25/05/2017

New Coalmines Will Worsen Poverty And Escalate Climate Change, Report Finds

The Guardian -


An Oxfam report says the climate change impacts of coal-fired power will disproportionately affect the world’s poor. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP
New coalmines will leave more people in poverty, Oxfam has said in a new report, calling on Australia to commit to no new coalmines and to end public subsidies for coalmining. The report comes as the Queensland and federal governments continue to push for the controversial Adani coalmine in the Galilee basin, signalling potential infrastructure support and “royalty holidays”.
The government’s support for the mine, which would be the biggest in Australia, has been met with a fierce campaign of resistance from environmental, legal, social justice and human rights groups.
The Oxfam report, More Coal Equals More Poverty, says the climate change impacts of coal-fired power will disproportionately affect the world’s poor and – with most of the energy-poor households in developing countries beyond the reach of electricity grids – new coal-fired power plants won’t bring them energy.
“Renewables are the clear answer to bringing electricity to those who currently live without it,” the report says. “The real cost of burning more coal will be measured in further entrenched poverty – through the escalating impacts of climate change and humanitarian disasters, increasing hunger and deaths and disease caused by pollution.”
The Oxfam report cites the example of the two most populous nations on earth – with emerging middle classes in the hundreds of millions – China and India, which have recently suspended or abandoned plans to build new coal-fired power plants in favour of renewable energy.
China has suspended more than 100 planned or partly-constructed coal-fired plants and has earmarked more than $493m for renewables projects over the next three years.
India’s draft 10-year energy blueprint, released in December, predicts 57% of the country’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027, far above the Paris climate accord target of 40% by 2030. India and China also have nuclear power.
The Oxfam report calls on the Australian government to prohibit new coalmines in the country and to end public subsidies for coalmining.
It identified, in particular, the Indian conglomerate Adani’s proposed Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee basin, which would be the largest coalmine in Australia’s history.
The state and federal governments are supportive of the mine. The federal resources minister, Matt Canavan, has consistently said the mine is “great news for regional Queensland and ... will boost the Queensland and Australian economies”.
The federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is considering funding Adani’s coal rail line to the coast, while the Queensland government has reportedly offered Adani a “royalties holiday” worth more than $300m from state coffers.
But the mine faces a financing impasse. Globally 19 banks, most recently Westpac, have either specifically or by way of stated policy committed to not funding the Adani project.
Subsidising coal-fired power plants is “clinging to the technologies of the past”, the Oxfam report says.
“Australia’s current stance is fundamentally at odds with the global shift to renewable energy and ignores our responsibility to help protect communities from the ravages of climate change, the opportunities for new jobs and prosperity through renewable energy, and the global goals of achieving universal energy access and ending poverty.”
Oxfam Australia’s chief executive, Helen Szoke, said the development of renewables in Australia had been hampered by shifting government agenda and a lack of policy certainty over several years.
“Against the backdrop of an imperilled Great Barrier Reef and extreme weather disasters, Australia’s carbon pollution is continuing to climb – the tragic consequence of more than a decade of climate policy paralysis and short-term political opportunism,” she said.
“Renewable energy is set to power the fair economies of the future and Australia can make a choice to be part of that. Through its 2017 review of climate change policies, the Australian government has the opportunity to set a credible long-term goal and plan of action.”
The next round of global climate talks will be held in Bonn in November. But the meeting, COP 23, is being chaired by Fiji, which has said it will bring the concerns of developing and vulnerable Pacific states to the fore of negotiations.
The Pacific – which, as a region, has the lowest per capita emissions in the world – has felt the impacts of climate first and most acutely. Pacific states, many of which are low-lying archipelagos, have experienced cyclones and storm surges of increased frequency and power and are losing arable land and, in some cases, whole islands to rising sea levels.

Links

Just 7 Per Cent Of Voters Want The Government To Invest In Adani Mine: Poll

Fairfax

Just 7 per cent of voters want money from the federal government's northern Australia investment used to prop up Adani's giant coalmine, while nine times that number say they would prefer taxpayer cash going towards renewable energy or education infrastructure.
A new poll ReachTEL poll has found just 6.8 per cent of people support the idea of using public money to support coal mine projects such as the Indian mining conglomerate's controversial Carmichael proposal, which would be Australia's biggest coalmine.
Adani Group founder Gautam Adani with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in India earlier this year. Photo: AAP
Adani is seeking a $1 billion concessional loan from the Turnbull government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build a railway for the mine. The application will be assessed by the fund's independent board but the government supports the plan.
But the new poll of nearly 3000 people – commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation – suggests the public wants NAIF investments made elsewhere. Even among Coalition voters there was only 10.5 per cent support for public money going into coalmine infrastructure.
The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of two degrees. Photo: Robert Rough
The poll found nearly 33 per cent of people believe renewable energy projects should be NAIF's top priority. Nearly 28 per cent believe schools and universities should be first in line for funding, with tourism and telecommunications infrastructure also attracting more support than coal.
The polling accompanies a new ACF research paper on the "opportunity cost" to northern Australia of funding the mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin, identifying scores of other job-creating projects.
ACF economist Matt Rose says across Queensland, Western Australian and the Northern Territory there are 20 alternative proposals for jobs-rich large-scale solar plants.
There are 20 potential higher education campuses, 67 Indigenous ranger groups with no certainty of long-term funding and hundreds of locations with poor phones or internet.
Bob Brown returned to Parliament House in Canberra with Geoff Cousins and environmental groups to protest against the Adani coal mine. Photo: Andrew Meares
"Any NAIF investment in coal will come at a huge cost to Northern Australia in terms of missed opportunities for a cleaner, smarter future," Mr Rose said.
"Public investment in Adani coal would cheat Australians in the north out of jobs in renewable energy, better education facilities and tourism."
Respondents to the poll also showed support for strong restrictions on any NAIF lending, with 60 per cent saying they agreed the government should "only provide funding to companies that meet minimum social and environmental standards".
The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April.
ACF is one of 130 groups involved in trying to stop the $21 billion mine, which is shaping up as one of the country's big environmental battles.
The big four banks have all ruled out funding for the mine, angering Resources Minister Matt Canavan. But Mr Turnbull has defended the potential use of the NAIF, saying the mine would create "tens of thousands" of jobs and boost state and federal budgets.
The Queensland Labor government last week flagged it may provide Adani with a $320m "royalty holiday" to help get the mine up and running. It has also offered it free water in the form of an unlimited water licence.
At a federal level, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has suggested the mine should only go ahead if it stacks up environmentally and commercially – and that means no federal loan. However some federal Labor MPs do not believe the mine should go ahead at all.

Links

More People Heading To Court To Spur Action On Climate Change, Study Finds

The Guardian
  • Study by UN and Columbia finds ‘proliferation’ of cases instigated by citizens
  • Lion’s share of court cases are in US but number also growing around the world
High tides on the Mekong delta in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government says 40% of the delta could be submerged if sea levels rise by one-meter in decades to come. Photograph: Linh Pham/Getty Images
Governments around the world are increasingly being challenged in court to do more to combat the threat of climate change, with litigation ranging from a group’s attempt to stop an airport runway in Austria to a Pakistani farmer suing his government over its failure to adapt to rising temperatures, a new study has found.
The lion’s share of the litigation is in the US, but the number of countries with such cases has tripled since 2014.
UN Environment and Columbia law school, which undertook the research, found a “proliferation” of cases instigated by citizens and environmental groups demanding action on areas such as sea-level rise, coal-fired power plants and oil drilling.
“It’s patently clear we need more concrete action on climate change, including addressing the root causes and helping communities adapt to the consequences,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. “The science can stand up in a court of law, and governments need to make sure their responses to the problem do too.”
The US has been the staging ground for 654 climate-related cases, almost three times that of the rest of the world combined. Some of these cases have proved pivotal, such as a 2007 case where various states and cities demanded the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
The supreme court ruled against George W Bush’s administration, leading to the EPA determining that greenhouse gases are a public health threat and opening the way for Barack Obama’s executive action on climate change.
Other cases are continuing, such as the 21 children who are represented in a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that its failure to sufficiently cut emissions violates their constitutional right to life, liberty and property. The Sierra Club, an environmental group, said the case would “upend climate law as we know it” should it be successful.
Australia, with 80 cases, and the UK, with 49 cases, are the next largest national sources of climate litigation, although the report notes that legal action is starting to emanate from all corners of the world. The issue of “climate refugees”, where people have had to flee their country due to flood or drought, is gaining traction, following a case where a man from Kiribati sought refuge in New Zealand.
In the Netherlands, an environmental group called the Urgenda Foundation joined with several hundred Dutch citizens to sue the government over its decision to lower its greenhouse gas reduction target. The court concluded the case had merit based on the Dutch constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the “no harm” principle of international law.
In a separate case, several groups managed to overturn the approval of a third runway at Vienna’s main airport, while in yet another case, a court in Pakistan ruled in favor of Ashgar Leghari, a farmer, over his government’s “delay and lethargy” in implementing its climate change adaption policies.
Not all cases have been as successful. A Peruvian man sued a German energy company over the climate impacts suffered in his homeland, with the case ultimately dismissed.
“We haven’t seen any major wins filed in actions against fossil fuel companies but there have been successes in lawsuits against governments,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia. “A lot of this legal action is in the US because America is a litigious society but also because there is such a partisan divide over the fundamental reality of climate change, which doesn’t really exist elsewhere in the world.”
Burger said legal action will prove significant in pushing the countries closer to their agreed target of avoiding global warming of 2C or more compared to the era shortly before the advent of heavy industry. The world is currently on course to breach this limit, causing ever more dangerous climate change, even with the emissions reduction pledges agreed in the Paris climate deal.
“The role of litigation will be different in each country but we will continue to see an increase in climate lawsuits that make explicit reference to the Paris agreement,” he said. “In the US, I don’t think that any court will hold the government to account over Paris as it’s not binding, but other courts in other countries may give it different weight.
“Legal action will be used to stave off the worst aspects of climate change. Litigation has been absolutely essential in instigating action in the US and elsewhere, and it will continue to be so.”

Links