since civilisation began,” Goodman says. “About 800,000 people in rural areas lost their livelihood by 2009. Three million people were driven into extreme poverty, and 1.5 million migrated to cities.”
“Those conditions enable terrorists like the Islamic State of Boko Haram in parts of Nigeria or al-Qaida in Iraq to rise and take advantage of desperate people in desperate circumstances.”
Goodman is careful not to posit climate change as the sole cause of future conflicts, but argues it will be a contributory, compounding factor.
“Climate is a threat multiplier because it aggravates others tensions and conflicts that already exist.
“Climate-exacerbated water insecurities could eventually become a tipping [point] to wider conflict or instability in the region. We see this now playing out in various ways around the world, but particularly here in the Asia-Pacific region.”
Regionally, Goodman sees the example of Pakistan and India, where historical enmity, long-running religious, political and cultural fractures, and territorial disputes over Kashmir, could be reignited by conflict over water or other resources.
Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defence, describes climate change as ‘a threat multiplier’. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Low-lying Bangladesh, the eighth-most populous country in the world with more than 160 million people, has been identified as being extremely vulnerable to climate change, on some measures the most vulnerable country in the world.
“Another extreme weather event, combined with sea-level rise and storm surge, could send upwards up 10 million people or more along that low-lying coastline in Bangladesh fleeing towards higher ground, which is towards India, which is building a massive wall to keep Bangladeshis out.
“I think that could create consequences for which we’re currently unprepared. India shows no signs of wanting or being able to absorb those numbers of refugees. And then where do they flee? These are mostly people who can’t afford to get on a cruise ship and leave. And if they can’t flee by land into India does that mean they, there’s either a massive loss of life or head off in rickety boats, where they might lose their lives at sea.”
Mousuni, an island in the Bay of Bengal, is sinking due to climate change and tidal flooding, leaving thousands of its inhabitants homeless. Photograph: Sushavan Nandy / Barcroft Images
In 2008, the then president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, speculated about buying land in Australia in order to house his country’s population when the archipelago nation was consumed by the rising Indian Ocean.
Under the global standard for refugee protection, the 1951 refugee convention, there is no such thing as a “climate change refugee”.
The refugee convention, written in the aftermath of the massive displacement caused by the second world war, only recognises refugees displaced from their home countries, and suffering a “well-founded fear of persecution” on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Some regional treaties – such as Latin America’s Cartagena declaration – have a broader definition, recognising as refugees people displaced by “circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”, which is taken to include natural disasters and food insecurity.
Goodman argues national governments, and supranational organisations, will need to redraw, or add to, the current global protection framework.
“We do need to rethink the governance for refugees better to reflect the types of refugees we face today. Current governance structures are just inadequate for the modern era.”
Governments and militaries around the world are becoming increasingly cognisant of the national security threat posed by climate change.
In his confirmation hearing in January, the US’s new secretary of defence, James Mattis, said climate change posed a current security threat to America.
“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”
In 2015, Australia’s Climate Council released a report, co-authored by the former chief of the Australian defence force, Chris Barrie, that argued climate change “poses a significant and growing threat to human and societal wellbeing, threatening food, water, health and national security”.
In 2016, the army chief, Angus Campbell, made climate security a focus of the annual chief of army’s exercise. He said climate change was “immediately relevant” for militaries and “the scale of climate change problems, their unpredictability, and the level of support required from land forces are key issues for us to better understand”.
The Centre for Policy Development policy director, Rob Sturrock, co-authored a report in 2015 arguing that Australia’s struggle to deal with climate vulnerabilities domestically and across the region was the country’s “longest conflict”.
The report recommended the federal government appoint a climate security advisory council, connecting the defence, environment and foreign affairs departments to develop a national climate security strategy.
Goodman, founder of the CNA Military Advisory Board, is speaking this week in Sydney at the Lowy Institute, Canberra at the ANU, and Melbourne at the Breakthrough Institute at screenings of The Age of Consequences documentary, about the security threat posed by climate change.

Links
at No comments:

Climate-Driven Species On The Move Are Changing (Almost) Everything

The Conversation -  |  |. | 

When species are pushed to the top of the mountain, where else is left to go? Tero Mustonen, Author provided
Last year in Paris, for the very first time, English sparkling wine beat champagne in a blind tasting event. Well established French Champagne houses have started buying fields in Britain to grow grapes, and even the royal family is investing in this new venture.
At the same time, coffee-growing regions are shrinking and shifting. Farmers are being forced to move to higher altitudes, as the band in which to grow tasty coffee moves up the mountain.
The evidence that climate change is affecting some of our most prized beverages is simply too great to be ignored. So while British sparkling wine and the beginning of the "coffeepocalypse" were inconceivable just a few decades ago, they are now a reality. It's unlikely that you'll find many climate deniers among winemakers and coffee connoisseurs. But there are far greater impacts in store for human society than disruptions to our favourite drinks.
Dramatic examples of climate-mediated change to species distributions are not exceptions; they are fast becoming the rule. As our study published last week in the journal Science shows, climate change is driving a universal major redistribution of life on Earth.
Documented and predicted changes in species distribution are occurring all over the globe. Pecl et al. 2017
 These changes are already having serious consequences for economic development, livelihoods, food security, human health, and culture. They are even influencing the pace of climate change itself, producing feedbacks to the climate system.

Species on the move
Species have, of course, been on the move since the dawn of life on Earth. The geographical ranges of species are naturally dynamic and fluctuate over time. But the critical issue here is the magnitude and rate of climatic changes for the 21st century, which are comparable to the largest global changes in the past 65 million years. Species have often adapted to changes in their physical environment, but never before have they been expected to do it so fast, and to accommodate so many human needs along the way.
For most species – marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species alike – the first response to rapid changes in climate is a shift in location, to stay within their preferred environmental conditions. On average, species are moving towards the poles at 17km per decade on land and 78km per decade in the ocean. On land, species are also moving to cooler, higher elevations, while in the ocean some fish are venturing deeper in search of cooler water.

Why does it matter?
Different species respond at different rates and to different degrees, with the result that new ecological communities are starting to emerge. Species that had never before interacted are now intermingled, and species that previously depended on one another for food or shelter are forced apart.

Why do changes in species distribution matter?

This global reshuffling of species can lead to pervasive and often unexpected consequences for both biological and human communities. For example, the range expansion of plant-eating tropical fish can have catastrophic impacts by overgrazing kelp forests, affecting biodiversity and important fisheries. In wealthier countries these changes will create substantial challenges. For developing countries, the impacts may be devastating.

Knock-on effects
Many changes in species distribution have implications that are immediately obvious, like the spread of disease vectors such as mosquitoes or agricultural pests. However, other changes that may initially appear more subtle can also have great effects via impacting global climate feedbacks.
Mangroves, which store more carbon per unit area than most tropical forests, are moving towards the poles. Spring blooms of microscopic sea algae are projected to weaken and shift into the Arctic Ocean, as the global temperature rises and the seasonal Arctic sea ice retreats. This will change the patterns of "biological carbon sequestration" over Earth's surface, and may lead to less carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere.
Redistribution of the vegetation on land is also expected to influence climate change. With more vegetation, less solar radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere, resulting in further warming. "Greening of the Arctic", where larger shrubs are taking over from mosses and lichens, is expected to substantially change the reflectivity of the surface.
These changes in the distribution of vegetation are also affecting the culture of Indigenous Arctic communities. The northward growth of shrubs is leading to declines in the low-lying mosses and lichens eaten by caribou and reindeer. The opportunities for Indigenous reindeer herding and hunting are greatly reduced, with economic and cultural implications.
Reindeer in the Arctic are very important components of Indigenous and traditional ways of life. Snowchange 2016 /Tero Mustonen
Winners and losers
Not all changes in distribution will be harmful. There will be winners and losers for species, and for the human communities and economic activities that rely on them. For example, coastal fishing communities in northern India are benefiting from the northward shift in the oil sardine's range. In contrast, skipjack tuna is projected to become less abundant in western areas of the Pacific, where many countries depend on this fishery for economic development and food security.
Local communities can help forge solutions to these challenges. Citizen science initiatives like Redmap are boosting traditional scientific research and can be used as an early indication of how species distributions are changing. Having local communities engaged in such participatory monitoring can also increase the chances of timely and site-specific management interventions.
Even with improved monitoring and communication, we face an enormous challenge in addressing these changes in species distribution, to reduce their adverse impacts and maximise any opportunities. Responses will be needed at all levels of governance.
Internationally, the impacts of species on the move will affect our capacity to achieve virtually all of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including good health, poverty reduction, economic growth, and gender equity.
Currently, these goals do not yet adequately consider effects of climate-driven changes in species distributions. This needs to change if we are to have any chance of achieving them in the future.
National development plans, economic strategies, conservation priorities, and supporting policies and governance arrangements will all need to be recalibrated to reflect the realities of climate change impacts on our natural systems. At the regional and local levels, a range of responses may be needed to enable affected places and communities to survive or thrive under new conditions.
For communities, this might include changed farming, forestry or fishing practices, new health interventions, and, in some cases, alternative livelihoods. Management responses such as relocating coffee production will itself have spillover effects on other communities or natural areas, so adaptation responses may need to anticipate indirect effects and negotiate these trade-offs.
To promote global biodiversity, protected areas will need to be managed to explicitly recognise novel ecological communities, and to promote connectivity across the landscape. For some species, managed relocations or direct interventions may be needed. Our commitment to conservation will need to be reflected in funding levels and priorities.
The success of human societies has always depended on the living components of natural and managed systems. For all our development and modernisation, this hasn't changed. But human society has yet to appreciate the full implications for life on Earth, including human lives, of our current unprecedented climate-driven species redistribution. Enhanced awareness, supported by appropriate governance, will provide the best chance of minimising negative consequences while maximising opportunities arising from species movements.

Links
at No comments:

Adani's Carmichael Coal Mine Is Environmentally Reckless And Contrary To Today's Energy Markets

Fairfax - Julien Vincent*

"If at first you don't stack up economically, make the public pay for it."
This could be the mantra that delivers Adani's Carmichael mega coal mine in the Galilee Basin at the expense of the environment, culture, our prospects of a stable climate and in defiance of sound economics.

ABC spreading fake news: Canavan
Nationals MP Matt Canavan has had a bizarre spray on radio, accusing the ABC of reporting fake news over the Adani coal mine.

Since buying the coal tenements from Linc Energy in 2010, Adani has failed to secure a single private backer for the Carmichael mine.
In fact, since then, 17 banks have either publicly distanced themselves from Galilee Basin coal export projects or introduced policies that prevent them lending to the Carmichael mine.
This has left Adani increasingly dependent on the public purse.
At the centre is the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility (NAIF). Since its inception, the NAIF has been something of a black box, giving no information about projects that could receive hefty public subsidies. Last month, former Treasurer Wayne Swan described the NAIF as being as "dodgy as Lehman Brothers", on account of its opaque governance.
We know almost nothing about the 100 applications that the NAIF has received for funding. But we do know that it has two proposals in front of it to connect Adani's Carmichael coal mine with ports on Queensland's coast.
On one hand, there's Adani's $1 billion bid, which I critiqued in December over a range of issues, including that the applicant would be owned by a company in the Cayman Islands and we'd need to take it on good faith that the money would not disappear into a tax haven.
Adani plans to build Australia's largest coal project in the Galilee Basin. Photo: Michael Mucci
And then Queensland rail haulage company Aurizon, an ASX top 50 company worth $11 billion, has made a $1.25 billion bid to NAIF to build the rail line.
Soon after Aurizon's bid went public it was reported that QIC, an investment firm wholly owned by the Queensland Government, would also consider backing the rail line.
Bob Brown returned to Parliament House in Canberra with Geoff Cousins and environmental groups to protest against the Adani coal mine. Photo: Andrew Meares
Since QIC manages money on behalf of super funds across the country, this would amount to a particularly crafty way for the Palaszczuk government to break off from its pre-election commitment in 2015 to not use public money to fund the project.
Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. Photo: Glenn Hunt
Rather than invest directly, the Government could use QIC to invest on behalf of the millions of superannuation fund members it manages money for, transferring the risk to the likes of retired Queensland public sector employees.
We should also not discount the prospect of Indian public funding. An understanding signed in November 2014 for the State Bank of India to finance Adani mine was reported to have been cancelled the following year, but nothing has been formally announced, and there is a real risk that the Indian taxpayer is still on the hook.
All in all, we could be looking at about half the $5 billion Adani needs to get their Carmichael mine up and running coming from public subsidies. But that still leaves a lot of private backers to persuade. Now, more than ever, we need sensible voices from the financial sector acknowledging that building one of the world's biggest greenfield thermal coal mines is environmentally reckless, but also incongruent with the direction of energy markets.
The context is abundant. Just in the past week, the Financial Times, The Economist and Bloomberg have all written about the global decline in thermal coal, the latter writing off Adani's Carmichael mine as uneconomic.
Adani protesters in Brisbane. Photo: Ben Bissett
These are statements we now need to see from prospective investors in the Carmichael mine, and in Australia, the big four banks remain crucial. Last year, ANZ signalled that funding Carmichael wouldn't square with their intent to scale down coal mining exposure. CBA walked away from their advisory mandate on the Carmichael mine in 2015 and later that year, NAB just ruled it out. Westpac, however, has remained silent on whether they would finance the mine.
Westpac turns 200 this weekend and some parts of their operations are showing their age. The bank's sustainability credentials for instance, once one of its prized assets, are looking a little worse for wear.
In recent years, customers and shareholders have questioned the hypocrisy of financing the expansion of the fossil fuel industry after committing to support the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees. It also hasn't helped that after four years of asking, Westpac has failed to make a clear public statement about whether or not it would finance Carmichael.
In an industry where sentiment and market signals have a huge impact, leadership from private banks like Westpac can do more than just prevent a project like Adani's Carmichael coal mine, and its impacts on people, the environment and climate. It can help prevent Australians for having to pay for the privilege.

*Julien Vincent is executive director of Market Forces

 Links
at No comments: